About authoring tools

Within eLearning, I believe that there are certain tasks that will not
be accessible to the generalist user - primarily graphic arts work.
However, the tools available are now enabling the Subject Matter Expert
to be able to do something they previously could not: create coherent,
well implemented, multi-page content.  The standards (SCORM/AICC) aren't
 changing how development is being done - but they do help make it
possible to track more, different content using a variety of LMSs.
(These standards are relatively young.)

A good approach is to give tools to the SME/Instructional Designer so
that they can input, maintain, and update the textual content of the
courses.  Good tools also allow them to manage additional
graphics/multimedia created by specialists in those areas, without
burdening the SME/ID with graphic work.  There are still many tools
(advertized as "easy to use") out there that are only accessible to a
graphic designer in order to do the textual content.  This is a problem
because graphic designers with instructional design and subject matter
expertise are hard to find.

The real value for the standards are, and will be:
1. Interoperability of content (communication for tracking)
2. (Currently becoming available:) Communication to allow more dynamic
content (a database-driven server-based system can alter paths of
instruction)
3. (Future:) Interesting ways to combine content and provide more data
exchange.

Fake SCORM limitations that mask LMS or authoring tool limitations

A number of people think there are SCORM limitations when the real limitation is the LMS or authoring tool who then blames it on SCORM.  One of my favorite fake limitations has to do with screen size. There is nothing in the SCORM specification that requires a fixed size
screen.  The concept of the fixed size screen is a hold-over (with
enormous inertia) from the print paradigm.  That is, graphic designers
have gotten accustomed to specifying layout of every pixel of every
letter with respect to fixed size pages.  Most tools have been adapted
to this concept: to maintain the precise duplication between the
authoring environment and what the page looks like at delivery,
regardless of student's settings, you have to specify a fixed size.
However, this is really bad web etiquette:
1. Pages either take up too much of the screen (requiring horizontal
scrolling to read a single line) or too little (a small box within a
larger screen area).
2. Accessibility and respect for student's browser default settings are
ignored.  If a user wants his default font size to be 20pt, but the
course is built with the print paradigm, their desire will be ignored.
Then, it will be difficult for them to read the content.
3. Content doesn't rearrange if the student wants to put their course in
one half of the screen so that they can work on other tasks in the other
half.

Please see the ReadyGo authoring tool that creates SCORM conformant
courses that resize to the student's browser size.  If you want to, you
can also select a template that uses a fixed size screen.

Getting courses out fast

As with PowerPoint content creation, the fastest way to handle the turn-around and review cycles is to let the subject matter expert drive. That is, if the SME is in charge of assembling, editing, and publishing the content, you will get the fastest turn-around. However, for this to be effective, the process has to be broken down. In PPT production, the level and use of graphics/multimedia is typically minimal. For web content/eLearning, people want to do a lot more. The difficulty is that SMEs are not typically good at creating multimedia (nor should they be).

Typically the solution to this limitation is then to have the graphics/multimedia experts create the courseware, however, now you are stuck with several problems:
1. Lack of familiarity with the content: Inappropriate graphics/multimedia end up being incorporated into the course
2. Desire by the graphic artists to show off: They want to show what they are capable of doing. This drives up the costs, and is contrary to "rapid" concepts.
3. Communication breakdowns between SME and implementer. We all know about the 20 iterations due to the spell-checker that replaces the correct technical term with one that is a more common, but closely spelled word.

The SME can be empowered to be the manager/assembler of content, but there is a little bit of training and up-front assignment of tasks that needs to be carried out.
1. Most SMEs are comfortable with PPT, and don't want to move past this one-dimensional, face-to-face presentation style. With eLearning, the content has to be 3-dimensional (hierarchical page structure, plus links to other resources) so that a self-study environment is successful. (If you handed out your 3x5 speaker notes with a recording of you reading the content, would people find this engaging?) The SME has to provide multiple presentations of the same content so that people with different learning styles can adapt the content to their needs. This actually is not that difficult to explain to SMEs.
2. Separate the task of graphic/multimedia creation. The SME can provide descriptions of what additional visuals they want that can augment the content. (Flying bullets and page transitions are visually distracting and do not provide additional information. A moving flow diagram might be useful, as would a blow-up of an assembly.)
3. A standard look-and-feel template needs to be decided ahead of time. Otherwise, the SME will end up spending all their time trying to figure out which layout for the content they want. What I mean by this, is that they will fixate on placing a forward arrow 3 pixels up on one page and 3 pixels left on the other, and never implement the content of interest. Keep in mind that with eLearning (if done properly) there is no need for the content to control the learner's environment -- that is, your content should adjust to the end-user's screen preferences rather than forcing a one-size-fits-all screen size and content size on the learners. Learners like the web because they control where and what they see. If you take the control away from them, they will lose interest in the courses you are trying to provide.

Then, with a proper tool that does the bookkeeping for how the pages are managed, how the tables of contents are built, etc. an SME can actually control the process. Since the SME is the expert in the material, the fastest production will occur when they can create, control, and revise the material. We have found that people with a journalism approach akin to the nightly news are excellent at creating and managing rapid eLearning. In contrast, people whose approach is more like a full length feature movie production are more appropriately applied to traditional eLearning (CBT delivered over the web). Our customers have reported being able to produce 20 courses in one month with a staff of 1 person using the above rapid approach. Previously, they were using a traditional approach that yielded 1 course per month per developer.

My take on analysts and their reports

What I have seen is that there are a few different categories of
analysts.  Keep in mind that they have businesses to run (and if they
can't keep their businesses operating, we don't get the benefits of
their work):

1. The analysts who reflect what the "big boys" are doing.  This group
is considered vendor neutral, except that they will tell you that the
most widely used tools are the best.  By doing this, they will not
offend any of their customers who bring them in to review their
approaches. Currently, they are showcasing Microsoft PowerPoint, because
that is what so many trainers are already using.  There is no discussion
of learner satisfaction (which is pretty poor when it comes to
asynchronously delivered presentations.)  They are promoting the status
quo, and driving the decision makers to follow the pack: "driving by
looking in the rear view mirror".  This approach is "safe" from a
business point of view. (They would have recommended horse-and-cart as
the best car in the 1900-1920 time period.)

2. The analysts who reflect what they are paid to.  This group masks
paid advertisements as "white papers" and "studies".  Our company has
been approached by some of these companies who are writing reports about
all the tools in the market.  We are told that if we don't purchase a
$20K "case study" from them about us, there is a chance that our tool
won't show up in their study.  They have followed through on their threat.

So, when people review analyst reports, it is important that they keep
this in mind.  Just because an analyst has written about a tool in their
report, does not mean that the tool is being unbiasedly endorsed as the
"best" approach or even as an "effective" approach.

The Brendon Hall authoring tools reflect what the vendors submit to them.  They
provide an excellent service as a collection of what is available (and
are worth the money), but should be considered in this light.  Many
vendors will market-spin when it comes to what they submit, e.g. they
will say they are completely ADA compliant when they produce a separate
single file that is the text from the entire course, but the course
really delivered is all chained graphics (not ADA compliant).  Similarly
they will say they are SCORM conformant, but they track no student
responses.

Regarding W3C standards, I am glad that finally people are asking about
building web courses that actually consider "web" design.  The W3C
standards really do lead to learner satisfaction and accessibility (e.g.
look at Google - does it use flying bullets?).  Learner satisfaction and
accessibility lead to return on investment and to lower
maintenance/support costs.

five thoughts on eLearning

1. The "tell-test" model works best when it is a
"tell-repeat-test-tell-repeat another way-test..." method.  It has been
proven over the years to work better.  Replacing it with Wikis,
podcasts, walkman-casts, virtual campuses, etc. doesn't replace it.  It
just delivers it differently.  Can you do tests from Wikis or PodCasts?
(I don't think so.)
2. I believe people have become disenchanted with e-learning because
companies put the "cart before the horse".  I see that billions of
dollars were spent on LMSs before any courses had been created.  This is
like building a railway network without having any locomotives.  There
is nothing wrong with the web technologies - just with the way they were
sold.  Similarly, courses were built as evolutions from presentations
instead of evolutions from web pages.  A self-propelled presentation is
a bad way of training, just like correspondence courses, cassette-based
courses, VCR courses, ...  A web page with multiple navigation paths,
repeating the information several ways, followed by frequent tests is
much more compelling.  It is called "Instructional Design".  That is
what has been lacking from many of the products out there.  No matter
how good the technology, if you present content poorly, it will not give
ROI.
3. Should we jump to new technologies?  New technologies have their
place.  However, if we use them without considering instructional design
- or what the end-user is actually doing - they will be no more
effective.  For example, we have seen that if you have audio in a
course, the student's eyes drift away to other tasks.  Soon their mind
drifts away too.  If they are forced to read, without other
distractions, knowledge retention increases dramatically.  Wikis are
great as reference material look-ups (as long as they don't get clogged
with garbage.)  PodCasts allow asynchronous delivery of speeches, but I
would be cautious because of the easy distraction factor.  Social
networking will work great for improving chances of the employees
getting their next job.  Wikis, PodCasts, Bulletin Boards, Chat Rooms,
Multimedia etc. are excellent technologies to augment the basic content,
but should not be considered a replacement.   Moving to the next level
of technologies reminds me of a phrase I once learned: "I'm working on
my second million dollars....I gave up on the first".
4. Page-turners, if done right can be effective.  PPT by itself does not
make a compelling presentation - it takes content and an effective
presenter.  If you get rid of the live presenter (recordings don't
count), it is harder to make the material complete.  If you take
advantage of web navigation and hierarchical design, you can fill in for
the missing live instructor.  Leaving all your testing for the end of
the course is less effective than mingling multiple questions in the middle.

Page-turners can be really bad if you are limited to putting 3 bullets
on a page.  The web allows you to structure your content so that you
break it up in instructionally meaningful ways.  PPT and tools like it
force you to break up your content so that it fits on a screen.  Don't
blame "page-turners".  Many authoring tools were designed and
effectively sold because they look so much like PPT with a test at the end.
5. Yes... see  #4.  Distracting multimedia and flying bullets are
exciting for the course author, but they are really annoying for the
student who has to see them 3 or 4 times.

5.I think many LMSs and instructors have been looking at the web
technologies to fit their current instructional models instead of
molding their instructional approaches to fit the web.  That is, LMSs
force courses to be a one-time event. You take the course, you take the
test, you're evaluated, you're done, you never see the content again.
The web should be used to flip this around.  Once you know where the
content is (e.g. google), you go there when you need it.  You should be
able  to take the tests as many times as you want.  You should be able
to use the material in a just-in-time fashion.  Why memorize the
material, if you can find it quickly?  Proper web instructional design
considering "just-in-time use" makes this possible.  A linear "page
turner" discourages this approach.  A "page turner" with additional
navigation and proper tables of contents can achieve the advantages of
web technologies.  But if the content is bad, it doesn't matter how you
deliver it.

Why use a web authoring tool for eLearning?

Why use a web authoring tool for eLearning? I use MS-Word, but not to create courseware.
I don't use MS-Word for standup presentations either. Why? because
there is no instructional design or web delivery structure inherently
built into it. It reminds me of the early days of PowerPoint, when
everyone said, "why do I need another tool? I can just use WordPerfect
to create the presentations. You see, they're just as good as your
PowerPoint ones." This is why a WordProcessing staff was still needed -
because the WordPerfect built presentations were lousy. Just as today,
the courseware built in PowerPoint or even your beloved MS-Word leave a
lot to be desired. Once people started using PPT, they saw the benefit
of a tool designed for the purpose. I believe that once people start
using proper eLearning tools designed for web delivery they will see the
benefit of a tool designed properly for the purpose.

To your questions: "Does it work? Does it say time and money?" I would add:
1. Has employee (rather than course builder) productivity been increased?
2. Are the learners giving positive feedback?
3. Are the learners re-using the content on an as-needed basis?


Without positive answers for all these questions, the approach/tools
will only lead to corporate frustration, and a long delay in adoption of
eLearning in a manner where it will succeed. By success, I mean become
a part of everyday processes and have tangible measurable benefits beyond:
1. Course developer didn't have to learn a new tool
2. Course developer got deliverable off their desk in record time
3. Course developer has no more courses to build because rest of staff
found the content boring, insulting, and difficult to use.

Why are people asking for XML?

I wouldn't mind if everyone was saying "MS-Word, MS-Word, MS-Word".
What concerns me is that XML is a behind-the scenes recommendation. It
is like saying "roman alphabet". It gives you some structure, but does
not solve your problems. Solutions can be built utilizing it as an
intermediate step. The same solutions could be built using any other
data storage mechanism. If you look at the "X" in "XML", it stands for
"eXtensible". This means that any one can make their own proprietary
version (like Microsoft has done), immediately defeating the
interchangeability that everyone praises XML for. I think XML is good,
but it is only a step towards people being able to talk to each other
(or in this case machines or programs). Currently I find HTML to be a
better standard because its purpose is more tightly defined, and there
is wider agreement on how it works.

XML by itself does not save any money. If I sent you a SCORM manifest
written in XML, MS-Word would have no idea what to do with it. If I
send this same document to a browser, all it can do is display it. If I
send it to a SCORM conformant LMS, now there is a system that can do
something with it. Just because something is XML does NOT mean that it
will work everywhere with everything or even that it will save any
money. If XML were a standard, maybe it would solve the problems that
need to be solved. As it is, the communication is only improved when
both sides speak the same variant of XML.