Kurt Meyer

June 2016 - TD Magazine

A focus on communication and relationship management helped ITU AbsorbTech achieve its strategic growth plan.

Team Play

This is the second of three posts that discuss the importance of employing information design in your soft-skills e-learning.In the first post we suggested that information design is the key to successful e-learning. We stated—rather bluntly—that the reason legacy e-learning (in particular soft-skills e-learning) failed was that it was built with dated instructional design principles and ignored information design.Instructional design is about the mechanics or organizing learning content. Information design is the art of creating compelling content (Think: television, movies, music videos, documentaries, and so forth) that engages people. Instructional design and information design aren’t enemies; they’re partners. Great e-learning requires both.Meet an information designerLynda.com is currently producing some of the best e-learning content. To understand why it works so well, I spoke to one of its presenters about the process he went through creating a software course.He explained how he worked primarily with a “producer” at Lynda.com. It was, in fact, the producer who selected him to be a presenter, and made sure he was good enough to appear on camera.Throughout the process, the producer had him revise his script repeatedly before the shoot. While filming, the producer coached the presenter exhaustively on his voice tone, rhythm, diction, posture, eye contact and facial expressions. She made him re-shoot segments when he sounded too mechanical. She made script edits in real-time because what sounded good on paper didn’t sound good on video.This producer is an information designer. Everything that Lynda.com producer did was driven by her fear the learner might become bored, or that the presenter’s style or demeanor might erode his credibility and authority. Indeed, an information designer’s greatest fear is losing the learner.Instructional designers typically don’t have the same skills that the Lynda.com producer did, nor do they approach e-learning with this sort of perspective.Information design and short-form e-learningOur research shows that corporate e-learning is shifting in the direction of bite-size content. We refer to this as short-form e-learning—modules about the same length as a You Tube video (five to eight minutes). Even long-form programs, such as one- to three-hour programs from Lynda.com or Skillsoft, tend to be broken up into YouTube-like “chunks.”Information design for short-form e-learning should follow four key principles:1. Frame the learning objective narrowly. For example, “introduce one idea that addresses one challenge and leads to one desired outcome.” I have an acknowledged bias for single-concept learning because modern employees have short attention spans and tend to take a “google-search” approach to training. They want one solution in-the-moment-of-need, as in “I’m about to make a cold call, how do I introduce myself in the first 20 seconds?” or “I’ve got to tell Joe he’s got a personal hygiene problem. What do I say?”2. Answer the question “Why am I here?”right away—and with radical clarity. The learner needs to understand two things in the first 20-30 seconds: This module addresses a single challenge that matters.This module will offer a solution. For example, a leadership module on how to delegate might start with a story about a manager who created a train wreck because she didn’t know how to delegate. If the story is compelling, the learner will think: “Anybody who can connect emotionally with me that effectively must have a good solution. I’ll hang around.” I recently watched a module on a well-known bite-size learning platform, in which the instructor introduced a general topic, and then dove into a fascinating piece of research. But I had no idea why she was telling me about it. I didn’t know, “Why am I here?”Legacy instructional design tended to launch modules with a list of learning objectives. Some may argue that this approve gives the learner a sense of “Why I am here.” But does it engage the learner? Does it grab the learner by the throat and connect emotionally? No. Lists of learning objectives are anti-information design. 3. Be credible. I said in my last post that we need to think of e-learning as an act of persuasion. Training is about changing behavior, which is tough without credibility. The best e-learning establishes credibility in three ways:They use credentialed subject matter experts (SMEs). For instance, reference to an authority from a Harvard, Stanford, or some specialized association during the course description will get people to log in.They exhibit strong presentation skills. The vast majority of highly authoritative SMEs—even many who are terrific at live training—are wooden on camera and have little credibility. Actors, even when they’re really good, often lack gravitas because they really don’t know what they’re talking about. It’s no secret that Lynda.com and others are selective about who appears in their videos. They know that credentials might get people to log in, but only great on-camera presentation skills will get people to stay.They offer research. If you’re trying to convey one concept that’ll change one behavior, a credible academic or institutional research study can help. It’s one thing for me to tell you to stop eating trans-fats. It’s another if I show you a Harvard Medical School study saying trans-fats will kill you. When you combine all three elements, you’ve got an e-learning module that will persuade learners to deploy winning behaviors and get better results. 4. Bring multimedia production expertise to the party. Because an e-learning module is by definition a video, it involves a complex mix of live action, animation, photography, illustration, and audio. The information designer might be an expert at none of those, but must pull them together to clearly communicate a message and avoid anything that could distract the learner. This doesn’t mean you need Hollywood-caliber production values or jaw-dropping computer animations. Just as legacy instructional designers believed embedded interactivity was sacred, I hear of lot of people say that live-action video is required for a credible “New E-Learning” module. I’m not so sure. Instead, I believe anything but stellar live-action video production could hurt you.In The One World School House, Salman Khan explains that he doesn’t use video in his modules because human faces are, “a powerful distraction from the concepts being discussed. What, after all, is more distracting than a pair of blinking human eyes, a nose that twitches, and a mouth that moves with every word? Put a face in the same frame as an equation, and the eye will bounce back and forth between the two. Concentration will wander.”Bottom lineThe business we’re in is changing dramatically. That’s unnerving, but also very exciting. I don’t think anybody’s figured out the best way to deliver bite-size learning. Do you need video? If so, how good (and expensive) must it be? If not, what’s the best way to convey authority and professionalism? Is it through words, photography, and illustration?Over the next few years, I look forward to seeing how the most innovative minds in the field will tackle this tricky challenge. In the early days of e-learning, the question was, “How do I deliver a lot of knowledge in a lot of space?” That didn’t work. Our challenge today is, “How do I deliver a powerful, compelling learning concept in a little space?”Fasten your seatbelts. It should be a fun ride.

Elements of Effective Information Design

An independent panel investigating the recent failures of the Secret Service told Congress on February 12, 2015, that agents were trained at “unacceptable” levels.Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson formed the four-person panel in response to Secret Service security failures and morale issues. The panel interviewed hundreds of Secret Service employees and officials, reviewed thousands of documents and talked to hundreds of officials and experts inside of government and out. The panel, which issued its initial findings in December, told members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee the Secret Service that employees are stretched “too thin” and “starving for leadership.” In addition, the resulting decrease in training and increase in forced overtime has hurt the morale of the agency’s workforce. Indeed, according to the findings, the average Secret Service agent trained roughly 46 hours in fiscal year 2013, and the average uniformed division officer trained a paltry 25 minutes, down significantly from years prior. The data shows that in 2008 there were eight special agent basic classes and seven uniformed division basic classes. By 2011, that number had dwindled to five for six, respectively, and by 2013 each division received just one training class. However, police departments and federal agencies with protective divisions that dedicate anywhere from 5 percent to 25 percent of their time to training. “We all are in agreement the levels are unacceptably low,” said panel member Danielle Gray, a litigation partner at O’Melveny & Myers.This begs the question: How will the Secret Service improve its training—and its performance?

Kurt Meyer

About