Archive for November, 2007
E-learning solutions such as ‘SkillSoft’- which provides a variety of courses that can be accessed and completed by the employees of subscribed companies – are ideal for small to medium enterprises, enabling them to implement e-learning without investing in their own development and support networks.
The course I completed, “Basic Design Functionality of Macromedia Flash MX”, is one of ‘SkillSoft’s courses which aims to train the participant on the use of Flash towards better website design and usability. This course, if corrected and adapted, would be ideal for the business I work for.
The company, which runs most of the ‘pub poker’ games in NSW, actually employs a relatively small number of people (the rest work as contractors) which means that a lot of the work is shared amongst different people. One of the shared responsibilities is updating and maintaining the company’s website, which is used quite extensively by its customers. Obviously, quite a few people lack some or all of the web-design and development skills and need to be trained before they can help. The above course would be ideal to train the employees on how to improve the usability and design of the company’s website, and it can do so whenever the worker has a bit of spare time, without the company incurring large, up-front investments (Francis and Emelo 2002).
The course, however, needs a lot of improvement before it will be ready for that task. For starters, it lacks “quality pedagogically driven instructional design” (Sonwalker 2001), which means the content is delivered in an incorrect way which inhibits effective learning. This is because (as outlined here) during the course, the practice is not distributed frequently enough, which prevents effective retention of the material (Pithers 1999). The extent of this problem increases when the learner completes only a small portion of the course at a time (as expected from workers).
Moreover, because many concepts are learnt using rot methods, without or with little interactivity, each concept actually interferes with the learning of new concepts (Hilgard et.al. 1975). Furthermore, the level of expertise required to master the material was inconsistent.
Lastly, according to Moyer (2007), many e-learners fail to complete courses out of frustration. One of the reasons that lead to this frustration, he notes, is the fact that many of those courses suffer from technology and infrastructure problems, which also plagues the above course. The main problem arises from the poor navigation system utilized, preventing the learner from easily reaching the exact page they left or reviewing previously covered material.
In order to use the course to accommodate the company’s needs, it would probably need to be improved in the following ways:
- Standardized, consistent level of expertise – If the course allowed trainees with differing levels of skill to approach the material on their own level, the company would be able to enroll whoever needs to learn Flash website-design without being concerned about learning gaps.
A good way of accomplishing this, in my opinion, would be to attach an option to each function or concept presented (not only in some demonstration, which is the case in the course) that will allow either to skip all of it, some of it or see the whole step-by-step process. Furthermore, the course level could be adjusted from the main menu; this would mean that advanced users will be shown only new concepts and features, which will be presented using tools they are expected to know. Beginners, however, would be shown all the sub-skills and sub-features required to accomplish the task.
- Practice, practice and more practice – Practice should be distributed during or after each topic, covering all the features and concepts covered. More practice should be set in the end of each entire module; this would be aimed at using the learned material in varied contexts and applications. With the exception of practice during the topic (since it would probably waste too much time) the practice should be done on the real software (Flash) rather then a simulation, using downloadable templates that match those shown in the course. This would allow the trainee to ‘play around’ with the feature and concept without being constraint to a linear simulation. Moreover, the practice should include all the steps without using the ‘lets assume you’ve already done that’ which the course currently uses (frequently).
- Better navigation system – There are very simple improvements for this issue. Firstly, fixing the ‘bookmark’ function that already exists in the framework would enable the learner to jump straight to the page they left. Secondly, an index list of features and concepts, either listed separately or built into the main topic list in a cascading tree format, will allow for easy review and repeat of previously covered material.
Once the above improvements are implemented, it would be extremely easy (due to the high level of technological aptitude in the company) to get those workers who posses enough basic knowledge to start using the course, allocating 15-30 minutes a day until completion. It would even be ideal to require them to practice those new skills by implementing learned concepts into their parts of the website updating, regardless if the changes would go live or not.
In conclusion, the course should suit the company’s learning strategy, both in time and money invested. It could enrich workers that are expected to share the load of maintaining and improving the website as it would teach them new concepts of design and how to implement them using Flash. In order to be useful, however, the course would need improvements in the way it handles different levels of expertise as well as increased frequency of practice and a better navigation system. Once those are implemented, the course would be readily accepted and used.
References:
Francis L.M. and Emelo R. 2002, ‘Buy Versus Build: A Battle of Needs’, Learning Circuits, viewed 17th November,
< http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002/jan2002/elearn.html >
Hilgard, E.R., Atkinson, R.C. and Atkinson, R.L. 1975, Introduction to Psychology, Harcourt, New York.
Moyer, L.G. 2007, ‘Is Digital Learning Effective in the Workplace?’, eLearn Magazine, viewed 17th November,
< http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=research&article=2-1 >
Pithers, R. 1999, ‘Memory and Retrieval: Implications for Teaching and Learning’ in J. Athanasou (Ed), Adult Educational Psychology, Social Science Press, Sydney.
Sonwalker, N. 2001, ‘A New Methodology for Evaluation: The Pedagogical Rating of Online Courses’, Campus Technology, viewed 17th November,
< http://campustechnology.com/articles/38946_3/ >
November 17th, 2007
The first thing that must be said is that the course did achieve its objectives by exposing me to new website-design and Flash concepts and encouraging me to pursue more knowledge even after the course finished. That said, the course had a lot of faults regarding its e-learning structure. Let us start from the beginning:
The name of the course was “Basic Design Functionality of Macromedia Flash MX”. Its stated objective was to teach the learner how to use Flash, focusing on good design of, both, website looks and usability. It promised to do so by showing the learner how to arrange the site in a logical way, set up correct menu functions, pick the right color schemes and more.
The first thing I was impressed by was the layout of the topics which made sense and allowed me to rest assure that everything would be covered in its own time. Having an organized approach can really help learning motivation and reduce anxiety.
The first two topics, which were part of the ‘Using Flash as a design tool’ module. As I expected, the modules were theoretical in nature and were full of good content about design issues; however, it was delivered using either a graphic page turner or a scrolling text article. Considering it is an e-learning course, it was a bit disappointing. In my opinion, even read / write learners would find this dry. (Disclaimer: this post will cover the pros and cons of the course, while the extra assignment will debate how it could be improved)
The next module was much more approachable and interactive. It covered how to design the coloring of the website (using different design tools, such as the color wheel) and included interactive questions (e.g. asking the learner to point out flaws in a badly designed site).
All the modules thereafter focused on Flash itself, either showing different functions or using Flash to exemplify design concepts (those discussed earlier as well as new ones). This structure would have been very good, since it would have allowed for a lot of hands on experience and training, both with the software and with applying the learned concepts, which in turn would have helped the learner understand, retain and use the knowledge (Pithers 1999).
Unfortunately, the structure of the course was flawed as the practice (which I expected would follow each section) seemed too little too late. The course was structured with 3-4 topics of instructions followed by a small training module. The problem was that there was so much to absorb during the initial topics, along with the fact an e-learner can stop at any time (usually after finishing one or two topics); this results in ineffective training which goes over material that has been mostly forgotten.
Another flaw in the training module was the fact that very little of the material covered was reviewed, which added to the feeling that the learner would probably absorb only a small part of very interesting and useful material.
I further believe that the average learner would have been discouraged from continuing the course because of the inconsistency of the content’s level. Throughout the course, the developer seemed to shift their target between very novice and high-intermediate users, at times refusing to elaborate on an advanced features- as if taking for granted that the user would be aware of it- while at other times taking a lot of effort to explain and demonstrate, step-by-step basic features. The reason I believe an average learner would be discouraged is that they would either get frustrated being a novice (which is expected, since the course name contains the word ‘basic’) or they would get impatient being an advanced user forced to follow step-by-step demonstrations (as I was at times).
As far as feedback goes, it seemed that there was enough of it whenever it was needed. The small amount of questioning and practice was reviewed and the program let me know when I made a mistake, why it was a mistake and how to fix it. The good feedback system only highlighted how great the course would have been with more training.
The technology the course used, which was a player framework of sorts, was another pitfall. I encountered the first fault when I checked my progress in the main menu. The software provided a return to bookmark function, which I thought would take me back to where I left, near the end of the topic. It turns out, however, that hitting the bookmark or the topic title takes you back to the beginning to the topic, forcing you to click ‘next’ for a minute or two before you return to where you stopped.
Moreover, at times, although not always, when clicking the previous page button – perhaps to review a previous concept- I was again sent to the first page which I found very frustrating. I do not know if those issues were specific to the course or are standard throughout the ‘SkillSoft’ software (the course provider), but although small they seriously detract from the learning experience.
Overall, I would do the course again, since it did achieve all the outcomes I expected from it; as well as used all the methods I predicted in the same post. However, the methods were not implemented correctly, so I only achieved what I needed because I added my own research and practice to my experience. I would not recommend the course for someone who is just starting with Flash and / or expecting to adopt new skills, rather then just looking to learn new concepts. As a whole the course falls short on and lacks a lot of educational basics.
References:
Pithers, R. 1999, ‘Memory and Retrieval: Implications for Teaching and Learning’ in J. Athanasou (Ed), Adult Educational Psychology, Sydney.
Wigfield, A. and Eccles, J. 1989, ‘Test Anxiety in elementary and secondary school students’, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 159-183
November 16th, 2007
(I posted this yesterday, for some reason it didn’t publish. So here it is)
Well, I’ve completed the course. I must admit that with all it’s faults I’ve enjoyed learning all the new concepts and features that I had no idea about before (even though I’ve used Flash extensively before), especially regarding website design.
Next I would need to complete the evaluation and the extra work.
November 15th, 2007
Last module was good, explaining how to use text effectively with Flash. I was never aware of most of the features that were discussed. All the new concepts were explained very well.
Definitely a keeper.
November 15th, 2007
I’ve just finished the entire ‘Building navigation in Flash” module. Finally, in the very end, there was some hands on training but in, in my opinion, too little, too late.
First of all, the learner must go through a lot of (instructed) material in order to get to the hands on training. By the time he gets there, he forgot a lot of what was taught. This issue is even worse considering it is an e-learning course, where there might be a considerable length of time between learning sessions. Instead of the ‘long instruction and then training’ structure, I think it is more appropriate to present the material in small pieces followed immediately by quick hands-on training that allows one to repeat what was learned. This way even a busy learner might be able to practice and remember the material.
Secondly, the training part covered very little of the instructed material. This means that I will probably remember how to use the ‘layer’ function, but not the (even more complicated) ‘target’ function. If the developer used the structure suggested above, it would be no problem to practice all of the material in small bits.
November 15th, 2007
This module did fulfill its objectives, but in my opinion, not in learning effective way.
Most of the module used a running simulation of Flash, with little interaction. So although I did learn how to use action script to create sub-menus (for example) I would probably forget most of it by tomorrow, because I didn’t get enough practice.
It brings up a question: Should E-learning courses be aimed at just passing information or ‘training’, which will involve actually using educational methods to ingrain a set of skills?
I think it should be the second one. Passing information does become more effective with e-learning anyway (its better then reading a book) but why waste all that power and time on something that can be accomplished with a powerpoint presentation? Why not create a course that actually uses practice and feedback to allow me to use those skills more effectively?
November 15th, 2007
The last module was really good. The content was interesting and taught me a lot regarding design of web-site navigation, both the theory and how to actually do it. I’m finally starting to enjoy not just the content (which was good throughout) but also the experience itself. I would definitely use what I’ve learned so far.
I hope the next module holds the same level of e-learning design, since it concerns ‘action scripting’ which is Flash’s programing language. If the course reverts back to its disorganized and inconsistent design, a subject matter as complicated as this can turn very frustrating. On the other hand, if done well, I am sure I will enjoy learning a whole new way of using Flash. Lets see…
November 14th, 2007
I’m getting frustrated at how inconsistent that training method, tools and level are compared to how good the content of the course is.
I’m learning a lot, how to match colors and apply them correctly to different parts of the site etc. However, I really believe that a lot of other trainees would have given up by now because of several reasons:
1. The use of different training tools is wholly inconsistent. For example, earlier the course keeps switching between examples that must be completed on your own Flash program and completed using a simulation of Flash in the actual course window, without any prior warning. This causes you to take the time to complete it in ‘reality’ only to be told that you ‘did not complete the task’ because you were actually required to do so in the simulation. There are actually quite a number of examples for this.
2. The training level is inconsistent. At some points, the course doesn’t take any time showing you the ropes, as if expecting you to either know Flash enough to know what to do or savvy enough to find out. That’s fine, considering it is a Flash design course…but then, suddenly, it starts showing you step by step examples of how to use much simpler tools then those that were required previously. At some point it was extremly frustrating because it toke me a while to understand how to use an earlier tool and then I get a step by step instructions for one of the most basic Flash tools, one that can be understood intuitively.
Still, I’m still glad to be doing this course. Firstly because the actual content, when sieved out (which is a bad thing) is very useful and new. Secondly, because all of those development mistakes are going into my toolbox, so I can avoid them in the future when developing my own course (I’m sure that otherwise I would have made them and had to learn from experience).
November 14th, 2007
I’m very impressed with the section discussing the use of colors in design. I’ve never been taught how to pick and match the right colors and the course explains it wonderfully. I especially like the ‘color wheel’ scheme and going the different kinds of color matching.
I’m beginning to understand that the course developer has more expertise in design (both general and web) as a whole, rather then knowledgeable in using Flash. I find it a testament on behalf of e-learning that even though the trainer is not interacting directly with me, an impression of his / hers expertise and knowledge (both the good and the bad) comes through the course.
Another lesson that might be learned from this, is that in order to make a course that really answers all of it’s objectives equally, we should chose the specifications of the course according to the expertise of the developer or use more then one developer to account for different specifications.
Of course, we can’t know that only one developer worked on this specific course but it is still evident that the weight of the expertise lays in design, with not enough in Flash itself. So the solution here would either be to make the course a pure web-design course (which might use Flash as the demonstration tool) or get a ‘technical’ Flash expert to contribute the parts discussing the software.
November 14th, 2007
I just wanted to see how my progress is going, honest!
It is ironic that a course for usability and website design is using a flawed interface. I just clicked on the course menu to see how my progress is going and when I clicked on the module I was almost finished with, I got sent to the beginning. Dismayed, I quickly clicked through all of the module, accidentally skipping the page I left, so I clicked ‘previous page’…and was sent to the beginning of the module again.
To quote the course I am doing: “Illogical, faulty or inconsistent usability can lead to frustration, discourage users and even negative feelings towards the company represented on the site” (probably a misquote but I am not searching for the original).
November 13th, 2007
Previous Posts
