getting started with e-learning - welcome home page articles/elearning guild/rapid e... · getting...

i Getting Started with e-Learning: Rapid e-Learning

© 2010 The eLearning Guild. All rights reserved.

The eLearning Guild375 E Street, Suite 200Santa Rosa, CA 954041.707.566.8990

Visual analytics component developed using Tableau Software.Profi le database and back-end survey system developed by Cyclone Interactive.

Written by: Patti ShankCopy editing: Charles HolcombePublication design: Nancy Marland WolinskiCover design: Laura Hagar Rush

Disclaimer

The ratings, information, and opinions set forth on the Guild Research section of The eLearning Guild Website, and in the charts and graphs found in this report, are those of the members of The eLearning Guild. The eLearning Guild, Focuszone Media, Inc., and its offi cers, employees, directors, and shareholders have no liability for any loss, damage, action, causes of action, expense, cost, or liability including attorney fees, arising out of any statements, ratings, information, opinions, or claims set forth in the Guild Research section. See the “Guild Research” section of the Privacy, Membership, and Terms of Use Agreement at http://www.elearningguild.com/pbuild/linkbuilder.cfm?selection=fol.12.

The eLearning Guild Research Pledge

Our goal is to provide the best research based on the best data. The Guild has an unmatched and enormously rich and varied pool of e-Learning designers, developers, managers, and executives who are passionate about the art and science of e-Learning from which to gather data. But this data represents one thing and one thing only: the preferences, opinions, likes, dislikes, trials, and triumphs of eLearning Guild members. Does the information represent the e-Learning industry as a whole? Probably, but we cannot – and will not – make that claim. Here are the four articles of practice that drive eLearning Guild Research:

1. Number of respondents. Our research refl ects the opinions of thousands of e-Learning professionals. We will never publish results from a survey unless we have received a statistically meaningful number of fully-vetted responses.

2. No reliance on outside sources. With thousands of members updating their pro-fi les and completing surveys, the Guild does not need to rely on outside sources that will bias our reports for contacts to complete our surveys.

3. Self-funded. The eLearning Guild funds its own research. We do not accept any form of sponsorship from vendors and/or suppliers for public research activities. 4. Guaranteed fresh. We regularly remind members to update their profi les and survey information. If a member goes a year without updating information, we fi lter that information out of our reports.

1 Getting Started with e-Learning: Rapid e-Learning

Getting Started: Rapid e-Learning 3

Executive Summary 3

Introduction 4

Survey Methodology and Demographics 5

Slower versus Rapid e-Learning 6

Slower e-Learning 6

Rapid e-Learning 8

When a Rapid Approach Makes the Most Sense 8

Rapid Works Well for Lower Learning Levels 8

Rapid Works Well for “Disposable” Information/Instruction 9

Rapid Works Well for Informational Content 9

Rapid Works Well When Content is Available and Usable 9

Rapid Often Works Well in a Hybrid Approach 10

When a Traditional (Slower) Approach Makes the Most

Sense

Before Jumping In 11

Rapid Authoring 12

Rapid Versus Complex Authoring 13

Types of Rapid Authoring Tools 15

Rapid Authoring Tools Vendors and Tools 18

Rapid Tools for Those who are Getting Started 22

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. .

. . .

11

Table of Contents


Choosing Rapid Authoring Tools 24

Technical Issues 25

Non-technical Issues 26

Final Thoughts 27

Important Takeaways 28

References and Resources 29

Glossary 31

About the Author 33

Appendices 34

Appendix 1: Rapid Approach Analysis Template 34

Appendix 2: Authoring Tools Analysis Template 35

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .


Getting Started: Rapid e-Learning

People who need to get e-Learning off the ground in their organizations are often overwhelmed because there are so many terms and concepts to understand, and so many options to consider. And it’s hard to consider the options when you are overwhelmed with new concepts and choices! Vendors can be helpful, but it’s hard to scrutinize vendors’ products and services when you don’t understand the terms, products, and services. And it’s easy to make mistakes under these conditions. Help!

The eLearning Guild Getting Started series of reports will help you understand the concepts common to e-Learning design, development, and delivery. We base each report on Guild member data, and the experience and insights of many people and organizations, including this report’s author. As you get started, Guild members with more experience have learned important lessons along the way that will be helpful to you. Each report will help you make sense of the options, and help you evaluate your and your organization’s needs.

In case I use terms in this report that are unfamiliar to you, there is a glossary of terms on page 31. These are my defi nitions, and others may defi ne these terms somewhat differently. Many of these terms are adapted from defi nitions in Essential Articulate Studio ’09 (Patti Shank, author, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, June 2009).

Executive Summary

Rapid e-Learning connotes a sense of urgency… Business needs change often, and a great deal of the organizational information that workers use on the job has a short shelf life. Workers need to get up to speed quickly, and they often need accurate and adequate information right now. These needs often necessitate rapid information and instruction dissemination.

Rapid e-Learning typically compresses the instructional design and development phases, compresses or eliminates steps, and leverages new tools. These factors can lower the time to completion and reduce the cost of e-Learning. As a result, for many organizations, rapid e-Learning is the perfect place to start when getting started with e-Learning.

Rapid e-Learning makes the most sense in a variety of circumstances, including:

lower-level learning objectives,• informational content,• when content is already available and usable, and• as part of a more complex instruction strategy.•

On the other hand, you may need a more traditional approach (instead of or in addition to a rapid approach) in certain circumstances. An example is when learners need to be able to practice complex skills with detailed corrective feedback, especially when they must be able to perform critical skills with great accuracy.

Rapid approaches take advantage of authoring tools that make turning existing content into information and instruction quickly. But many rapid authoring tools are fl exible enough to use for more complex authoring as well. And, in case this isn’t obvi-ous, if you already know how to use a specifi c e-Learning authoring tool, even if it is a tool that is typically used for complex authoring, you can certainly use it to build rapid e-Learning!

There are fi ve major types of rapid authoring tools — Screencasting, PowerPoint-to-Flash, Forms-to-Flash, Other-to-Flash, and Webinar tools. A lot of authoring tools export to the Adobe Flash format. Most Guild members who answered the survey


questions use more than one rapid tool. The majority of Guild members uses one or more of the Adobe tools, including Captivate and Connect. A large percentage also uses one or more Articulate products, including Presenter and Rapid E-Learning Studio.

Guild members who answered the survey questions and are newer to e-Learning use different rapid tools than Guild members who are more experienced with e-Learn-ing. But most of the rapid authoring tools are easy to learn, so the top considerations for selecting a rapid authoring tool are the types of information and instruction that you need to build with that tool.

Introduction

“Rapid” e-Learning refers to online information and instruction that folks who do not have a lot of experience with instructional authoring can build in a short amount of time. Traditional instructional design and development processes often require months, or even years. This is because they typically involve storyboards that describe each screen, including what the learner will see and the text or narration that will appear, and multiple rounds of reviews with changes to programming and content with each iteration.

In contrast, rapid e-Learning uses design and development processes that make it possible to build and deliver information or instructional content in days or weeks, rather than months and years. It is best used for instruction that focuses on lower-tier learning objectives, and for information that requires very rapid dissemination (I discuss best uses for rapid e-Learning in detail in the When a Rapid Approach Makes the Most Sense section of this report on Page 8).

What is the difference between a rapid e-Learning project and a more traditional (slower, more complex) e-Learning project? Perhaps a picture will help. Table 1 shows two different approaches to building a specifi c e-Learning project1. On the left, you see the tasks to complete for a rapid e-Learning project. On the right, you see the tasks to complete for a more traditional (not rapid) e-Learning project. Quite a difference!

Rapid

Find existing content•

Find existing graphics and • media

Write test questions, if needed•

Build content and assessments • using authoring tool(s)

Add in graphics and media•

Test•

Deploy•

Traditional

Write a blueprint for the project: interface • and navigation, content, interactions, assess-ments, graphics, media

Work with a subject matter expert to build • content

Design interface and navigation•

Design interactions•

Design assessments•

Design graphics•

Design media•

Build interface and navigation•

Build content using authoring tool(s)•

Build graphics and media•

Test•

Deploy•

So what’s the difference? In a nutshell, tasks and time (and that’s where the term rapid comes into play). Fewer steps, fewer people involved, reduced time, and reduced costs.

1 All projects vary, so the steps shown may not be the exact same steps used in other e-Learning projects.

Table 1 Typical steps for both a rapid and traditional

(non-rapid) e-Learning project.


This report discusses the differences between rapid and more traditional ap-proaches to e-Learning, and when each makes sense. It describes the different types of rapid authoring tools and Guild members’ usage of these tools, including which ones they use most, how many they use, which are easiest to learn and use, and which are preferred by those who are newer to e-Learning and those who are more experi-enced with e-Learning.

Survey Methodology and Demographics

The eLearning Guild (hereafter called Guild) members fi ll out a member profi le, which supplies information about themselves and their organization. The data and charts in this report come from Guild member profi le data, and responses to the Authoring and Development Tools survey on rapid e-Learning tools. Members are routinely asked to respond to or update their previous responses to surveys. The data from this report comes from greater than 2,500 responses. Members were asked to update their data from September 2009 to January 2010. Note that the Guild member data used is no more than a year old. We produced the charts throughout this report from these answers.

Guild members are a diverse population of people who are involved in the design, development, implementation, and management of electronic learning (e-Learning). Although most are in the U.S.A., the Guild attracts global participation. Guild members have a wide range of job roles; they work in education, government, and various in-dustries and in organizations of varying sizes that impact diverse numbers of learners.

When reading Guild Getting Started reports, be sure to consider similarities and dissimilarities between your situation and the members who responded to survey questions. For example, organizations and institutions that are just getting started are likely to “do” e-Learning differently than those that have been involved in e-Learning for more than three years. People who primarily develop multimedia may have differ-ent opinions about authoring tools than those who primarily design learning content but who are also starting to use tools to build the content. So, it’s a good idea to con-sider how your company or institution is similar to or different from the people who answered the survey.

Guild Demographics show that If you are just getting started with e-Learning, you are not alone. Slightly more than 25% of Guild members have less than two years of experience. And greater than 40% of Guild members have more than fi ve years of ex-perience. That means you can gain from the knowledge and the lessons they learned along the way.

Guild members have diverse jobs that involve a wide variety of knowledge and skills. Instructional designers make up almost 20% of Guild members. These people typically design learning content using a systematic process to analyze learning needs, build learning materials, and determine if they are effective. But the third largest category of Guild member work focus is “Do a lot or a little of everything.” If you are new to e-Learning, you can take comfort in the fact that although there is a lot of knowledge and skill that goes into good e-Learning, many companies and institutions start small, with one, or just a few people, who do most or all of it. To be sure, some of these people work with outside vendors, but some really do do it all.

E-Learning is being used in companies and institutions of all sizes, and Guild demo-graphic data refl ects this fact. Years ago, it was assumed that e-Learning made the most sense for bigger organizations and larger numbers of learners, but that has changed. As e-Learning has become more and more mainstream, organizations of varying sizes and numbers of learners have begun to use it.

In the next section, we’ll start by considering the differences between more tra-ditional (slower) e-Learning approaches and rapid approaches, and why there often needs to be a place for both when developing online information and instruction.


Slower versus Rapid e-Learning

Since e-Learning began, there has been a desire to build it quickly and inexpen-sively. Initially, to make e-Learning quick and inexpensive, people and organizations simply put slides or documents online and called it e-Learning. But while e-informa-tion may be in the form of slides, documents, or the like, e-Learning implies more than just online information. Learning implies the ability to interact with the content, get feedback, and more. And, to provide interactions of this sort online, in the earlier days of e-Learning (not very long ago) you needed programming or complex authoring tools. So initially, most interactive e-Learning was built by multimedia developers and programmers. Some of us (including the author) learned Web programming and used industry-standard Web authoring tools (such as Dreamweaver, an Adobe product) along with programming languages such as JavaScript and PHP to build e-Learning. Becoming Web programmers was a lot of effort. (Phew.)

The good news is that much has changed from not very long ago. Easy to use and very full-featured e-Learning authoring tools now allow instructional designers, train-ers, and subject matter experts to build attractive content quickly, with or without developer help, and without the need to become a Web programmer.

In this report, we’ll consider when and how to build rapid e-Learning. We’ll start with a brief explanation of the differences between the processes of developing e-Learning in a more traditional way versus developing it using a rapid approach. This will help you see where rapid e-Learning approaches fi t in the scheme of e-Learning as a whole.

Slower e-Learning

Traditionally, the ADDIE model (Figure 2), a systematic process for building traditional as well as technology-based instructional materials2 that instructional designers often used includes fi ve phases (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation).

Each of these fi ve phases typically has a number of steps. Iteration (repetition of steps as needed to achieve the desired outcome) is common in the traditional ADDIE model. For example, during the design phase for an interviewing skills module, the content may need approval by both the human resources department and the legal department. This approval step may involve multiple people, and (this is important), the changes to content that are inevitable in the approval step will produce additional iteration in previous design steps such as changing the learning objectives and assessment items. Table 2 on Page 7 shows the phases in the ADDIE model, with some of the more typical steps in each phase.

2 We discuss the ADDIE model here because it is widely adopted and easy to visualize. There are, however, spirited discussions about the best design model(s) to use for designing instruction.

Figure 2 Traditional

ADDIE Model


The bottom line, and what is most important to know, is that traditional instructional design models are time intensive and labor intensive. That doesn’t make them bad; they simply may not be workable when the need to get information out quickly is critical.

Analysis Phase (Investigation)Determine audience characteristics • Determine desired outcomes• Establish project and technology constraints and resources• Plan the project•

Design Phase (Blueprint)Develop learning objectives• Create assessment items (test questions, performance checklists, etc.)• Write content• Edit content• Design learning activities• Design interface• Design graphics and media•

Development Phase (Creation)Develop interface• Develop content• Develop graphics and media• Write programming• Create ancillary materials (such as handouts or audio transcripts)• Integrate needed technologies•

Implementation PhaseIntegrate project into learning infrastructure• Execute the project• Maintain/update the project)•

Evaluation PhaseTest and fi x all elements during each phase• 3

Determine if project met desired outcomes• Determine needed changes• Update project plan•

What may not be obvious is that although the phases and steps shown look linear, the results of some steps inevitably impact previous steps. For example, when needed changes are determined after implementation of the project, you may need to initiate a new round of design and development changes to improve the project further. This is typical of the instructional design process, and is a major contributor to the cost and time expense of “slower” information and instruction projects. This may sound bad, but in some cases it is worth the cost and time. The next two sections explain when3 rapid e-Learning makes the most sense, and when you may need a slower approach.

3 You do testing and fi xing throughout each phase, and at the conclusion of each phase. Approval of the design is the test-and-fi x conclusion of the design phase. Approval of the fi nal product is the test-and-fi x conclusion of the development phase.

Table 2 Traditional phases and

steps of the ADDIE model for building technology-

based Instruction.


Rapid e-Learning

Business needs often change quickly, and workers need to get up to speed quickly to meet those needs. Job skills often need to change based upon business needs, and, to remain adequately skilled, workers need to be in learning mode a lot of the time. In addition, a great deal of the organizational information that workers use on the job has a short shelf life. Accurate and adequate information is often needed right now. These needs often necessitate rapid information and instruction dissemination.

Rapid e-Learning typically compresses the instructional design and development phases, compresses or eliminates steps, and leverages new tools. These factors can lower the time to completion and reduce the cost of e-Learning. As a result, for many organizations, rapid e-Learning is the perfect place to begin when getting started with e-Learning. But it’s worth noting as well that rapid approaches are often used by organizations that have been using e-Learning for years because they, too, have a need to get needed information and instruction out quickly and inexpensively.

When a Rapid Approach Makes the Most Sense

Rapid e-Learning makes the most sense in a variety of related circumstances. This section will discuss four related circumstances that lend themselves to a rapid e-Learning approach.

Rapid Works Well for Lower Learning Levels

Dr. Benjamin Bloom, an educational psychologist, helped to develop a learning out-comes classifi cation system, a hierarchy of learning outcome levels associated with what the learner should be able to do at each level (Figure 3). 4 This hierarchy helps us think about the level of learning we want the information or instruction to foster, and what we want the learner to be able to do because of the instruction (typically called a learning objective or instructional objective).

Lower Level

Higher level

Level What the learner should be able to do

Evaluation Recommend, assess, choose...

Synthesis Design, plan, construct...

Analysis Compare, calculate, examine...

Application Complete, use, demonstrate...

Comprehension Describe, identify, give an example...

Knowledge List, defi ne, label...

Rapid approaches often work well for lower-level learning objectives. For example, List the benefi ts of a Roth IRA is a far easier learning outcome for learners to accom-plish than Determine what percentage of IRA funds to put into a traditional IRA and what percentage of IRA funds to put into a Roth IRA. The former is a lower-level learning objective (knowledge) while the latter is a higher-level (analysis, evaluation) learning objective. The former requires the ability to recall benefi ts, but the latter involves analysis and evaluation of alternatives.

4 Although this classifi cation system is widely used, those in academic circles still argue about it. What is im-portant to note is that it is useful to think of learning in a hierarchy from the less complex (the learner needs to be able to list, identify, classify, and so on) to the more complex (the learner needs to be able to solve, recommend, design, evaluate, and so on).

Figure 3Bloom’s hierarchy

(also referred to as Bloom’s Taxonomy)

of learning levels, from least complex

to most complex.


Rapid Works Well for “Disposable” Information and Instruction

Designers often use a rapid approach for information and instruction considered disposable. Disposable doesn’t mean you should throw it away! It means that the information or instruction either doesn’t merit a more typical approach (which may be called for when we need to assure higher learning levels), or that the content is extremely time sensitive, changes rapidly, or goes out of date quickly.

Rapid Works Well for Informational Content

When developing information or instruction, we may need to develop a wide range of content, from documents that explain what has changed, through job aids that show the steps for completing a vacation request, to simulated environments that allow us to practice providing constructive feedback. A document is typically more informational in nature and the simulation is more instructional in nature. A job aid is somewhere in the middle.

So, as Figure 4 shows, we can think of what we might build as being somewhere on a continuum from information to instruction. Instruction generally requires more effort to design than does information, because it typically requires additional elements such as practice elements and assessment elements. It often makes the most sense to use a rapid approach for content on the information end of this continuum.

information instruction

what’s new demo job aid tutorial simulation

Rapid Works Well When Content is Available and Usable

A major factor that impacts whether you can complete a project rapidly is the avail-ability of existing, usable content. Content development often takes a great deal of time, so a rapid approach works best when needed content is already available and adequate for the job at hand. Lack of adequate content is one of the single biggest risk factors associated with rapid e-Learning projects! Even if a rapid approach otherwise makes sense, lack of adequate content will automatically add time to the process.

When considering whether you have adequate content for a rapid approach, you may need to consider the following content type issues.

Slides:• If you are using the content from PowerPoint slides as a content source, it’s likely that this content alone will be inadequate unless you are the subject matter expert who created them. That’s because, typically, content on Power-Point slides is abridged, so you will need to consider the effort needed to turn slide content into adequate content. Also consider whether the content you are using will need to be updated, verifi ed, or approved (all of which will add time to the project).

Documents:• If you are using content from documents, consider whether the au-dience for the documents is the same as the audience for the information or in-struction. If not, you may need to rework the content. Content from documents often needs condensing, so you will likely need to prioritize and condense it. And, of course, you’ll need to consider whether the content will need updating, verifying, or approval (all of which will add time to the project).

Figure 4Information/instruction

continuum


Graphics/Media:• Graphics and media can take some time to develop. Consider what graphics and media would be most useful and whether they are already available. If they are available, consider whether they will need to be updated, verifi ed, or approved. If they are not available, consider the time it will take to develop them and whether you can complete the project without them.

Other:• Other content may be available or needed. You still must determine if the content is adequate or whether you need to modify it.

Rapid Often Works Well in a Hybrid Approach

After some analysis, you may discover that a rapid approach won’t work for all elements of an information or instruction project. But that doesn’t mean a rapid approach won’t work at all.

For example, let’s consider a project whose purpose is to train sales staff on a new product. They will need to know the features and benefi ts of the product, how it fi ts into the company’s product portfolio, and how it compares to competitors’ similar products. They will also need the skills to effectively sell this product, alone and alongside other company products as well as against competitors’ products.

Let’s consider how this situation lends itself to a rapid approach and a traditional approach.

Rapid Approach

Lower-level learning outcomes:• The following learning objectives are lower-level learning objectives:

Describe product features and associated benefi ts �

Identify how the new product fi ts into the company’s product portfolio. �

Disposable information and instruction: • New product information is extremely time sensitive to sales representatives and others in the organization.

The project is on the information end of the information/instruction continuum: • The product’s features and benefi ts, and how it fi ts into the company’s product portfolio, are closer to the information end of the information-instruction continuum.

Traditional Approach

Being able to sell against similar competitors’ products and effectively selling • this product, alone and alongside other company products, are higher-level learning outcomes. They are also closer to the instruction end of the information-instruction continuum.


Whether you can use a rapid approach for part of this project, however, may depend on the availability of adequate content. Since marketing staff often prepares sales materials well in advance of a new product launch, there’s a good chance that at least some product information will be available for use in this project. You should analyze whether it is adequate before proceeding.

Note: See Appendix 1 on Page 34 for a Rapid Approach Analysis Template that will help you evaluate whether a rapid approach is likely to work for specifi c information and instruction projects in your organization.

When a Traditional (Slower) Approach Makes the Most Sense

A slower, traditional approach makes sense in certain circumstances, such as when learners need to be able to practice complex skills with detailed, corrective feedback (higher-level learning outcomes). This is especially true when they must be able to per form critical skills with great accuracy. An example of a situation that requires great accuracy includes the handling and disposal of medical waste products (such as blood and other medical waste from surgery), which can be extremely dangerous to the person(s) handling it and to others who may be exposed to it.

There are many types of instruction that involve higher-level outcomes, and these higher level outcomes typically involve not just the ability to recall information but also the ability to make complex decisions, determine what information is needed, differentiate between important details and less important details, take proper action in a wide range of situations, and so on. Although it is possible to build complex online simulations in these circumstances, doing so is likely to use more time and resources than are typically available for rapid projects. The takeaway here is that the higher the level of learning outcome, the more time and effort you usually need to design instruction that assures that learners gain and maintain these skills.

Again, this isn’t an either/or situation. It may be possible to use a hybrid approach — a rapid approach and a less rapid approach to meet the need.

Before Jumping In

A rapid approach implies jumping in and getting the project completed as quickly as possible. But building information and instruction, rapid or not, always requires time and effort. In order to reduce the need for rework, and the resources needed to do that rework, it’s always a good idea to gather some information up front that will re-duce the amount of rework needed down the road. Table 3 on Page 12 shows some of the information that could be invaluable before getting started with a rapid e-Learning project.


Information Category

Type of Information

1. Problem background

The problem to be prevented or resolved• What outcomes stakeholders are trying to achieve • Other tactics that are being used to prevent or resolve this problem •

2. Target audience

Needs of different audiences (such as sales reps and customer • service reps)What different audiences do on the job and how they do it• Needed learning outcomes•

3. Technology constraints

How and when the audience will access the information • or instruction Constraints on technologies or media that can be used•

4. Content availability5

What content is available to use• Whether existing content needs to be updated, expanded, con-• densed, prioritized, verifi ed, or approved

5. Deadlines When the project needs to be completed• Interim deadlines (such as getting approvals) that need to be fac-• tored into the schedule

6. Resources Available resources, including people (such as a subject matter • expert and a graphic artist) and tools (such as authoring tools and media development tools)

Gathering information doesn’t have to take a long time, and, if you are building e-Learning for your own company, you may already know the answers to some of the most important questions. But it is important to realize that it often is worth the time to get information up front so that you can focus your efforts in the right place. Rapid e-Learning isn’t nearly as rapid or valuable if what you produce needs to be redone or doesn’t meet the need.5

Rapid Authoring

An additional factor that determines if a rapid approach makes sense is access to needed authoring tools. Even if your project meets all the criteria previously described for optimal rapid approaches, you also need to have a way to quickly build your proj-ect, test it, and get it “out there.” In this section, I’ll fi rst explain how you may use rapid and other authoring tools for both rapid and more complex authoring. Then I’ll discuss the different types of rapid authoring tools. Finally, I’ll describe data about the rapid authoring tools that Guild members use.

Rapid versus Complex Authoring

There is an overlap in the authoring tools typically used for rapid authoring, and the authoring tools that are used for more complex authoring. What this means is that many rapid authoring tools are fl exible enough to use for more complex authoring as well. Table 4 on Page 13 describes what rapid authoring tools and more complex authoring tools typically create, and gives some examples of commonly used authoring tools in each category.

5 See the Rapid Works Well When Using Available and Usable Content section for more information about this extremely critical success factor.

Table 3 Important

information to gather up front


Category Creates Commonly Used Tools

Rapid Authoring Tools

Tools typically used to create • less complex electronic information and instruction in a short period of time, and which are easier to use for that purpose.

Many also have features that allow their use • for more complex authoring.

Adobe Captivate

Adobe Connect

Articulate Studio (Presenter, Engage, Quizmaker)

TechSmith Camta-sia Studio

Complex Authoring Tools

Tools typically used to • create more com-plex electronic information and instruction. When used in this way, they typically have a steeper learning curve.

Many also have features that allow their use • for rapid authoring.

Adobe Captivate

Adobe Connect

Adobe Flash

Articulate Studio (Presenter, Engage, Quizmaker)

Trivantis Lectora

To take this a step further, let’s look at how you might use four popular e-Learning authoring tools to build rapid information and instruction as well as more complex information and instruction (Table 5).

Tool Rapid project example More complex projects

Adobe Connect

One-hour Webinar on mobile learning

Online conference on mobile learning

ArticulatePresenter

Narrated PowerPoint slides Narrated PowerPoint slides with interactive scenarios, audio feedback, and print resources

Captivate Web application demo Interactive Web application simulation with branching

Lectora Content on changes to the company health plan added to a template

Content on changes to company health plan with interactive decision tools and games

Although Lectora is generally considered an authoring tool used to build com -plex instruction, it is quite possible to take simple content and rapidly add it to one of the templates that come with the product for a rapidly created project. And, in case this isn’t obvious, if you already know how to use a specifi c e-Learn-ing authoring tool, even if it is a tool that is typically used for complex authoring, it can certainly be used to build rapid e-Learning!

Table 4 Categories of

rapid and complex authoring tools.

Table 5Examples of

rapid and more complex projects

using popular authoring tools.


Types of Rapid Authoring Tools

Rapid authoring tools come in a variety of “fl avors.” Table 6 describes fi ve com-monly used types of rapid authoring tools, what they typically create, and examples of commonly used rapid authoring tools in that category. Remember, for the fi rst four tool types here, the more capabilities you use, the more complex and less rapid the project becomes!

Tool Type Typically Creates Commonly Used Tools

Screencast Produces a digital recording of what is happening in a computer screen, window, or application. A tool may also allow the addition and editing of narration, links, graphics and media, and interactions.

Captivate

Camtasia Studio

PowerPoint-to-Flash

Produces Flash content out of PowerPoint slides, typi-cally with narration. Tool may also allow the addition and editing of links, graphics and media, and interac-tions.

Adobe Presenter

Articulate Presenter

Forms-to-Flash

Produces Flash content such as pages or rollover graphics from content placed into forms. The tool may also allow the addition and editing of narration, links, graphics and media, and interactions.

Engage

Raptivity

Other-to-Flash

Produces Flash content such as pages, games, or sce-narios from content placed onto screens or imported. Tool may also allow the addition and editing of narra-tion, links, graphics and media, and interactions.

ArticulatePresenter

Captivate

Webinar6 Enables a live presentation with slides over the Inter-net using a virtual classroom application. Tool may also allow presenter to share his or her desktop, poll participants, and incorporate other presentation and participant interaction tools. Many record the presenta-tion as it is happening so it can be made available later, non-live. (Again, the more capabilities you use, the more complex and less rapid the project becomes.)

Connect

WebEx

It is easy to see that the dividing line between rapid and more complex authoring may have more to do with what is included in each project and less to do with the tool you use to create it. One critical takeaway: When you use any tool to create more complex content, the project you create will typically take more time (therefore be less “rapid,” regardless of what tool is used). Rapidly produced projects typically produce less complex information and instruction.6

Figures 5, 6, and 7 on the next three pages contain screenshots from three simple rapid projects using one Screencasting tool and two Forms-to-Flash tools. Each fi gure has one screenshot showing the tool in use, and a second screenshot showing the associated output.

6 Webinar applications bring together a variety of functionalities. The presenter usually builds the slides outside of the application, but they do allow you to generate other content, such as sharing the presenter’s desktop and producing social interactions such as chats and polls, inside of the application.

Table 6 Types of rapid

authoring tools


Figure 5 Forms-to-Flash tool:

Engage Glossary Interaction —

application (top) and output (bottom)

Source: Patti Shank


Figure 6 Screencasting tool:

Captivate Application Demo — application

(top) and output (bottom)

Source: Patti Shank


Source: Patti Shank

A lot of authoring tools export to the Adobe Flash format. Flash has become a de facto industry standard for interactive online content. By using tools that export to the Flash (.swf or .fl v) formats, you can create interactive Flash content without needing to use Flash to produce it (and without dealing with the steep learning curve for using Flash to build Flash content). You can often import Flash content into projects that produce HTML or Flash content.

Figure 7 Forms-to-Flash tool:

Raptivity Pyramid Interactive Diagram — application (top) and

output (bottom)


Rapid Authoring Tools Vendors and Tools

The rapid e-Learning authoring tools marketplace includes numerous vendors and tools. Figure 8 shows the top vendors of rapid authoring tools and the percentage of responding Guild members who use one or more tools from each vendor. Figure 9 on Page 19 shows the percentage of responding Guild members who use each rapid authoring tool.

The majority of responding Guild members use one or more of the Adobe tools (Figure 8). Captivate was initially an authoring product mainly designed to produce quick and easy software application demos. As you might imagine by the large per-centage of responding Guild members who use Captivate (Figure 9), the product is no longer limited to that use (although it can still make very rapid and terrifi c application demos and simulations). Approximately 25% of responding Guild members use Adobe Connect, a synchronous virtual classroom tool (Figure 9). Many of the companies new to e-Learning get started by putting some of their face-to-face classroom-based train-ing online.

One or more Articulate products are used by more than 40% of responding Guild mem bers (Figure 8). Their Presenter tool is the second-most-widely-used rapid author-ing tool (Figure 9), and their Rapid E-Learning Studio (which includes the Presenter tool) is one of the most used products by those who are new to e-Learning (see Figure 15 on Page 23). It is also the 4th most popular rapid authoring tool with responding Guild mem-bers (Figure 9).

Figure 8 Percentages shown

are of responding Guild members who

use at least one of each vendor’s rapid

authoring tools


Judging the popularity of the Articulate products is a little tricky because they sell their products both individually and as a group of products in E-Learning Studio, which includes the individual e-Learning authoring products. Adobe also sells a group of e-Learning products (eLearning Suite) that contains Dreamweaver, Captivate, and other products, but responding Guild members may consider Adobe authoring products individually because this data doesn’t identify Adobe’s eLearning Suite separately. Guild members identify the Articulate authoring products both individually and as a group, so to get a true picture of their use, you may want to use a calculator.

Why is the “Other” category so large? There are a lot of other tools used by a small percentage of responding Guild members. In addition, we placed the tools respond-ing Guild members used that did not fi t the defi niton of a rapid authoring tool (as described earlier) in this category. Remember, any tool can be a rapid authoring tool if you are already very profi cient with using it. For example, I have worked with Flash developers who can whip up Flash interactions using Flash and ActionScript (a coding language which extends Flash’s capabilities) as fast as I can whip up similar interac-tions built in Captivate or Engage or Raptivity. But even though I can code, I’m not a fast (or, for that matter, a good) coder any more because I no longer need to be, so my tool of choice will almost always be one that doesn’t require me to code. And if you are new to e-Learning the thought of coding may make you quiver, so it’s good to know that you don’t have to.

Figure 10 on the following page shows the percentage of responding Guild mem-bers who use each rapid authoring tool (as shown in Figure 9), broken down by sector.

Figure 9 Percentage of

responding Guild members who use

each rapid authoring tool.


What’s interesting here is that Guild members in different sectors are using rapid authoring tools similarly. Guild members in the Education sector do use Connect and Camtasia more than the other sectors, but most of the tool usage is very similar across sectors.

Figure 11 shows the percentage of responding Guild members who use one, two, three, or four or more rapid tools, while Figure 12 on Page 21 shows the same information broken down by years in e-Learning.

Figure 10Percentage of

responding Guild members who use

each rapid authoring tool, by sector

Figure 11Number of rapid

authoring tools used by responding Guild

members

One

Two

Three

Four or more

Number of Tools Used


The message here is that the great majority of Guild members use more than one tool, even though members who are newer to e-Learning use fewer tools. So don’t stress too much about buying the “one right rapid tool” because you are likely going to be using more than one tool. (The section on Types of Rapid Authoring Tools will show you one important reason why Guild members typically use more than one rapid authoring tool.)

Figure 13 shows the top reasons responding Guild members gave for choosing specifi c rapid tools. Many times throughout the report I caution you to choose tools that meet your specifi c needs. It’s clear that Guild members agree that this is the most important thing to consider when choosing rapid authoring tools.

Figure 12 Number of rapid

authoring tools used by responding Guild

members, by years in e-Learning

Figure 13 Top reasons for

selecting a rapid authoring tool.


Rapid Tools for Those Who Are Getting Started

Let’s dive a bit deeper into rapid tools usage data now. The next three charts will provide some information that should be helpful in narrowing down the rapid tool(s) you may want to purchase when you are getting started. They show how:

Responding • Guild members rate rapid tools on ease of use,Guild• members who are newer to e-Learning tend to use different rapid tools than Guild members who are more experienced with e-Learning, andIt really doesn’t take very long to feel profi cient with most rapid tools.•

If you are getting started with e-Learning, you may be thinking of starting with tools that have a lower learning curve. Figure 14 shows that responding members consider Keynote, Raptivity, WebEx, Articulate Rapid E-Learning Studio, and Arti-culate Engage to be the fi ve easiest-to-use tools.

Figure 14Responding Guild

members’ evaluation of rapid tools ease of use.


Figure 15 shows the responding Guild members usage of each tool by years in e-Learning. The tools most used by those with fewer years in e-Learning are shown at the top of the chart. The top fi ve tools used by Guild members with less than two years in e-Learning are Adobe Presenter, Articulate Rapid E-Learning Studio, Articulate Engage, Keynote, and Articulate Presenter. In contrast, the top fi ve rapid tools used by Guild members with more than fi ve years in e-Learning are ToolBook Instructor, Adobe Connect Pro, WebEx Presentation Studio, Camtasia Studio, and Captivate.

It should be comforting to notice that those with more experience also use some of the easier-to-use tools. That means that many of the rapid authoring tools are fl exible enough for use in a number of ways, by novices as well as by those with more expertise.

Figure 15Rapid authoring tools

used by responding Guild members, by years in e-Learning


So, should you start with the easiest to use tools? Figure 16 puts an interesting spin on that question.

As you can see, most Guild members who answered the survey question felt that almost all of the rapid tools are fairly easy to learn to use, which agrees with the data in Figure 14. In fact, almost 50% of the responses indicate that you can become profi cient in a week or less. This should be comforting ... but, how profi cient is profi cient? You would typically use rapid approaches on less complex projects, and being profi cient for rapid authoring isn’t the same as being profi cient for more complex authoring. The takeaway here is that you should pick tools that meet your needs for rapid authoring because becoming profi cient for rapid authoring isn’t too hard.

Learning to use an additional authoring tool once you have become profi cient with one or more other authoring tools is easier than learning to use your fi rst authoring tool. So if you are getting started with e-Learning and are purchasing your fi rst au-thoring tool, expecting to be profi cient in a day is probably asking for too much. But profi ciency in a week is quite possible, in my opinion. And since I’m handing out opin-ions, here’s another that I think will be helpful. Buy a book or two on the authoring tool you purchase, because the help and documentation for many authoring tools is often insuffi cient.

Choosing Rapid Authoring Tools

There are a number of considerations to keep in mind when selecting rapid author-ing tools. In this section, I’ll discuss both technical and non-technical con siderations that will help you select the right authoring tools for your specifi c needs.

Figure 16 Responding Guild

members’ estimate of the amount of

time it takes to become profi cient

at using each rapid tool.


Technical Issues

You will need to consider the access, browsers, players, and other technologies that learners will be using. Great information and instruction that doesn’t work as expected is a problem. Bottom line: learners’ computing environments and other technical issues can have an impact on what tools you should use. Table 7 shows some of the more typical technical considerations that you should explore before selecting any authoring tools.

Issues Considerations

Output: What does the tool produce?

The authoring tool(s) that you select must be able to build what you need to build. Since different rapid tools create different kinds of output, you’ll fi rst and foremost want to make sure that you consider what you want to create.

Access: Do all learn-ers need or have fast Internet access?

The speed of learners’ Internet connections may impact what media you use in e-Learning projects. Some media needs faster Internet connections to work properly.

Browser: What brows-ers and browser ver-sions will you design for?

Different browsers work with Internet technologies somewhat dif-ferently. Therefore, you’ll want to make sure that the output you are creating will work in the browsers your users use, and you should test your project in those browsers as well.

Players: What players, and which versions, do learners need or have? Can learners download and install players?

You’ll want to use tools that output to fi le formats that learners can use. For example, some networks do not allow the opening of .exe fi les. Some Flash content may require a specifi c Flash player. If learners cannot open or play the content, or cannot download needed players, they will not be able to use the content.

Monitor size and reso-lution: What monitor resolution do learners use?

You typically build e-Learning content to fi t inside a window of a selected size. Learners with smaller monitors or lower monitor resolutions who must scroll horizontally to view the content will typically be frustrated.

Printing: Will learners want to print any of the elements?

You can provide printable elements as Web pages, PDFs, or docu-ments, or as links to these pages, PDFs, or documents. If you need to include printable elements (or those likely to be printed), consider how the authoring tool will support this.

LMS: What Learning Management System (LMS), if any, does the output need to work with?

Just because a tool says it produces _________-compliant output (SCORM, AICC, etc.) doesn’t mean that it will work with a LMS that tracks that same compliant instruction. If you need your specifi c LMS to track specifi c things that you build with your authoring tool, make sure it will do that.

Different types of rapid authoring tools produce different types of output, and the tools let you make modifi cations that might work better in some technology circumstances than others. As a result, it makes sense to think through these issues before purchasing rapid authoring tools.

Table 7 Technical issues that

may impact tool choice


Non-technical Issues

There are also non-technical issues that may impact the tools you use. Table 8 de-scribes some of the more typical non-technical issues that you should explore before selecting any authoring tools.

Issues Considerations

Compatibility with other tools your organi-zation already uses.

If people inside and outside of your organization (who will be working with you on your e-Learning courses) are using authoring and development tools, it often makes sense to use the same tools they use (or for them to use the same tools you use). It makes it easier to share fi les, resources, and expertise.

Tolerance for learning curve

People who are new to authoring and development tools are likely to prefer tools with fl atter learning curves. Those with more exper-tise often prefer greater fl exibility, and typically worry less about learning curve.

Budget If budget is a consideration, consider the total cost of ownership, including the cost of the tool, training, updates, integration with a LMS, and tech support. Although budget may be an issue, penny-wise can sometimes be pound-foolish. More expensive tools may be “cheaper” if they better meet your needs or are more fl exible so you can use them for multiple purposes.

WOW factor It’s easy to see a demo and think, _____ (fi ll in the blank with a tool name) is the greatest thing ever. Vendors often use a lot of resourc-es to create demos, and you may not have the same resources. Do your homework, and select tools that best fi t your resources and your needs.

Vendor characteristics Consider vendor longevity and reputation, and the support that they provide. Also consider their dedication to the learning tools space.

As you can see, there are many issues to consider in determining the best rapid authoring tools for you and your organization. Appendix 2 provides a template that combines Tables 7 and 8 for your use in analyzing these issues for your situation.

In most cases, the choice is a balancing act, like most purchasing decisions. You want something that works well and provides value for the money spent. It may not be perfect in all ways, but it is the best choice now and in the near term. Why didn’t I say long term? Because technology changes rapidly, and so do tools and organizational requirements. What you need now and what you’ll need in 10 years is likely to be different. Count on it.

Table 8 Non-technical issues that may impact tool

choice.


Final Thoughts

E-Learning has increasingly become mainstream, one of a host of strategies for de-livering information and instruction to the right people at the right time. The fact that you are getting started with e-Learning now means you can build on the successes of those who went before you and avoid some of the mistakes they made. You have far more stable technologies and tools to work with than early adopters had to contend with. This is very good news indeed, and it will shorten your learning curve and reduce hassles.

Rapid authoring is a good place to begin when getting started with e-Learning because the information and instruction you produce is less complex and easier to produce. It often makes sense to start small, learn along the way, and gain momentum and skills as you gain experience.

Remember that the difference between rapid and more complex e-Learning ap-proaches is often the complexity of the project. If you keep adding extras — “creeping features” — to a rapid project, that project will cease to become rapid. And remem-ber too that many of the rapid authoring tools have loads of fl exibility and can easily produce complex information and instruction. So, if you think you will want to build more complex information and instruction down the road, take some time to see some examples of complex information and instruction produced by the tools you are inter-ested in. You’ll probably be amazed.

Although the options and decisions to consider when starting e-Learning are sometimes complex, using common sense will get you quite far. For example, don’t build e-Learning for people who have no access to it (unless you are going to provide access and training to use it, if necessary). Don’t buy tools until you know what you need. Vet vendors’ claims. Start small, and learn along the way. And this series of Getting Started reports will be here to help.


Important Takeaways

The following is a list of the some of the most important takeaways from this report.

“Rapid” e-Learning, as the term is used throughout this report, refers to online • information and instruction that can be built in a short amount of time by folks who do not have a lot of experience with instructional authoring. As a result, rapid e-Learning is often a good place to begin when getting started with e-Learning.

Rapid e-Learning leverages new tools, and typically lowers the time to comple-• tion and the cost of e-Learning development.

Rapid approaches are also used by organizations that have been using e-Learn-• ing for years because they also have a need to get needed information and instruction out quickly and inexpensively.

A rapid approach works best for•

Lower level learning outcomes �

Disposable information and instruction �

Projects on the information end of the information/instruction continuum �

The simpler parts of a more complex e-Learning project �

Projects with readily available and usable content �

A slower, traditional approach still makes sense in certain circumstances, such • as when learners need to be able to practice complex skills with personal feedback (higher-level learning outcomes).

Many rapid authoring tools are fl exible enough to use for more complex • authoring as well as rapid authoring.

Some of the types of rapid authoring tools include Screencasting tools, • PowerPoint-to-Flash tools, Forms-to-Flash tools, Other-to-Flash tools, and Webinar tools.

The• Guild members who answered the surveys use Adobe and Articulate rapid authoring tools the most.

Guild• members who answered the surveys often use more than one tool. Those with less e-Learning experience tend to use different rapid authoring tools than Guild members with more e-Learning experience.

Purchase the tools that can produce the information and instruction you need • to produce. That means it’s critical that you fi rst determine what information and instruction you need to produce!


References and Resources

From The eLearning Guild (www.elearningGuild.com)

Learning Solutions articles:

Comparing Rapid Development Solutions: Flypaper™ vs. SmartBuilder• ™. Dar-ron Johnson (January 20, 2010). http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/ar-ticles/349/comparing-rapid-development-solutions-fl ypaper-vs-smartbuilder

The Continuous Learning Environment: Surviving Learning Solution Discovery• . Gary Wise (July 27, 2009). http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/16/the-continuous-learning-environment-surviving-learning-solution-discovery

Authoring Tools, Ghosts, and Scared Programmers• . Joe Ganci (June 29, 2009). http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/27/authoring-tools-ghosts-and-scared-programmers

Webinars: A Beginner’s Guide• (First of Three). Roger Courville (June 1, 2009).http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/39/webinars-a-beginners-guide-fi rst-of-three

Beginner’s Guide to Webinars: Engagement Above and Beyond “The Usual”• (Second of Three). Roger Courville (June 8, 2009). http://www.learningsolu-tionsmag.com/articles/35/beginners-guide-to-webinars-engagement-above-and-beyond-the-usual-second-of-three

Beginner’s Guide to Webinars: Blending Webinars With Face-to-Face • (Third of Three). (June 15, 2009). http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/33/be-ginners-guide-to-webinars-blending-webinars-with-face-to-face-third-of-three

Speeding Towards Design … Seven Gotchas.• Christina Fisher (October 13, 2008). http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/77/speeding-towards-design--seven-gotchas

Improve Your Bottom Line! Careful Consideration of Learning Technologies • Pays. Heather Brooks (June 9, 2009). http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/96/improve-your-bottom-line-careful-consideration-of-learning-tech-nologies-pays

How We Did It: Rapid Content Development Turned Demonstrations.• Caroline Bennett (June 2, 2008). http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/98/how-we-did-it-rapid-content-development-turned-demonstrations

Guild Research Reports:

The Rapid e-Learning Development Research Report The eLearning Guild (April 2005)

The Rapid e-Learning Research Report The eLearning Guild (April 2006)

Guild White Papers:

Exploring the Defi nition of “Rapid e-Learning.” Bill Brandon (2005 The eLearning Guild) http://www.elearningguild.com/showfi le.cfm?id=898


Guild e-Books:

The eLearning Guild’s Handbook of e-Learning Strategy. http://www.elearningguild.com/content.cfm?selection=doc.817

Other Resources:

Instructional design models: • http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/id-models.html

Patti Shank’s annotated resource list: • http://delicious.com/LearningPeaks

Jane Hart’s directory of learning tools: • http://c4lpt.co.uk/Directory/index.html

Tom Kuhlmann’s Rapid E-Learning Blog: • http://www.articulate.com/rapid-el-earning

Training Media Review’s Authoring Tools Reviews: • www.tmreview.com/Editorial.asp?ID=1718 (note that I have completed reviews for TMR)

Authoring tools mentioned in this report (alphabetically by vendor and tool name):

Adobe Captivate: http://www.adobe.com/products/captivate •

Adobe Connect: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobatconnectpro/•

Adobe Flash: http://www.adobe.com/products/fl ash •

Adobe Presenter: http://www.adobe.com/products/presenter/•

Apple Keynote: http://www.apple.com/iwork/keynote/•

Articulate Studio (Presenter, Engage, Quizmaker):• http://www.articulate.com/products/studio.php

Cisco Web Ex: http://www.webex.com/•

Rapid Intake ProForm Rapid eLearning Studio:• http://www.rapidintake.com/proform/

Raptivity: http://www.raptivity.com/•

TechSmith Camtasia: http://www.techsmith.com/camtasia.asp•

SumTotal ToolBook Instructor:• http://www.sumtotalsystems.com/products/toolbook-elearning-content.html

Trivantia Lectora: http://www.trivantis.com/products.html•


Glossary

These are the author’s defi nitions. Many of these terms are adapted from defi nitions for Essential Articulate Studio ’09 (Patti Shank, author, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, June 2009).

Term Defi nition

authoring and devel opment

tools

You use authoring and development tools (also called applications or software) to create electronic information and instruction, and the me-dia used in electronic information or instruction.

e-Learning Information or instruction delivered by electronic technologies that may or may not be networked.

feedback Evaluation of learner’s actions or responses, usually to a choice that the learner selects. The purpose of feedback is to help the learner improve.

Flash An Adobe authoring tool typically used to develop animations and simulations. Increasingly, it’s also used to develop Websites and Web applications.

interaction Learner actions that impact what learners see and do with the materi-als. This can be low-level interaction, such as selecting which link to click or higher levels of interaction, such as answering questions and making decisions about a scenario.

interface Computer screen elements (including buttons, navigation, headings, and so forth) and placement of those elements.

job aid Typically, an electronic or print document that describes how to per-form step-by-step tasks. (Other types of job aids are developed, but these are the most common.)

media Media are specifi c means of communication. Typical media for com-municating an informational or instructional message include text, im-ages, simulations, animations, audio, and video.

player An application that adds functionality to a Web browser, such as the ability to play animations, audio, or video. (For example, you need the Flash “player” to view Flash content.)

scenarios (also called branched

scenarios)

Interactive content where the learner chooses actions and gains feed-back based on his or her choices. The scenarios may be “branched,” so that the learner’s path through the interactive content changes based on his or her “choices.”


Glossary (cont.)

Term Defi nition

simulation Simulations allow the learner to interact with the content in a realistic way. Typical simulation types:

Software: Allows the learner to interact with, and gain feedback • from, a virtual version of a software application. We often divide software simulations into demos (where the learner watches how someone performs the task) and actual simulations (where the learner interacts with the content to perform some of the tasks themselves).Process or Procedure: Allows the learner to interact with and gain • feedback from virtual versions of a process or procedure.Soft Skills: Allows the learner to interact with and gain feedback • from virtual versions of human interactions.

tutorial Instruction that allows the learner to systematically practice doing a task, typically as many times as desired, and often with simple or de-tailed feedback.


About the Author

Patti Shank, Ph.D., CPT, is the president of Learning Peaks, LLC, an internationally recognized instructional design consulting fi rm. Before starting her own company, she was involved in and managed training and health education, and she currently works with corporate, higher education, and professional development clients and content experts to improve information and instruction. Patti is listed in Who’s Who in Instruc-tional Technology and is an often-requested speaker at training and instructional tech-nology conferences, including The eLearning Guild conferences (which she LOVES!). She is the co-author of Making Sense of Online Learning (Pfeiffer, 2004), editor of The Online Learning Idea Book (Pfeiffer, 2007), co-editor of The E-Learning Handbook (Pfeiffer, 2008), and co-author of Essential Articulate Studio ’09 (Jones and Bartlett, 2009). Patti is an award-winning writer, and has written articles for Learning Solutions Magazine, Adobe’s Resource Center, Training Magazine, and Magna Publication’s On-line Classroom. She is passionate and outspoken about improving outcomes from per-formance improvement and instructional projects, and her research on new online learners won an EDMEDIA (2002) best research paper award.


Appendix 1: Rapid Approach Analysis Template

Using the When a Rapid Approach Makes the Most Sense section (starting on Page 8) as a reference, use this table to analyze whether a rapid approach makes sense for a given infor-mation or instructional project.

Issue Analysis Notes

Learning Outcomes

List learning Outcomes/Objectives:

Learning Outcomes Levels

What levels of learning outcomes are listed above?

Evaluation: �

Synthesis: �

Analysis: �

Application: �

Comprehension: �

Knowledge: �

Information/Instruction Continuum

Where on the Information/Instruction continuum does this project fall?

Information Instruction

Content Availability

What existing content is available for use in this project?

Slides: �

Documents: �

Graphics/Media: �

Other: �

Content Usefulness

What do you need to do to the content to make it usable for the project?

Update it: �

Expand it: �

Add text content: �

Add graphics/media: �

Add test questions: �

Add other content: �

Condense it: �

Prioritize it: �

Verify it for accuracy: �

Approve it for use: �

Other: �

Hybrid Approach

If you cannot complete all parts of the project us-ing a rapid approach, which parts of the project can you complete using a rapid approach?


Appendix 2: Authoring Tools Analysis Template

Using Tables 7 (on Page 25) and 8 (on Page 26) as a reference, use this table to analyze the constraints that you need to consider when selecting rapid authoring tools.

Technical Issues

Output: What does the tool produce?

Access: Do all learners need or have fast Internet access?

Browser: What brow sers and browser ver sions will you design for?

Players: What players and which player versions do learners need or have? Can learners download and install players?

Monitor size and resolu-tion: What monitor resolu-tion do learners use?

Printing: Will learners want to print any of the elements?

LMS: What Learning Man-agement System (LMS), if any, does the output need to work with?


Appendix 2: Authoring Tools Analysis Template (cont.)

Non-technical issues

Compatibility with other tools your organization already uses

Tolerance for learning curve

Budget

WOW factor

Vendor characteristics