Keeping Interactivity at the Center of Rapid Development

Bryan Chapman is about to do what appears to be an interesting session, one that is very much needed at one of my organizations (VNSNY) that I represent here. The main project on which I am working is Clinical Orientation Redesign Project, and we are planning to move a lot of our training into rapid eLearning development.

Bryan started his session with a Family Feud interactive game, listing a number of reasons why people do not use interactivity during rapid development (cost, skill set, technology, time, etc.).

He then explained how much time his research (though I am not sure if it is via his own company or through Brandon Hall, where he said he used to work. BTW, another use and set of references for research without any explanation of sample size, methods, etc.) demonstrated it takes to create various sorts of learning.

Did I hear him correctly? He just said:

  • It takes 34 hours to create every one hour of instructor-led training
  • It takes 33 hours to create every one hour of PowerPoint to rapid-developed eLearning
  • It takes 220 hours to create every one hour of standard eLearning (simulation, etc.)

I wish Bryan would have discussed his research around this. He did list some of the references on his handout, but the reference was to the Brandon Hall materials, and not the research process or methodology by which the process was created.

The IBM Learning Model is an interesting concept–60% of the learning is basic content, and can be done individually with eLearning. The next 20% is scenario-based eLearning, and the final 20% is instructor-led and reinforcement. In this model, the 60% would take 33 hours for each content-based eLearning, while the next 20% would take 220 hours each, and the final 20% would take 34 hours for each 1 hour.

Bryan is a really engaging speaker.

He just linked Bloom’s Taxonomy with the IBM Model-knowledge and comprehension are the out layer of eLearning content; application is the simulation component; and analysis (the why), synthesis (new and better improved methods), and evaluation (is this a good way to do this?) are all in the instructor-led components.

Bryan finally offered some software demonstrations of some tools, from the pricey but interesting Raptivity (full interactive version is over 8k, to the free Hot Potatoes and Quandry. Lots of great programs, and I can just hear the same initial objections during the Family Feud still being loud and present in the reasons for why these programs should not be used.

Technorati Tags: ,