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: ,

2 thoughts on “Keeping Interactivity at the Center of Rapid Development

  1. Hi Jeffrey, sounds like the conference is very engaging and brain cells are firing all over the place – even if in defense of “the way we were”. If it really takes this much time to develop from a learning based perspective – it is easy to see how we’d get a lot of resistance from those paying us to do the development. Hmmm, I also am thinking about the role of informal learning (Jay Cross) and in this age of social media and collective intelligence, how might we tap into the whole group’s wisdom? What informal ways might we encourage learning so that our formal ways have deeper roots?

  2. Great questions, LaDonna.

    On initial thinking, one of the ways of fostering and promoting informal learning is by doing what we do here. Engage the blogosphere (and anybody out there who may stumble upon these posts or Tweets or what have you) with some of the same messages we promote in our work, but in more of an interactive (conversational? engaging? relevant?) way to try to promote reflective practice and the like.

    One of the ironic things I have noticed at the conference is the variety of ways people within the training and development field have been trained themselves. Few of my colleagues have formal training in adult learning theory, with a focus more on technical skills, design and process models, and the like. I have studied both adult education and business education (HRD) formally, and was surprised in the process how little overlap there is in the formal academic world.

    I have never read Jay Cross (though I have some of his books I have gathered over the years). Where can you suggest to start?

Comments are closed.