Better Design Doesn't Take Longer!
May 11, 2010
Better design takes too long.
This, if true, would be a significant barrier to more quality, and an explanation for the undesirable amount of bad e-learning out there. However, I don't buy it; I think good design does not take longer (with a caveat).
What do I mean by better design? Admittedly most e-learning (frankly, most training, education, etc.) is poorly designed: it is overly focused on knowledge instead of skills; it is insufficiently aware of cognitive components like mental models, contextualized practice, challenge, and more; and it does not recognize the benefits of engaging the heart as well as the mind. In short, most e-learning is ineffective and boring. Yet we do have principles for designing more engaging and effective learning. The question is whether, inherently, executing against those principles is a more resource-intensive task.
When developing content, for example a storyboard, you have to develop several components: You need an introduction or opening, you need your concept presentation, you need to show an example or two, you need some practice, and you need a closing. These elements exist in good content or bad. So, in theory, we are developing the same quantity of content regardless of the quality. (In fact, I argue we should be developing less!)
Yet, somehow, if the quantity developed is no different, the process must take longer. Either we have extended the pre-writing effort (e.g., analysis), or we are spending more time on the writing, even though our pre-writing effort should be the same.
It is true that if an existing client hands you course objectives, which you accept without question, you will spend less time and effort on design, but the odds of you producing any worthwhile content are zero, with a rounding error.
The objectives provided by most, including subject matter experts, are likely to be flawed. For one, clients often decide the problem is a performance one, yet there may be other factors as well. Second, they are likely to attribute the problem to a lack of knowledge instead of skill. This does not mean that doing it right takes longer; no matter what sort of e-learning you plan to produce, you should do the proper objective gathering. In other words, you should spend that time doing the right thing by the learner. This is not better design—this is just good practice.
So we are left with the idea that if better design takes longer, writing must take even more time. However, let us look at the components of learning and compare the traditional approach with a more enlightened design, and the attendant difference in content quantity:
| Component | Traditional | Improved | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Introduction | Present what they are going to hear, and establish the objectives | Present why this is important, and what they will be able to do | None |
| Concept | Provide a textual overview of the idea with some stock photos and maybe some gratuitous, interactive-knowledge exposition activities | Present the underlying model, with a diagram | None |
| Example | Provide an example or two of this in practice, with lots of description | Present a worked example or two with not only the steps, but the underlying rationale | A bit more writing for the new approach |
| Practice | Provide a collection of simple knowledge test questions | Provide a few scenarios applying the knowledge to problem | Less writing in the new approach |
| Summary | Tell them what you told them, and point them to further directions | Acknowledge their effort, and reinforce what they can do now | None |
Overall, we are not seeing a significant difference in the writing exercise. So what is driving this perception of more work? I think there is one major factor.
No change in approach comes without overhead. In this case, it will take longer initially. There will be a transition period when the new design approach will take more effort, using checklists and maybe even some coaching. There will be an initial investigation of a better approach, maybe even a workshop, to help the design team understand the new way to learn. Ultimately, there will be intermediate work product that gets reviewed and refined in a shared way. This transition will take time. We need to develop a new way to think about design.
Eventually this process will become natural. When it does, my claim is that the creation of better learning will end up taking as much time as it did before. The reward for that initial turbulence in learning design, will be learning that is more effective in creating behavior change and more engaging for the learners. That is a short-term investment for long-term benefits, the type of strategic investment organizations are supposed to take.
Better design taking longer should be an acceptable tradeoff, but the reality is that you do not have to make that tradeoff for more than a finite period of time. So, I put it to you:
Better design takes no more time* and yields better outcomes
(*after an initial transition period).
What are you waiting for?
About the Author
Clark Quinn, Ph.D., is on eLearn Magazine's advisory board. He is a consultant, author, and speaker, who delivers e-learning solutions such as games, mobile learning, performance support, and organizational strategies through Quinnovation. He
blogs at learnlets.com.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
