Comments on: Levels of eLearning Quality

By: The Case for a Clear Lexicon. Part 1: Orientations | androidgogy

The Case for a Clear Lexicon. Part 1: Orientations | androidgogy — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 03:16:00 +0000

[...] Iâ€ve been thinking about this post for bit. Clark Quinn has been thinking along similar lines at Learnlets (http://blog.learnlets.com/?p=2822). [...]

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 23:17:38 +0000

Gotcha. I do consider design in those three categories:

– Instructional – this is the instruction specific dimensions including: Is a performance requirement defined? Are specific tasks clearly mapped to the performance requirement? Are skills and subtasks (overt and covert) identified? Are practice opportunities highlighted? Are measurement opportunities highlighted? (http://androidgogy.com/?attachment_id=602 << graphic from a presentation last year)
– Technical – this includes dimensions like technology selection, integration design, etc.
– Communication – this includes dimensions like visual design, theme selection / consistency, written copy, etc.

Part of the problem with many products is that folks try to "all-in-one" in areas where they might be weakest. For our contract product evaluations, we broke things down this way. We still see weaknesses in some areas come across when the eval rubric is exposed ahead of time. I'm convinced breaking down into verticals is a good way to approach this type of evaluation:)

By: Clark

Clark — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 16:01:02 +0000

Steve, I’m largely focused on getting the design right (“if you get the design right, lots of ways to implement it, if you don’t get the design right, it doesn’t matter how you implement it” is one of my mantras), so that’s the core focus of a checklist I’d be concerned about, but broader rubrics would likely be useful as well. Just reading an article about how a well-regarded piece of educational software, upon testing, was found to be riddled with serious usability issues (!). I used to write articles talking about how ed tech could benefit from the usability field, and I suspect we’re still not doing basic usability testing!

Brandon, I’d agree that many people are responsible for designing without having the necessary background, and that folks are more concerned about costs than about effectiveness. The amount of money that I reckon is wasted on ‘spray and pray’ (aka ‘show up and throw up’), whether training or elearning, is mind-boggling. And a lot of us keep railing about it, to little change that I can see. Sigh.

By: Brandon Carson

Brandon Carson — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:10:30 +0000

Really great post and to the point. One of the issues I see is less about a good ID designing effective instruction and more about the wrong person being in the role of either designing the instruction or being a decider in how it’s designed and implemented. I’ve consulted and worked in large and small environments where I too often see this. I also think the broad dissemination of “rapid” tools and processes has diminished the ability for due diligence in analyzing what the needed intervention is to appropriately affect the situation. We’re always in a hurry it seems to produce “something” that can be checked off a list. However, when the stars align, and you have the right person in the right place trying to do the right thing, it sometimes is an effort to navigate the waters of corporate chaos to uncover the true “reason” for the intervention. My mantra is less is more, and too many times I’m asked to create more without the proper foundation. I know it sounds tired, but some of us in the corporate space need to grab our pitchforks and march on the C-suite and argue and fight to be heard — we are here to support performance — get out of way and let those of us that know what we’re doing just do it. And if you have on staff those that don’t know or are making wrong decisions — get rid of them.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 18:41:12 +0000

I dig it. I get a small sense that this could be like measuring the quality of symphony by the note or the instrument, but I think there’s definitely value in consistent assessment of quality. It could at least get us to collectively examine the turds by the same standard. We’re notoriously poor at accurately evaluating our own work in this field. Anything that gets folks to reflect and improve is a welcome addition:)

Maybe a rubric for evaluating quality facets across varied categories? Major categories might include overall execution, technical, instructional, and communication… For example, under instructional – something like methods and strategy, focus and relevance, clear connection to business outcomes, clear connection to audience.

I think there’s value in having a consistent measurement device, maybe even a grading mark or seal.

By: Clark

Clark — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:42:15 +0000

Julie, I think making guidelines is not only a good idea, but practically necessary. There’re lots of good materials (e.g. your book), but perhaps a checklist?

By: Julie Dirksen

Julie Dirksen — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:04:31 +0000

Also, I’m wondering is if there’s a way to make some of this concrete for people in terms of guidelines without being rigidly prescriptive?

By: Julie Dirksen

Julie Dirksen — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:43:16 +0000

LOVE. I think developing some heuristics around this is a really useful notion – particularly around sufficient practice.