a white paper by :

Ethan Edwards
chief instructional strategist
THE 5 MOST IMPORTANT ANALYSIS QUESTIONS YOULL EVER ASK
The standard accepted methodology for designing instruction,
including e-learning, is still centered solidly on the ADDIE
Processa time-honored methodology composed of five
stepsAnalysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and
Evaluation. Im a strong proponent of the idea that the inherent
linearity of this process creates huge obstacles to coming up
with highly-engaging interactivity in e-learning. It isnt that
these tasks are necessarily wrong; rather, its that process for
e-learning needs to be more exploratory and experimental
in approach instead of prescriptive. Using an iterative, rapid-
prototyping approach to create effective instruction allows
ideas to be validated in an actual on-line delivery environment,
(rather than documented in static storyboards) making it more
likely that the project will achieve true engaging instructional
interactivity. Many training groups are beginning to modify
ADDIE to include some flexibility, but generally it doesnt seem
to me that the modification is far enough to effectively design
really engaging interactions.
But whether you are using ADDIE or Rapid Prototyping,
the success of a project will often rest on the kind of
analysis or backgrounding activities you do. Many
e-learning designers express frustration when attempting
to implement ADDIE because a common problem is that
little emphasis is placed on analysisin some cases, analysis
is effectively skipped altogether. Often, subject matter has
been pre-screened through the eyes of a subject matter
expert (SME), or worse yet, the content already exists in
PowerPoint displays for an instructor-led course, and the
belief is that analysis is already complete.
Unfortunately, analysis carried out by dedicated SMEs often
is completely content bound. Focus is locked on content
knowledge goals without addressing aspects of how the
knowledge is applied. And pre-existing analysis done for
instructor-led training often relies on unplanned instructor
activity to drive the training and usually doesnt have
the particular strengths of e-learningindividualization,
user-control, and judgment-free activityin mind when
investigating the content.
You will still need to do the standard analysis questions in
order to filter and organize instructional scope effectively, but
regardless of what else is asked during the analysis stage of
your projects, I propose the following five questions as those
most critical for making effective e-learning even possible.
2 Copyright 2011 Allen Interactions. All rights reserved.
1 What do you expect learners to be able to DO after
completing the course that they cant do now?
Dont listen to They need to know this, and they need to know
that, and they need to know this other thing, blah, blah, blah
talk. This approach usually represents a somewhat thoughtless,
more is better approach to teaching. (In the unlikely case that
the end goal really is to simply transfer a large body of content
to the learner, it is possible that e-learning may not be the
best option.) Instead, be precise about specific performance
outcomes and relentless in pruning content that doesnt
directly support those desired behaviors. These DO outcomes
will usually provide the core around which the instructional
interactivity most naturally will be built. In most cases the best
decision will be to discard content that doesnt directly enable
these performance outcomes.
Many SMEs view e-learningmaybe because it feels a little
like creating documentation(?)to be a prime opportunity to
catalog and communicate everything that they know about
the subject at hand. And if any content were to be left out
it might indicate a deficiency in the SMEs knowledge. The
result of this kind of thinking is content-bound, encyclopedic
presentations of content that bury the learner in detail
without creating any guidance in applying this content. It is a
mistake to view e-learning (or at least any particular module)
as an opportunity to transform the learner into an expert.
One would be pleased if the learner is a bit better informed.
The more important expectation is that the e-learning will
likely transform the learner into someone who is minimally
competent to do the target tasks. Note, that the focus should
be on creating new competency in the user. I say minimally
competent because of efficiency; in the design process we
must filter out and discard that which doesnt directly support
the core competency we are hoping to develop.
2 What are the consequences TO THE LEARNER if the
learner fails to master the intended outcomes?
Often times, initial analysis identifies consequences of failure
for the organization. While these consequences are certainly
important and might truly be the justification for funding
the project, dont assume that the same drivers have equal
significance for the learner.
For example, compliance training is often motivated by the
cruel reality that funding or accreditation for the organization
hinges on employees successfully finishing training. While
loss of funding or accreditation would have crucial impact
on the organization, the direct tie from the content to the
consequence in the learners view can seem really remote.
Expecting the learner to respond to these constraints as the
chief motivator for the training usually further trivializes the
content in the learners eyes rather than elevates it. It paints
the learner as a victim of training rather than a participant.
What you must find out instead, even in the cases of
compliance training, is what personal consequences of
failure the learner will experience that are actually related
to the content of the training instead of the administration
of the training. This information will be critical in setting
a meaningful Context for the e-learning and for every
interaction within it. Learning this information during the
analysis process often is the source of inspiration for elements
of risk (and Challenge) for bringing the interaction to life.
3 Can you show me an active demonstration, a
detailed simulation, or provide an opportunity to
directly observe the desired performance?
Until you can see the intended performance executed in
the real environment it is easy to overlook some critical
complexities that are masked by the logical structuring
of content by SMEs. We were recently working with a
client to create a course on driver safety. The content was
a straightforward six-step process, and each step was
completely understandable and seemingly easy (e.g., slow
down, look both ways, etc.) Reviewing that orderly content
totally failed to capture the difficulty of the challenge. It
wasnt until we rigorously put that plan into play in a real
situation and analyzed the errors were we able to grasp that
the real difficulty wasnt in knowing the steps, but rather in
making the learners so fluent and automatic in their mastery
that they could execute the steps flawlessly and almost
simultaneously without any hesitation or delay.
This suggests that long-time experts may not always be the
most useful people to serve as SMEs. Recent learners who are
now successful performers often have a better perspective
of what they actually need to know but also what things
were left out of the training. Often, it is the realities of the
complexity of application in the real world where training fails
to connect with the learners.
4 What specific performance mistakes do new learners
regularly make?
The most important moment in teaching is when a learner
makes a mistake. That moment provides the clearest
opportunity to adapt instruction to the individual needs
of the learner. Until then it is really difficult to engage
the learners attention in meaningful dialog. If you dont
ask questions, the lesson is just an uninvolving lecture; if
the learner doesnt make any mistakes, then you are not
challenging them at an appropriate level.
But the type of mistakes you plan for in e-learning is critical to
creating success. Traditional e-learning questioning most often
by Ethan Edwards, Allen Interactions 3
focuses on labeling or terminology, recognizing statements of
fact, or more fundamentally on reading comprehension skills.
When analysis is locked on relating content, thats all that is
available to the designer. Yet those skills (labeling, recognition,
reading) often have little to do with what you are trying to train.
The most important mistakes to accommodate are those
that the learner is likely to make when performing the task
in the real environment. You need to determine what those
mistakes are during the analysis activities so that knowledge
will inform the design of the interactivity. Learners mainly learn
from the mistakes they make. The e-learning must provide an
opportunity for learners to make the same mistakes in training
that they will make in doing the job. For example, if the task
is to do a software procedure, the challenges the learner will
likely face are performing incorrect steps, doing steps out
of order, recognizing problems and fixing them, deciding if
the procedure has been successful, etc. So, an interaction to
teach a software process must provide the opportunity for the
learner to face those same challenges during training. Simply
restating the steps or acknowledging that information has
been presented provides no opportunity to guide the learner
through these challenges; if the learner cant actually make the
same kind of mistakes during training that they tend to make
on the job, the e-learning is unlikely to have any effect on the
problems that your organization is suffering from most. Again,
this information is absolutely essential for deciding on Actions
and corresponding Feedback incorporated into your design.
5 What tools, resources, job aids, or help do successful
performers (or even experts) use to do these tasks?
Training is often conducted in an isolated environment, often
almost hostile, where the emphasis is on questioning the
knowledge of the learner. Because the content matter of the
testing seems meaningless and trivial, and because that kind
of situation can lead students to great ingenuity in methods
of getting the answers without having to learn anything,
many designs go to great lengths to ensure that any resources
that might help the learner are specifically forbidden during
testing. Often times, a training task is made more difficult
than necessary because the learning environment is made
even more difficult than the performance environment simply
because in a frenzy to test the learner, designers often
withhold basic information that even the most proficient
performers use regularly.
In truth, you sort of want to do the reverse. Explicitly find out
what resources and aids good performers use regularly, and
then build your interactions so that learners are encouraged
(even required) to use them during the training exercises.
Equally as important to teaching the skills desired, is making
sure learners are aware of all the tools and resources that will
be at hand to make success more likely.
Putting it Together
Of course, analysis is only one aspect of the activities necessary
for designing and developing instruction. These questions are
useful only in that you then truly use the information gained
by asking them in how you design the interactions, implement
your training, and ultimately in how you evaluate success.
When your time allotted to analysis is limited, as so often it
is, your time with experts can be used to much greater effect
in exploring these five questions than in simply facilitating a
content dump from the expert to the designer.
for
Designing e-Learning
Maximum Motivation
Precise content, wording, and scope can be finalized as the
project progresses, particularly if you are using an iterative
approach to design, but the crucial decisions you make at the
very beginning of a project should be directly guided by the
answers you uncover to these questions. If you are dedicated
to investigating these questions and really listening to the
answers, you will have the basic ingredients needed to begin
designing true instructional interactivity.

DOWNLOAD ETHANS OTHER WHITE PAPERS ON CREATING EFFECTIVE e-LEARNING AT:

a white paper
by :
alleninteractions.com/e-learning-white-papers
Ethan Edwards
strategist
chief instructional

TWEET THIS! Click here to share this white paper with your followers!

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

ETHAN EDWARDS | CHIEF INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIST
Ethan Edwards draws on more than 25 years of industry experience as an e-learning instructional designer and
developer. He is responsible for the delivery of the internal and external training and communications that
reflect Allen Interactions unique perspective on designing and developing meaningful and memorable
e-learning programs. Edwards is the primary instructor for ASTDs e-Learning Instructional Design Certificate
Program. In addition, he is an internationally recognized speaker on e-learning instructional design, has written
several other white papers on creating effective e-learning and is a primary blogger for Allen Interactions
e-Learning Leadership Blog.

ABOUT ALLEN INTERACTIONS

Allen Interactions is an internationally-acclaimed company focused on improving performance through powerful learning
experiences. For nearly 20 years, we have designed and developed custom e-learning and blended learning solutions to address
the widely varied performance goals of leading organizations. We have deep experience and expertise in instructional design,
technology, creativity, process, and project management to consistently achieve positive business impact.

In addition to our service offerings, in 2011, we launched a revolutionary authoring and publishing
platform, ZebraZapps, which allows developers and non-programmers to create rich interactive media
applications easily and quickly, as well as share, publish, and sell objects or entire applications. To learn
more or subscribe, visit zebrazapps.com.

SERVICES
Custom e-Learning Strategic Consulting Tools (ZebraZapps & Flash Models)
Blended Learning Authorware Conversion LMS Solutions
Mobile Learning Career Education

custom learning design, development & strategic consulting

MINNEAPOLIS CHICAGO SAN FRANCISCO TAMPA DENVER ST. LOUIS
800.799.6280 customelearning Facebook alleninteractions.com