Can we use training to motivate?

19 May 2013 By 11 Comments

In my previous post, I showed a flowchart that could help you find the best solution to a performance problem. Thanks to your comments and questions, I’ve improved the chart to make clear two of my opinions:

  • Training is rarely the solution for low motivation
  • When training could help, it’s best to let learners become motivated through experience (decision-making scenarios) rather than preaching at them (presentations)

First, you might want to download the revamped flowchart. Here’s how the motivation bit looks now:

Motivation section of the action mapping flowchart

I’ve added a new loop that sends you back to the main analysis node because low motivation is usually a side effect, not a core problem. It’s often caused by one of the other three problems in the chart.

  • Environment: High pressure, a poorly managed organizational change, user-hostile software, heavy-handed management … these can all lead to low motivation. Training is unlikely to help, unless you can train away the environmental problem, such as by improving managers’ skills.

  • Knowledge: If the employees who do the data-entry drudgery for the TPS reports don’t know the painful results of their screwups, they’ll be less motivated to avoid errors. For example, we could show them that a rejected TPS record can mean that a client doesn’t get the check she needs to buy medication. If this is included in the results of a branching scenario that we’re also using to practice entering TPS records, then I’d be willing to call it training. However, if it’s just a finger-wagging exhortation divorced from any application, it’s not training in my book.

  • Skills: If I don’t have the skill to quickly and painlessly parametize widgets, I will dislike having to parametize widgets. Give me training!

When low motivation can’t be blamed on anything else

I’ve heard several reports of “lazy” workers. “They just don’t want to do it,” the client says. “They don’t care.” [Read more...]

Filed Under: Instructional design Tagged With: , , ,

Is training really the answer? Ask the flowchart.

7 May 2013 By 27 Comments

Here’s a flowchart that will help you identify the best solution to a performance problem, whether it’s a job aid, a workflow improvement, training, or something else. It’s based on action mapping, my streamlined approach to instructional design.

First, download the flowchart. Then consider watching the following 8-minute video, which walks you through a short discussion with a client, showing you how some quick questions can save you days of unnecessary training development.

Blurry? Click the little gear and choose HD. Not allowed to watch YouTube? Here’s the video on Vimeo.

What happens after the video?

So far, thanks to our questions, the client has identified ways to:

  • Make important reference information always up to date and available at the point of need
  • Make the rules for flagging easy to scan and apply at the point of need

These are permanent workflow improvements that avoid the need for training. At this point, the only training we’re going to develop is a very compact activity on identifying last names. It could probably be posted on the intranet with a link sent to everyone through email.

If we hadn’t used the flowchart and had simply obeyed our client’s request for training, we’d spend a lot more time developing something a lot less useful. We’d probably create an online course that starts with “Welcome to the course on completing TPS records.” We’d list objectives like, “At the completion of this course, you will be able to enter the correct XR code…” We’d probably “motivate” the learners by talking about the importance of completing the record properly and describing the costs of having our records rejected.

Then we’d tell people what they already know — that they have to log in to the annoying server to see the XR codes. We’d probably walk them through it “to make sure everyone knows how” and lecture them on the importance of using the updated sheet.

To “teach” the rules for flagging records, we’d probably display a chart of rules, give some examples, and then quiz the learners on whether they can remember the information that they saw five seconds ago and which they will forget by tomorrow if not later today. Finally, we’d include a little activity to help them practice identifying last names.

Within a month, we’d discover that people are still printing out the XR code sheet and failing to flag records properly.

Instead, just by asking some questions, we’ve helped the client identify permanent improvements, and we’ve freed up enough time to do a good job on the little name activity. The time that we don’t spend on creating unnecessary training becomes time we can invest on designing much higher quality activities.

What do you think? What did I miss? When the flowchart is all it can be, I’ll put it in the Elearning Blueprint, which this summer I hope to expand into more of a training blueprint.

Filed Under: Instructional design Tagged With: , , , ,

How action mapping can change your design process

18 January 2012 By 40 Comments

Happy action mapping users say that the model helps them create lively elearning. But would it fit into your design workflow?

Action mapping makes stakeholders work together to analyze the performance problem, commit to the same measurable goal, and agree to focus on activities rather than information. This can be a big change to the typical course development workflow.

Without action mapping:

  1. The client says, “I need a course.”
  2. You say, “Okay.”
  3. The client gives you a pile of content, the phone number of a subject matter expert (SME), and a deadline.
  4. You create a detailed storyboard or script, getting information as necessary from the SME. The structure of the information determines the structure of the course.
  5. The client and SME approve the script and you go into production.
  6. The course is made available and your job is done.

action mapping for instructional designUsing action mapping:

  1. The client says, “I need a course.”
  2. You say, “Great. Let’s get together to make sure we all understand what you want the course to accomplish.”
  3. You schedule a two-hour meeting in a space with a whiteboard or in a virtual meeting room where you can share a mind-mapping screen. You include the client, at least one subject matter expert, and possibly others from the table below.
  4. In that meeting, you identify your business goal and how you’ll measure success. You also identify the behaviors needed to reach that goal.
  5. As a group, you analyze why the behaviors aren’t happening, confirm that training will actually solve the problem, and identify how the training will be supported by managers, workplace changes, and other improvements.
  6. After the meeting, you work with the SME and possibly others to brainstorm and prototype practice activities for each behavior needed to reach the goal. Ideally, you test the prototypes on learners.
  7. You get approval for the prototypes from the client.
  8. You work with the SME and possibly others to identify the minimum information necessary to complete each activity and decide how it should be provided.
  9. You create a storyboard or script. The content has already been identified in the action map; you’re just filling in the details and arranging the material. The activities determine the organization of the course.
  10. The client and SME approve the script and you go into production.
  11. Once the material is being used by learners, you or the client begins measuring its impact, and you revise it as necessary.

The above list makes it look like action mapping takes longer, and it will take longer if you’re not doing much analysis now. However, the rest of the process can actually go more quickly than conventional course design. You save time by:

  • Not creating a course when it isn’t necessary or won’t help
  • Addressing only the specific behaviors that need to change
  • Excluding unnecessary information
  • Taking advantage of easily updated job aids
  • Designing activities that test multiple areas of knowledge at once
  • Creating tightly focused materials that don’t waste learners’ time

Who should be included?

The table below lists the four steps of action mapping and identifies who you might consider including at each step. The first two steps can often be covered in one two-hour meeting, if the client and SME are familiar with the learners and the performance problem.

One of the goals in action mapping is to identify what information needs to be memorized (put in the course) and what can be referenced on the job (put in job aids). Often, existing job aids are created and “owned” by someone in a different department. That person might be your SME, or they might be someone else. They need to be included in some of your planning to make sure the job aid can be used as you want, to approve any changes to it, and to offer their ideas about incorporating it into practice activities.

Step Client SME Job aid
owner 		Learner Graphics/Flash
person
1: Set goal Yes Yes Maybe No No
2: Identify behaviors & why they’re not happening Yes Yes Maybe No No
3: Brainstorm practice activities Approve prototypes Help brainstorm or at least approve prototypes Help brainstorm or at least approve use of job aid Provide ideas, feedback on prototypes Help create prototypes
4: Identify necessary info No Yes Approve use of job aid or changes to it Maybe, as tester No

 

What works for you?

I’ve added the above information to the Elearning Blueprint, where it’s easy to update. So please tell me: What did I forget? What processes have worked best for you?

Also, a reminder: I’ll be leading a two-day certificate program in instructional design for elearning on Feb. 11-12 at the Training conference in Atlanta. Use code CATMN to get a $150 discount on your registration. I hope to see you there!

Filed Under: Instructional design Tagged With: , , ,

Highlights from the Learning Technologies conference

31 January 2011 By 12 Comments

Last week, I presented on action mapping at the lively and thought-provoking Learning Technologies conference in London. It was great to meet and share ideas with passionate advocates and critics of elearning. Thank you, Don Taylor and the hard-working conference team, for bringing us all together!

As some readers requested, here are the main points that I hope people took from my session:

  • The goal of action mapping is to design experiences, not information. We want to help learners practice making the decisions that they need to make on the job.
  • Set a measurable business (not learning) goal for your project. Show how you’ll improve business performance to justify the expense of your project.
  • Identify what people need to do in the real world to reach the goal and determine why they aren’t doing it. Lack of knowledge might not be the real problem.
  • In activities, have learners practice making the decisions that they need to make on the job; don’t make them recite information.
  • Show the realistic consequences of learners’ decisions (Bill is accidentally cut by the scalpel) and let learners draw conclusions from them. Don’t say “correct/incorrect.”
  • Have learners start with an activity, not information. Embed the necessary info in the activity and make it optional, or have learners refer to the real-world job aid.
  • Success in the decision-making activity shows that learners know the information. Avoid fact checks.
  • Surprise and failure are memorable. Let learners make mistakes—they’ll remember them.
  • Everything in your material should directly support the business goal. Have your client and subject matter expert participate in the entire process to get buy-in and avoid having to fight off the “nice to know” stuff.

Are vendors clueless?

The vendors at the conference appeared to focus on content delivery, while several speakers emphasized providing realistic experiences that build decision-making skills or sharing knowledge with social tools. This apparent disconnect between the “upstairs” speakers and “downstairs” vendors inspired some discussion at the conference. [Read more...]

Filed Under: Instructional design Tagged With: , , ,

How to design action-packed elearning

9 June 2010 By 9 Comments

Need to design lean, lively elearning? You might get ideas from this recording of a webinar that I gave today for the Baton Rouge ASTD.

It’s about 45 minutes long and shows how to use action mapping to quickly identify which content and activities will be most useful.

Information dump leads to cognitive overloadThe webinar shows how to:

  • Choose a goal that leads to a measurable business improvement
  • Brainstorm realistic activities that help learners apply their new knowledge on the job
  • Identify what content really needs to be included—and what can be cut
  • Decide what should information should go in a course and what should go in a job aid

You can also download a PDF of the slides, but they don’t make a lot of sense on their own.

I’ll publicize future webinars in this blog and through my Twitter account. I didn’t announce this one because it was my first time flying solo as both a presenter and moderator in Elluminate.

Filed Under: Instructional design Tagged With: , , , ,

How to convert the toughest SME

30 March 2010 By 18 Comments

You want to create an action-packed online experience that revolutionizes learners’ behavior. Your subject matter expert wants you to faithfully reproduce every lovingly polished bullet of their 217-slide PowerPoint presentation. Is there any hope for your relationship?

Everyone knows that in any relationship, it’s the other person who needs to change. So let’s change your SME.

1. Read what they gave you.

Before you do anything else, read all 217 slides. Respect the effort that the SME has put into their work and try to understand what they wrote. And make a note for future projects: Don’t let SMEs create PowerPoints. Ask them for an informal brain dump instead, or an interview, or any other format that they won’t put so much work into.

2. Involve them from the beginning

If you use Action Mapping, include the SME in the very first discussions with your client, when you identify the goal. Ask the SME to help answer these questions: [Read more...]

Filed Under: Instructional design Tagged With: , ,

Prove it with a prototype

8 March 2010 By 9 Comments

Are you dreaming of an immersive simulation while your team members plan yet another Jeopardy game? If you want stakeholders to expand their horizons, a working prototype is your best friend.

A working prototype has simple placeholder graphics, but the clicking and dragging work as they will in the final activity. Build a quick-and-dirty version of the activity of your dreams, and use it to convert everyone on your team.

Here’s a two-part video that shows what I mean. Leif Cederblom of SmartBuilder compares two prototypes of the same activity and highlights the goals and benefits of prototyping.

Part 1: The conventional drag-and-drop: busywork that’s easy to forget

Part 2: A more realistic activity that’s more likely to change behavior

Try both prototypes yourself and see how the contrast between the two underscores the power of the more realistic activity. No amount of polish would make the drag-and-drop more than a rote activity, while the “leave the lab” prototype is effective even in its raw, prototype form.

Filed Under: Elearning examples, Instructional design Tagged With: , , ,

How to steer your client away from an information dump

13 October 2009 By 21 Comments

For a quick overview of the Action Mapping process described in this interaction, see Be an elearning action hero. For in-depth help with applying this process to your own materials, check out the Elearning Blueprint.

How I designed and built the scenario

Some people avoid creating branching scenarios because they seem too complex. In case it’s helpful, here’s the approach I took. [Read more...]

Filed Under: Elearning examples, Instructional design, Scenario design Tagged With: , , , , , ,

No time for design?

23 June 2009 By 26 Comments

Do we still care about instructional design? This graph from Google Trends compares searches for “elearning” with searches for “instructional design.”

Line graph comparing Google searches for elearning and instructional design

At first, “elearning” followed “instructional design” in a sad slope downward. But in the last couple of years, “elearning” has perked up again, while its friend “instructional design” continues its descent into obscurity.

Maybe fewer people are searching for “instructional design” because it’s no longer a new concept (“usability” suffered a similar decline). Or, possibly, fewer people are searching for “instructional design” because fewer people care about it.

Did “rapid” kill ADDIE? [Read more...]

Filed Under: Instructional design Tagged With: ,

How to keep track of clients’ favorite details

30 March 2009 By 10 Comments

You lurch awake at 2 AM, thinking, “What if the client asks where I put sub-policy 12.5B? Did I cover it? Where?”

At the start of an elearning project, your client will often give you more information than will be useful. Some of it will go into your elearning material, some will go into job aids, and some will get cut. Here’s one way to track what happens to your client’s favorite content.

1. Agree on the goal and activities.

Make sure the client and you agree on what the materials are supposed to accomplish and, therefore, what content is likely to be included. Action mapping can be handy for this.

I start the content-sorting process when we’ve agreed on a high-level outline that briefly describes each activity and suggests what information will be needed.

2. Copy the client’s content files.

I work from copies so I can mark them up. The originals go into an “originals” folder.

3. Choose a place to dump the relevant info. [Read more...]

Filed Under: Instructional design Tagged With: ,
« Older Posts