Designing eLearning for Cognitive Ease

By Shelley A. Gable

I recently started reading Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, and the chapter on cognitive ease offered all sorts of implications for eLearning design.

Promote a good mood.

The Finding: Kahnemann describes a study in which participants needed to rely on intuition to complete a task. The study found that participants in a good mood doubled their accuracy, while those in a bad mood performed poorly. This, combined with additional discussion in the book, suggests that a bad mood creates cognitive strain, and a good mood promotes cognitive ease.

Implications for eLearning: Although we may not have control over a learner’s day or personal life, perhaps there are things we can do to make learners smile from time to time. Consider a dash of appropriately placed humor, a relatable and/or inspirational story, and graphics that create a warm, positive tone.

The amount of time spent on eLearning may influence mood, too. Long lessons may leave learners wondering if they’ll ever end, while a series of short lessons can help create a sense of progress. Shorter lessons can also help prompt learners take a brief break and re-energize if they’re feeling mentally fatigued.

Ensure repeated exposure to critical content.

The Finding: I took a social psychology class several years ago and clearly remember this mantra: “familiarity breeds liking.” Kahnemann’s book explores this concept, describing studies in which participants were exposed to messages repeatedly over time. Repeated exposure seemed to increase participants’ liking and trust in the message.

This reminds me of the concept of spaced learning that Hermann Ebbinghaus – one of the earliest researchers of learning and memory – introduced in the 1800s. Spaced learning suggests that we retain newly learned knowledge longer when taught repeatedly over a period of time.

Implications for eLearning: Two simple ideas come to mind. First, we can take advantage of the flexibility eLearning offers to spread out training. Instead of conducting four hours of training within a single day, consider dividing it into one-hour sessions over four weeks, for example. Although the content will likely advance from one session to the next, this spaced approach would allow for reinforcing core components over time.

Another consideration is to ensure that core messages are repeated at every practical opportunity (this doesn’t have to mean repeating it verbatim every time). For instance, I recently worked on some customer service training where anticipating customer needs was a core principle. Although the training teaches a variety of tasks and behaviors, nearly every scenario prompts learners to pause to anticipate needs and then reinforces the impact of doing so.

Create clean visuals.

The Finding: The book describes a study in which participants were asked to solve a case study problem. For one group, the problem included a company name that was difficult to pronounce, while the other group’s version had an easy-to-pronounce company name. Everything else about the problem was identical. Interestingly, the problem-solving success rate of participants with the easier company name was significantly higher than that of the other group.

The book also describes similar studies where research participants working with low quality images or difficult-to-read fonts were also more prone to errors in completing tasks.

Implications for eLearning: The study about the difficult company name immediately prompted me to think about the names I assign to characters in the stories and scenarios I write. This reinforces the importance of keeping those names simple.

It also reinforces the need to include crystal clear images in training. Occasionally, I encounter an eLearning lesson that has an image (often of a system screen) that is either too small to read easily or a bit unclear. While most of us can probably intuitively agree that this type of thing is annoying, the evidence in Kahneman’s book suggests that it directly impairs learning. In fact, one of the studies described would even suggest that problematic images continue to negatively affect learning, even after learners have moved past the image and it is no longer the focal point.

Did you notice other implications?

If you’ve also read Thinking, Fast and Slow, do you recall any “ah ha” moments you encountered while reading the book? And did any of those learnings affect your eLearning design? If so, please share!

Personify eLearning

By Shelley A. Gable

As technology continues to command an increasingly prevalent role in our lives, it seems that our brains still respond better to a human touch. We can use this knowledge to help improve recall from eLearning lessons.

The research…

I’m in the midst of reading e-Learning and the Science of Instruction by Ruth Clark and Richard Mayer (it’s really a must-read for anyone who designs instruction). One chapter describes studies that suggest that including coach-like characters in eLearning and similar on-screen agents benefits learning.

Reading this chapter reminded me of a study I heard about a while back, in which subjects completed an online lesson on a health-related topic. While completing the lesson, subjects were asked questions and prompted to type out responses. Group #1 was told that an actual person received their responses during the course, while Group #2 was told that they were simply interacting with a computer. In reality, both groups were interacting with a computer only. Post-test results showed that Group #2 performed better. The researchers hypothesized that the perception of social interaction benefitted learning. (For the record, I think I heard about this on NPR, though I couldn’t track down the story when I tried finding it for this post.)

So how can we add a human element to eLearning lessons?

Consider these approaches…

Present eLearning from the perspective of a coach. Rather than simply displaying words on a page, introduce a coach type of character who serves as the narrator, being the voice of presented information and activity feedback.

For example, the coach might be a manager who needs the learner to help accomplish a challenge. A few years ago, I designed an eLearning lesson about insurance options. The main character was a manager who needed someone to help her answer customers’ questions about insurance. The eLearning lesson conveyed information as though she was teaching it to the learner. When the learner responded to knowledge check questions, the manager provided feedback and any needed coaching.

Or, you might make the main character an experienced employee who takes the role of mentoring the learner. In some ways, the approach could be similar to the example described with a manager. Additionally, you could create challenges in which the learner competes against the experienced colleague. For instance, if a performance requirement is to complete a task within a specific amount of time, you might prompt the learner to compete with the other character (e.g., Abby can do it in 30 seconds – can you beat her time?).

Provide the learner with a collaborator. The main character within an eLearning lesson could be someone who needs to learn along with the learner. Perhaps a fellow new employee or other acquaintance.

For example, a lesson that introduces learners to the mortgage industry might include a character who is about to buy a house for the first time. The lesson challenges the two of them – the learner and the fictional first-time homebuyer – to learn about the industry together. The “telling” information in the lesson could be knowledge the homebuyer already possesses and is sharing with the learner. Then, the homebuyer poses specific questions to the learner, which the learner answers based on reviewing job aids or other available resources. Feedback to knowledge checks might take the form of the homebuyer agreeing that a response sounds right (for correctly answered knowledge checks) or that something still doesn’t make sense, with a suggestion of something else to consider (for coaching in response to incorrectly answered knowledge checks).

Make interactions feel personable. There are many ways to do this. For instance, write eLearning content in a conversational tone, rather than a formal, textbook-like tone. Even feedback for knowledge checks can feel more relatable when written somewhat informally (consider saying “Are you sure?” or “That doesn’t sound quite right” instead of “Incorrect”). The chapter mentioned earlier in e-Learning and the Science of Instruction also offers advice for making eLearning feel more personable, from using polite language to animating avatars to use natural gestures.

How have you done this?

If you’ve used any of the approaches above, please share your experiences! What was the situation? How did you approach it? What advice can you share? And, if you happen to be familiar with the unidentified study described toward the beginning of this post, I’d appreciate being pointed to the source!

Is Your eLearning Effective for Dummies?

By Shelley A. Gable

I recently started teaching myself how to play harmonica with the help of a book from the For Dummies series. And I'm impressed. These guys are good instructional designers.

That said, I realize that the point of these books is to instruct. But that's the point of a lot of books, and not all of them do it well. So kudos to them.

And that got me thinking...

What, exactly, are they doing right?

And...

Am I doing those things right when I design an eLearning lesson?

As I started to sputter out a few tunes on my new harmonica, I made it a point to notice the instructional tactics that were most helpful for me. 

Modular chapters. Each chapter begins with a concise list of what you will learn about. And while the chapters build sequentially (foundations to application, simple to complex, etc.), they're written in a way that allows me to jump around between chapters. In my case I was eager to play, so I jumped past the foundational chapters and skipped ahead to the chapters that taught notes and simple songs. After feeling satisfied with some initial tinkering, I went back and read the earlier content on technique. Creating this type of flexibility can help initially gain attention and then maintain engagement of a variety of learners.

This flexibility can work well with scenario-based eLearning. Imagine opening a lesson with a scenario or case study. Learners who like to tinker can dive in immediately, perhaps clicking "hint" buttons or accessing job aids as needed. Having the option to work the scenario right away keeps them engaged and helps avoid the zoning out that can come with being forced to read introductory information first. Learners who prefer more guidance could opt to review a job aid or a demo first. Having this route available can benefit learners who become overwhelmed when pushed into something too quickly. Everyone wins.

Conversational tone. The book's friendly voice helps create a feeling of learning from a personable instructor. It's even entertaining at times. That conversational, natural language also helps make it a quick, easy-to-understand read. That means less re-reading to comprehend a sentence and more time spent learning. 

When you draft training materials, do they read more like a traditional textbook or a casual blog post? If you're thinking textbook, does it have to be that way? Why not make eLearning read more conversationally?

Consistent visual cues. A hallmark of the For Dummies books is their consistent use of icons. I found the "tip" and "warning" icons most helpful. As I mentioned before, I was eager to just start playing. While I didn't have the patience to thoroughly read full paragraphs at first, their icons helped draw my eye to the important stuff, which helped me get rolling more quickly. I eventually went back to read the paragraphs for the sake of going beyond the bare basics.

Of course, eLearning can take advantage of icons in the same way. Using them consistently (and somewhat sparingly) can help ensure that even skimming learners notice critical information. And if they need more help to perform a task or complete a scenario, even skimmers will likely delve deeper into the content as needed.

So how's my harmonica playing?

Well, after my first half hour with the book, I could play a mean When the Saints Come Marching In. And when I say "mean," I really mean something that's a bit off-rhythm and out of tune. Yet, surprisingly recognizable. Which I'm telling myself is a good start.

What have you noticed?

If you've paged through a For Dummies book (or a similar type of series), what instructional qualities benefitted you? 

Writing Distractors for Multiple Choice Questions

By Shelley A. Gable

Multiple choice questions – whether used throughout an eLearning lesson or in a knowledge assessment – are often frowned upon as unrealistic and limiting. But when written well, multiple choice questions can be quite robust.

It’s like eLearning. Poorly designed eLearning lessons that are text-dominated, page-turners tend to be unpopular. Highly interactive eLearning lessons that present relevant content in realistic contexts tend to be well received and effective.

Let’s briefly look at two common multiple choice offenses to avoid...

One common offense is using a multiple choice question when you really ought to use a different type of interaction. For instance, if you need learners to identify what button to click on to begin a procedure in a system, don’t write a multiple choice question where the options are names of buttons. Instead, use a hotspot question in which an image of the system screen displays and the learner must physically click the correct button in the image. Clearly, the hotspot question more closely simulates the visual recognition and physical navigation that one must perform on the job.

Another common offense is offering distracters that are obviously flawed. A good option surrounded by three really bad ones is often easily recognized, even by someone who may not understand why the correct answer is the best option. Simply writing “bad” statements as distracters misses an opportunity to show learners valid examples and non-examples of applying a skill.

So how does one write good distracters?

First of all, it’s worth pointing out that the best multiple choice questions are typically scenario-based. In other words, they present learners with a situation and ask them what they should do next. Earlier posts on this blog explain how scenarios can make quiz questions more relevant and how to write realistic scenarios.

So when it comes to writing distracters...

Ask SMEs for common mistakes. Subject matter experts (SMEs) who are close to the action and frequently work with your target audience are ideal here. Simply ask what they’ve seen newbies do in the scenario’s situation. Or how they’ve heard colleagues say something incorrectly. And probe for specific examples. If you receive a response that simply reiterates pointers to keep in mind, you’ll still end up writing the distracters yourself. So, probe for examples that are specific, detailed, and concrete enough to immediately write as a distracter.

Writing distracters with a SME is really an ideal approach, because it ensures that your distracters are options that people might actually consider. And as an added bonus, SMEs tend to recall common mistakes quickly and easily, so you don’t spend as much time trying to create fiction from scratch.

Align distracters to cautions stated during training. If the training directed learners not to do certain things, write distracters that emulate those undesired behaviors. But, don’t lay it on too thick. For example, if the training included three things not to say while discussing employee compensation, don’t write a distracter that includes all three items – chances are, most people don’t make all three mistakes at once, making the incorrect answer unrealistically obvious. Instead, write a distracter that illustrates just one.

Omit best practices without making it sound bad. Suppose the training includes three things learners should say when closing a phone call with a customer. A well-written distracter might simply miss one of those items, but still sound polite. In other words, a distracter doesn’t have to be an obviously bad choice; it can simply be a less optimal (i.e., not intentionally terrible) choice because of an important component it lacks.

What other tips can you share?

Although instructional designers with plenty of experience may feel that the suggestions above are relatively basic, the truth is that most people have to work at developing this skill. And when it comes to writing multiple choice questions, writing feasible distracters is often the most challenging part. So, what other tips do you have for doing this well?

Emphasizing Noteworthy Content in eLearning

By Shelley A. Gable

I was part of a team last year that worked on a large eLearning course, which consisted of several hours of eLearning lessons that learners completed over a four-week period. Interestingly, we received feedback that learners were taking excessive notes.

Apparently, the lessons did not provide the cues necessary to help learners distinguish what they ought to jot down versus content they could easily look up later when needed.

Naturally, this prompted us to rethink how to help learners take notes productively.

So how can we provide this guidance to learners?

We know that we should limit training to “must know” information, eliminating the “nice to know” stuff that does not directly impact learners’ ability to perform the objectives. This helps reduce information overload while keeping learners focused on job-related tasks.

However, even after filtering extraneous information from training, learners still should only have to make occasional notes for later. Even if all information in a course is critical, designers still need to find ways to highlight what learners may or may not need to note.

Below are some ideas for providing this type of support in eLearning.

Expectations. In situations where learners will have access to job aids and manuals for reference later, state at the beginning of training that the purpose of the course is to teach them how to use those resources. Explicitly state that they are not expected to memorize course content. Design training activities that prompt learners to refer to job aids while practicing tasks during training, and inform learners of how they can access those same job aids after training completion.

Highlights. If a step in a procedure or cautionary tip is particularly noteworthy, highlight it visually. This can be as simple as placing that text in a colored box on the slide, to make it stand out from other elements on the slide. You could also create a standard icon or label to associate with these occasional critical points, so learners know to pull out the notepad when they encounter those symbols.

Reminders. Even if you inform learners that job aids and other resources will be available after training, remind them periodically throughout training. For instance, when introducing a new procedure, briefly remind learners that the steps are outlined in an accessible job aid; therefore, there is no need to write the steps down.

Structure. You can attempt to limit unnecessary note taking by offering learners a structure for taking targeted notes. For instance, you might offer limited space within a slide for learners to pick out one important point – this is especially handy if the lesson allows learners to print these notes or email notes to themselves. One instructional designer I worked with created a form that prompted learners to record a small number of important points from an entire lesson, which encouraged them to identify a few of the most critical pieces of content.

Scenario-Focus. Training that teaches content in the context of working a scenario can also help limit unnecessary note taking. If learners are consulting job aids and other available resources while learning new tasks, they can easily see what is outlined clearly in the job aid and differentiate that from an undocumented reminder worth capturing in their notes. This distinction can seem less clear when learners are presented with slides packed with information prior to attempting a task themselves.

The intent is to support, not limit.

In sharing these ideas, my intent isn’t to suggest that learners shouldn’t take notes. For some, note taking offers an effective way to reinforce content. Many people say they remember information better if they write it themselves. However, in the specific eLearning course I mentioned earlier in this post, note taking reached record levels, suggesting that we could do a better job of creating focus.

If reading this post sparked other ideas related to this topic, please share!

What Makes eLearning Boring?

By Shelley A. Gable

Most posts on this blog focus on what to do and how to do it – providing navigational cues, designing with social media, stimulating recall, forming sticky ideas, and so on.

In this post, we’ll look at what we do too much of, resulting in boring eLearning.

Too much text.

It’s popular to hate PowerPoint because of the way a slide full of bullets strangles the life out of a presentation. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

Have you watched a TED talk? Those presenters use text sparsely and convey messages with images more often than not. Though it may not be practical to avoid text completely in eLearning, we can minimize it through diagrams, images that communicate, and occasional videos. Think visual design.

Discovery learning can help too. Instead of telling learners all they need to know, pull them into an activity, or a problem to solve, early in the lesson. Gradually provide the information they need through coaching along the way. This helps shift the focus from reading to doing. Even if the “doing” still requires reading, it’s likely to feel more purposeful.

Though it’s not our only option, we can accomplish this in PowerPoint. The slides are simply a blank canvas – we make them interesting or boring.

Too much detail.

The reminder here is to weed out nice to know from need to know information. For instance, I’ve seen many systems training modules that list steps in a system-driven procedure and offer tips for completing the procedure correctly.

I say “system-driven,” because I’ve seen this with procedures where the system literally leads the user through the steps and controls for certain types of errors. This means that filling eLearning slides with detailed steps and tips is probably unnecessary. The learner just needs to know when to use the procedure and how to get it started (perhaps followed by a simulation to give a feel for the flow)...which requires much less text.

Too much repetition.

We know that reviewing content and repeating important points helps solidify information in memory. But what about other forms of repetition?

How much variation do you design into your eLearning activities and knowledge checks? Do your knowledge checks always take on the structure of a short scenario followed by a multiple choice question? Do they maintain the same level of difficulty, even as the learner progresses through training?

Even rapid authoring tools generally have a variety of interaction types available. And in many cases, a smaller number of rich and highly interactive activities may be more impactful than numerous short, similarly structured knowledge check questions.

Too much formality.

Although we should write training materials concisely, they don’t have to lack personality. Stale writing becomes boring fast.

We’ve probably all had the experience of reading a textbook, only to reach the end of a page and realize that we remember nothing from the past couple of minutes. We were reading, but we were not engaged.

It’s possible to write professionally and conversationally. Think about blogs – many opt for an informal tone, yet they communicate professionally. Telling stories can help. And occasionally convey enthusiasm. Write to inform...and even entertain from time to time.

What else do we do too much of?

In what other ways do we challenge learners to stay awake? Add your observations in the comments!

George Orwell's Advice for Writing eLearning Content

By Shelley A. Gable

Learners can be fickle, quickly slipping into distraction or boredom if we ask them to read too much.

Though highly interactive, problem-based eLearning can help maintain engagement, completing these activities usually requires learners to read words that we write. In a culture of multi-tasking skimmers, we must write as clearly and concisely as possible to help keep learners motivated.

Practical Writing Advice from George Orwell

Admittedly, when George Orwell wrote Politics and the English Language to advocate for writing in plain English, improved eLearning engagement was not his primary goal.

Fed up with the intentionally vague and misleading language common among politicians – which he saw bleeding into mainstream communication – Orwell responded with an essay that called out examples of poor writing and offered advice for communicating clearly.

Though he published the essay over half a century ago, the advice is still practical. Especially for those of us who write training materials.

His essay builds a case for six simple writing rules.

--1-- Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

Orwell explains that clichés are often ineffective, because we tend to take their meaning for granted. They don’t prompt us to think.

--2-- Never use a long word where a short one will do.

The first example that comes to mind when I see this is utilize versus use. They mean the same thing.

And what about pulchritudinous versus beautiful? Okay, maybe nobody uses that one.

--3-- If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

Something that came to my attention about a year ago is our overuse of the word will. We often say things like, “When you click the Start button, Windows will display a menu.” But will is completely unnecessary here. It makes just as much sense to say, “When you click the Start button, Windows displays a menu.”

I know, that’s a REALLY simple example. But if you’re not already in the habit of avoiding the word will, I challenge you to watch for it in the next thing you compose – whether it’s instructional materials or something else. It’s shocking how often that pesky little word sneaks in.

Of course, Orwell’s point is to avoid unnecessary wordiness in general – he probably didn’t intend to specifically target the word will.

--4-- Never use the passive where you can use the active.

Using passive voice isn’t grammatically incorrect, but it can be vague and wordy, which is why it’s not ideal. Especially for instruction.

Compare...

PASSIVE: After entering an applicant’s data, proposed loan terms are displayed to discuss with the borrower.

ACTIVE: After entering an applicant’s data, the system displays proposed loan terms to discuss with the borrower.

Does one seem clearer?

--5-- Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

This is so relevant for training!

Subject matter experts often use department-specific jargon when providing information. Not only is jargon potentially unfamiliar to learners, but there’s really no need for them to expend effort learning a term if they’re not going to use it on the job. Plus, using avoidable terminology that is specific to a single department in a company limits the reusability of that training for other parts of the organization.

--6-- Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

In other words, if breaking one of these rules actually allows you to express an idea more clearly, do it.

This makes me think of sentence fragments. Technically, a sentence fragment is not a grammatically correct sentence. But sometimes we get away with fragments when we use them to emphasize a point and the idea is still understandable. Rightly or not, I frequently use fragments in posts on this blog. In fact, I’ve done it at least once in this post.

Coming clean...

Okay, I certainly can’t claim to follow all these rules all the time. But I try. And you can see how these basic guidelines can help simplify our writing to improve its readability.

Do you have examples to share of following (or breaking) these rules? Or do you have other writing-related pet peeves...I mean, rules...to suggest? If so, please utilize the commenting function provided here by the blog.