4 Steps to Microlearning Mastery

Is it cheating if you read the Cliffs Notes version of War and Peace instead of Tolstoy’s? Or is it resourceful?

Your answer probably depends on why you’re reading it and how much time you have; whether you’re in school or business; and whether you’re a kid or an adult.

As an instructional designer in the corporate world, I always assume that learners want to gain a business edge in the shortest amount of time. To me, the Cliffs Notes’ microlearning model is, therefore, not cheating. 

  

The dilemma though is that microlearning is extremely difficult to build. It requires instructional designers (IDs) to be minimalists with their words and interactions, but virtuosos at user-friendly delivery methods. As E.F. Schumacher, author of A Guide for the Perplexed and Small is Beautiful, said, “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.” 

So how does your team get into the microlearning mindset and then use its power?

1. Tattoo a rectangle the size of an index card on your forearm.
   Just kidding, of course. But an index card is about the size of typical mobile phone screen, and you need to be very cognizant of how much information you can fit on it. Practice boiling down your PowerPoint decks to this size; offer one learning point at a time and try to limit the deck to 5 slides. Then start thinking about media that could substitute for words but fit in the same space…video, for example.
   
   
2. Research examples of microlearning.
   Microlearning isn’t just phone-sized bits of information. Check these sites out for ideas like Google’s post-a-lesson-on-the-back-of-the-toilet-door:
• Nanotechnology - http://bit.ly/y2nGXt
• Buzzword: Microlearning - http://bit.ly/UfZ3yk
  
  
3. Dump the “Tell me, show me, let me” model of instructional design.
   Jump directly to the “Let me” portion of the learning. Give your learners a problem, let them try to solve it, and give them feedback. Microlearning requires you to cut to the chase, and adult learners are ready for it.
   
   
4. Don’t push learning.
    Let learners pull it when they want or need it (http://bit.ly/Yk2Mve). To evolve from a “push” to “pull” organization, your team must become adept at marketing; learners must know where to get the information just when they need it, so you have to burn it into their brains.

With that, this “Cliffs Notes” version of Getting Started in Microlearning is complete.

Top Tips to Avoid Ineffective Virtual Classrooms

“Experts” of the virtual classroom recommend limiting sessions to less than an hour. So what do you do if you have to make a four-week face-to-face (f2f) training program virtual? Is it possible? Definitely.

Six years ago, my learning & development (L&D) team and I tackled this challenge numerous times for clients who wanted to create at-home call centers.  We had to on-board and establish skills for agents all over the world without relying on in-person classrooms or travel. And we had to achieve improved on-the-job performance in comparison to bricks-and-mortar call center agents.

Can you imagine being a student in a virtual classroom for four weeks though?  I’d rather suck the hairspray out of Donald Trump's comb-over.

To make a long story short, we did it. Through ruthless respect for adult learners, constructivism, and adherence to the “flipped classroom” model, we created a wildly efficacious training program that was significantly shorter than the original. 

What steps did we take to success?

1. Cut the fluff. We went through the original f2f facilitator guide and identified all “icebreakers,” games, and other non-essential training activities. Instead of using training time for these, we posted them as messages on a social network like Google Groups. Learners controlled the discussions. By doing so, we reduced the time required for instructional designers to create interactions, as well as the trainer’s time to deliver them, and the learners’ time to suffer through them.
   
2. Turn lectures into YouTube videos. Instead of listening to the trainer drone on in the virtual classroom over PowerPoint slides, learners watched shortened lectures on their schedule and used Rewind if they needed to. While we didn’t reduce instructional design time because we had to create the videos, we reduced classroom time. (We could have created self-paced elearning to cover the lecture materials, but in most cases this was overkill.)
   
3. Create a non-graded workbook of activities. After learners finished watching each lecture video, they tackled workbook activities related to the material. They did it on their own and they often found they had to go beyond the video lecture, Googling to go in depth, or returning to the social network to ask questions of their colleagues. Trainers didn’t need to grade the workbooks – they could tell who was doing the work when the learners came into the virtual classroom.
   
4. Use the virtual classroom to practice skills. After learners watched the lecture videos and attempted the workbook activities, they came into the classroom to ask specific questions, role-play, and practice job-specific skills such as searching the electronic performance support system. The trainer merely introduced the activities. Learners guided each other through, creating an atmosphere of camaraderie and collaboration.
   
5. Build a targeted performance support system. The L&D team used its saved time to create a user-friendly, smart knowledgebase for agents to find answers quickly when they were on the job. As a result, the training program didn’t require learners to memorize tomes of information. It was like Google, only specific to the job. 

The results speak for themselves:

• Training time for each program was cut in half.
• On-the-job performance improved by 20%.
• First-month attrition dropped by 50%.

While L&D can’t take full credit for these results (older, more educated agents, for example, had something to do with it), we definitely contributed. When it’s time for you to contribute too, take the virtual classroom “experts” with a grain of salt. Don’t just do a straight conversion from f2f classroom to virtual classroom. Rethink the whole program.

______________________________________

Brian Bishop, PhD, is virtualwirks’ Practice Leader for Workforce Performance. He harnesses the power of emerging technologies to launch global training programs that improve employee, organizational and industry-wide success.

Learning tech dies. We don't have to.

Rest in peace QR codes. You had great potential for informal and on-the-spot learning, but you’re no longer needed. And you’re ugly. You’ve been rendered moot by mobile browsers like Layar[1] and Aurasma[2] that recognize the item itself; no “barcode” necessary.

Typically, learning technologies perish not because they’re ugly like QR codes, but because they require too much work for too little performance or monetary return. Serious games, immersive learning simulations, gamification, learning content management systems (LCMSs), virtual worlds, virtual reality, haptics, and even custom Flash interactions get heavy scrutiny from learning & development managers interested in ROI; the payback often isn’t there.

Another cause of death for learning technologies is the realization that formal learning is, quite literally, “old school”. (Isn’t it ironic that serious games and virtual worlds might be considered old school?) In other words, learning researchers and practitioners[3] are confirming the notion that most learning – as much as 90% – is informal; talking to people, heading out to YouTube, Googling, etc. 

Some people call it the 70/20/10 learning model[4]. Some people don’t believe such a model exists[5]. But whether the model exists is inconsequential. We all know that informal learning outweighs formal learning through empirical evidence. Think about your own job – do you spend more than 10% of your time in formal training events? Probably not. But you do learn things – probably every day. Therefore, if you’re an instructional designer, media developer, or learning & development manager spending most of your time building formal training, you’re wasting quite a bit of that time.

So what learning technologies do I think offer a good payback in terms of time, money and informality? 1. Augmented Reality, 2. Video, and 3. Performance Support Systems (PSSs) that are easily searchable and deliver mobile-friendly information. Notice that I didn’t include company-wide social networks; they’re very tough to search.

Augmented Reality (AR)

AR offers information on the spot through your phone or tablet. It puts the information in context perfectly. And, right now, it’s free to build using Hoppala[6]. It’s also fast to build as long as the content you want to link to already exists. You might link to Wikipedia, YouTube, or your PSS. Once you’ve built it, deliver your AR through Layar, Junaio, or Aurasma. I’ve built AR “apps” in half a day.

The trouble with AR is that we L&D folks might end up sending it to its grave if we try to get too fancy with it. We have a tendency to do that: “The learner needs to be more engaged.” “We need to include more interactivity.” When you utter these phrases, ask yourself, “Am I just trying to show off, or does the learner really need it?”

Video

Video is potent for learning; plus, it can be very quick and cost effective. I made the argument here: http://virtualwirksbrian.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-power-of-video-for-learning.html

But, again, the danger is if we get too fancy. Are you seeing a pattern here?

Performance Support Systems (PSSs)

This is where I spend most of my working day – putting more content into the PSS and making sure it’s easy to find –.pdf files, Word documents, instructions, FAQs, or anything that will help people on the job. You can use your LMS for this as long as it’s easy to search and delivers mobile-friendly content. If that’s not an option, start your research into a PSS here: http://www.getapp.com/s/knowledge-base-comparison#knowledge+base+comparison

Conclusion

The point is that L&D won’t go the way of the QR code as long as we:

1. Pay attention to shifts in technology that change the way learners learn.
2. Spend most of our time on the projects that give us the most bang for our buck.
3. Don’t get too fancy. 

___________________________________________________________

Brian is the Practice Leader of Workforce Performance at virtualwirks. email him at brian@virtualwirks.com if you want to: 

• Roll out a virtual workforce, but your internal training department is not familiar with multi-week virtual training programs
• Create a more efficient internal training department
• Implement training programs that exceed performance goals in minimum time
• Meet or exceed predicted L&D ROI

______________________________________________

[1] Layar: http://bit.ly/qbYthQ

[2] Aurasma: http://www.aurasma.com/aura/

[3] Godwin-Jones, R. (June 2009). Emerging technologies personal learning environments. Language, Learning & Technology, 13(2).
Levenberg, A. & Caspi, A. (2010). Comparing perceived formal and informal learning in face-to-face versus online environments. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 6.

Manganello, F., Falsetti, C., Spalazzi, L., & Leo, T. (January 2013). PKS: An ontology-based learning construct for lifelong learners. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1).

[4] http://www.learningconversations.co.uk/main/index.php/2011/02/23/the-changing-face-of-learning?blog=5

[5]Howe, N.J. (May 2010). Let’s kill a few learning holy cows – 70:20:10 is dead (or at least seriously ill). Retrieved April 3, 2013 from http://www.nickjhowe.com/2010/05/lets-kill-a-few-learning-holy-cows/.

[6] Hoppala: http://www.hoppala-agency.com/

eLearning cuts costs? Should I care?

I’m a big believer in the power of eLearning, but I get tired of hearing that eLearning cuts costs in comparison to face-to-face instructor-led training (ILT). Put quite simply, that’s not a reason to use it. Heck, you can cut costs by 100% if you eliminate training completely.  So it’s important to establish that the eLearning you deliver is at least as effective as the ILT it replaces. Only then can you use cost savings as a benefit of eLearning.

Can you honestly say your eLearning is at least as effective as your ILT? How do you know?

Start by collecting performance data on the people who went through the ILT. Then, pilot the eLearning. Check the performance data from the pilot group. Compare the two sets of data.

Is there a statistically significant difference?*

No

If there is no significant difference between the two sets of performance data, your eLearning is just as good as the ILT (or your learners aren’t paying attention to either the ILT or the eLearning). The cost savings you’ve achieved should be added to your salary.

Yes
In most cases there will be significant differences. That’s because ILT has its advantages, eLearning has other advantages. In other words, learners might absorb specific pieces of knowledge better in the classroom; other pieces of knowledge might best be delivered via eLearning.

So what do you do if there are significant differences in several performance statistics?

1. Label the positive differences as either ILT or eLearning.
2. Rank the differences in order of importance to the company’s strategy. For example, ILT might result in speedier troubleshooting, but the company gets paid by the hour. As a result, speed might not be high on the list of priorities.
3. Determine which delivery method accounts for greatest number of differences in the top five according to your ranking.

If eLearning wins, you’re doing great because you’re getting better on-the-job performance out of your learners and you’re saving money. Your next step is to make the eLearning even better by improving it in the performance areas where ILT won the battle.

If ILT wins, your eLearning cost savings argument is moot.

*If you need to brush up on your business statistics, start here: http://www.mftrou.com/basic-business-statistics.html)

Training Development Under the Microscope

When I help training departments become more efficient and effective at what they do, they often ask how long it should take to develop an hour of training. The answer begins with a look at the data supplied by Karl Kapp, Robyn Defelice, and ASTD at http://bit.ly/Rd9CT4.

Then I tell my clients it should take half that.

If they say, “Great! We already achieve half,” we make sure that their training contributes to the company’s strategic objectives. If not, the training represents wasted time and money. In such as case, what’s usually happening is the training department receives its training development requests from line managers, not from executives.  A flip of the model is probably in order. But we don’t want to jump to any conclusions – that’s a recipe for disaster. So, we look at their process systemically and systematically (described below) to get the full picture.

If, however, my clients say it's impossible to achieve half the training development time listed in the ASTD study, the training development process immediately goes under the microscope.

I recommend taking several days every six months to examine your training development process to find out where you can tighten it up. Here are the steps we typically follow. (You’ll see many similarities to the Analyze phase of the ADDIE process): 

1. Talk to your customers to find out what they want from your training.
You have several “customers” to take into account: customers, learners, executives, and your department.

2. Clarify – in specific numbers – your training development goals. 
For each of the training products you produce – ILT, vILT, eLearning, Blended, Performance Support, etc. – answer the following questions:

• How much will we impact strategic company goals?
• How well will learners perform on the job? 
• What will the level of learner satisfaction be?
• How much will an hour of training take to develop?
• How much will an hour of training cost to develop?

3. Commit to collecting the numbers to answer each question.
Create a plan to do it.

4. Based on the “voice of the customer” and the strategic goals of the company, prioritize the desired performances.
Which desired performance is most important? Maybe your company’s most important goal is speed-to-market, therefore you must get learning out very quickly. Or maybe it’s to increase customer satisfaction, so your training must offer great depth. Whatever it might be, it becomes the focus when scrutinizing your training development process.

5. Map the current training development process. 
For each of your department’s products (ILT, eLearning, etc.) create a development process map. Be thorough. Be honest. Don’t skip any steps. 

6. Carefully dissect the process map. Find the flaws. 
First, identify the parts of the process that distract your training development team from focusing on your top customer and company priorities. Then, find the parts of the process that are slowing you down or costing too much. Do you receive too much content from the SMEs? Are SMEs not giving you enough time? Are reviews taking too long? 

7. Determine the root causes of the flaws. 
“The Five Whys” is probably the easiest tool for this task (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys). Pay particular attention to the root causes that have a ripple effect on each other.

8. Identify the fixes for the root causes. 
Maybe you need to put SMEs at the core of development (http://bit.ly/15vrPSv), or adopt rapid prototyping (http://bit.ly/10EhPHO), or something else... Or a combination.

9. Draw a new process map that includes the new interventions.

10. Now, start from scratch. 
Draw another process map, specific to your department, based on the 70/20/10 model (http://bit.ly/nL8crg) for training.

11. Compare your revamped process to the 70/20/10 process map.
Which one better helps you hit your desired performance goals?

12. Whichever process you choose, identify those areas of the process that contribute most to your desired performance goals.
These will be the areas of change that you’ll work on the most vigorously.

13. Implement the changes to your process using proven change management techniques (http://bit.ly/aXiH7D). 

14. Measure the results with the completion of each new project.

• Ask team members to comment on new process
• Get feedback from customers
• Collect learner performance data
• Collect business results data

15. Go back to step 1.
Continually improve. 

See if you can make your training so efficient and effective that you never have to ask how long it takes to develop an hour of training. Instead, you simply ask, “What do we need to achieve?”
_______________
Brian is the Practice Leader of Workforce Performance at virtualwirks. He applies the efficiencies of virtualization to training and human performance programs for global clients.

3 Steps to Avoid the Training Dev Iceberg

When building training, instructional designers (IDs) spend a titanic amount of time coercing information out of subject matter experts (SMEs). They beg SMEs for content - over and over again. When they get the content, IDs study it for hours on end. They work with SMEs for days conducting applied cognitive task analyses (http://1.usa.gov/13AMRAT), trying to get to the core of the way experts think. Finally, IDs try to become authorities on the subject in weeks, when it took the SMEs years - even decades - to achieve mastery. 

So, it's no wonder that when review time rolls around, SMEs feel like they've run into an iceberg. The front-end analysis was only its tip. Now, they're feeling the pain of what's below the surface. They spend double the time they thought they'd have to, fixing mistakes and pouring over content they've seen dozens of times before.

Training managers everywhere are aware of this problem. But most often they try to fix it by altering the most obvious part of the process - reviews. Google docs, online collaboration sites (http://basecamp.com/), PowerPoints, alternate versions of the course that include textboxes for comments (http://bit.ly/15tTiUH), or Lectora's ReviewLink (http://bit.ly/1648eu6) and RapidIntake Review (http://rapidintake.com/review) are among the most popular "solutions." The trouble is, although they are helpful, these tools usually don't make a significant dent in the overall project time.

If you're truly interested in reducing the amount of time required to launch a training program: 

1. Commit to having SMEs at the core of the development. As Tom Kuhlmann says, "It’s a lot easier to train a SME to use a tool like the Articulate suite than it is to train you to replace the SME" (http://bit.ly/4bkPah).
2. Get SMEs up to speed in simple instructional design by following Onlignment's 60-Minute Master's program (http://bit.ly/ITPQaR).
3. Have the SMEs use the successive approximation model (SAM) developed by Michael Allen (http://bit.ly/13B0vUp). In other words, get them to rapid prototype. The IDs can use their expertise in learning theory to help shape learning activities and simplify content at each iteration.

I hear you saying, "But that will take way too much of the SME's time. They have their regular job to do."

Actually, it takes significantly less time than the "model" I described at the top of this blog. In fact, the SME-at-the-Core model routinely decreases development time and costs by 30%. Plus, it lets SMEs and IDs focus on their areas of expertise. And, as SMEs get better at learning development with subsequent projects, time is further reduced. 

The trouble is, fewer than 10% of all training departments will adopt this model because they're scared of SMEs. Don't be. SMEs want to coach. They want to impart their wisdom on others. And they love to learn new things themselves. Let them captain your ship around the training development iceberg.
_______________
Brian is the Practice Leader of Workforce Performance at virtualwirks. He applies the efficiencies of virtualization to training and human performance programs for global clients.

The Future of Induction Training

Last week, I suggested that nearly 80% of the $200 billion spent on training is wasted. That's because one-time training "events" rarely stick with the learner. As a result, I recommended following the 70/20/10 model:

• 70% of learning is informal, on-the-job performance support such as knowledgebases and job aids.
• 20% of learning happens through feedback and communication with clients/colleagues.
• 10% of learning takes place during formal courses.

A reader responded that it's important to acknowledge, however, the role of on-boarding and technical skills training. 

Good point. But I'm not sure I agree. Many of the technical skills we use daily were learned on the fly - you might ask a colleague to show you something, head out to YouTube to find step-by-step instructions, resort to using the Help function, or even use Aurasma's amazing augmented reality (http://bit.ly/P7De0S. Be amazed by the cables going into the router).

As for formal induction training, I think it's time to start thinking about its future. What would it look like if it were mobile, pull-instead-of-push, focused on young workers just entering the workforce, and not a one-time event but an on-going performance support system? I think it would look something like this:



Brian is the Practice Leader of Workforce Performance at virtualwirks. He applies the efficiencies of virtualization to training and human performance programs for global clients.