Now that I’ve gotten back into blogging, I’ve decided to release another post on my annual goals for instructional design. Keeping these goals public helps keep me on task.
Like last time, I am aiming for quality over quantity when it comes to my goal setting. I am continuing to split my goals into categories, but this time into only two: Design and Development. I want to be realistic as possible this year. After the chaos of covid-ravaged 2020, 2021, and 2022, I want to ensure my goals are achievable regardless of external forces.
Design
I will focus on promising areas of design:
Microlearning
Simulations
Scenarios and stories
Development
I will focus on development directly related to my job, not simply areas that interest me in general:
3D modelling (going beyond basics) plus 360-degree images and videos
Video-based learning using more advanced features of tools I am already familiar with (such as green screens, PremierePro, AfterEffects, etc.)
JavaScript (going beyond basics)
Conclusion
Here’s to 2023 and let’s hope it will be a much better year than the past few.
There is still quite a bit of debate over the term ‘learning experience designer’ (LXD). The intent of the term was to distinguish L&D professionals who design by considering the entire learning experience rather than focusing only on the content (Read Connie Malamed’s article, for more details about the term). However, some have taken to criticize the term by stating ‘it is impossible to design an experience.’
While this statement is somewhat valid, no one intended for the term to be taken so literally. Its just that ‘learning experience designer’ is a much catchier term than ‘instructional designer who plans for all aspects of learning, including research-based inclusive human-centered user experiences and real-world metrics, rather than just content.’ The latter is just a little bit wordy.
Now, I can’t be inside your brain and force you to think, remember, or feel certain things, and I also can’t force you to learn in exactly the way I want you to; however, I can help design the learning in a way that will guide your experience.
Exhibit A
I was slated to give a talk about the use of video-based eLearning at a conference a couple years ago (cancelled due to COVID-19) and one part of my talk I was going to use the following example about bringing about certain emotions in your audience:
Watch the three videos.
(Note: I was also going to use these same videos to emphasize the importance of lighting… so unfortunately, you’ll just have to imagine the ending yourself)
Conclusion
How did you feel during each video? They were identical aside from the music. Yet the emotions you felt were likely different.
Learning experience design takes this idea but considers all aspects of learning in order to design a course, lesson, job aid, video, etc. that will have the greatest positive impact on learning.
I recently read an article that Patti Shank wrote back in 2020 about ways to reduce the challenges that learners face when learning from smaller screens. The entire article was fascinating, but for me there was a single section that stood out the most: interaction cost.
The reason this topic stood out for me was not actually related to screen size, but rather due to an argument I’d had a few years ago. It turns out that I might have easily won the argument had I used Patti’s research-based information. Let’s start with the argument and then jump into how Patti’s article is relevant
The argument
I was once told that every single slide of every single eLearning course must have some sort of clicking interaction. This was ostensibly because the learners would get bored otherwise.
At the time my main argument against this was that the specific learners and the specific content should drive the format of the slide (i.e., slide design is not based on designer/developer desires). If clicking interactions made sense for that particular content, that’s fine. However, if those types of interactions didn’t make sense, they should be excluded.
I also tried to argue that information interaction is far more important than interface interaction and that our focus should be there. For more on this topic, see one of my very first posts. Briefly, interface interaction is the clicking, dragging, swiping, etc. used to get more content from a single slide. On the other hand, information interaction is the way that learners intellectually engage with the information and process it. For example, reflecting, connecting with prior knowledge, practicing concept attainment/inductive learning, engaging with scenarios, etc.
The research-based solution
What I didn’t know at that time, was the concept of interaction cost. Interaction cost is the effort (both mental and physical) required for make the course progress. We’ve all experienced the frustration of dealing with screens that seem to scroll forever, multiple clicks to get to a single section, and needless dials and sliders, but we may not have thought about the increased mental effort required to deal these as well.
Decreasing cognitive load is the key driving force for many of Mayer’s principles of multimedia learning. By requiring learners to click, scroll, drag, etc., we are increasing the cognitive load required to complete the course. This is likely not our goal. And all these additional interactions can backfire when cognitive overload occurs, and learners’ brains become overwhelmed. While interface interaction can be exciting and flashy, it isn’t necessarily the best way to present content.
Conclusion
I always have and always will keep cognitive load on the top of my mind when designing slides, to help determine whether interface interaction is adding or subtracting from the slide. If it impedes learning, I will always seek to eliminate those flashy clicks, drags, and swipes.
I am excited to be presenting at the 2022 Canadian eLearning Conference. I’ll be presenting on inductive learning – one of my favourite topics! Check out my promo for this conference.
This conference will be held virtually again this year. To learn more, go to www.canadianelearning.ca.
This portfolio piece was created as a combination of three eLearning Heroes Challenges (#179 using eLearning to teach foreign languages; #195 how can learners choose their own avatars in eLearning?; #197 using badges, awards, and achievements in eLearning courses). Instead of setting up the characters as different states, I created alternative pathways so that the avatars could have different voices when teaching the language. This seemed like a good topic for using badges, as each lesson is stand-alone.
