TATA Interactive Systems

Compliance Training: Key Challenges

Regulatory and compliance training has always been a thorn in the flesh of training managers. There are the regulatory authorities to satisfy as they want records of training completion; there are the reporting managers to reckon with because they don’t want their wards to be off their workplace for too long; there are the learners to manage, because they don’t particularly find the content interesting. Then there is the business end of it – how do you ensure that compliance training leads to compliance, and how does that lead to an improvement in organizational performance? Answers have been sought, with limited success. Little wonder then that compliance training has been long on rhetoric and short on transformational approaches. Here are five key challenges in developing e-learning courses in compliance training.

Teaching Without Teaching

After eight years of scripting lessons that start with objectives and end with a summary, it is a welcome change to script stories for TATA Sky, India’s premier direct-to-home television service. There are no modules or lessons, no tools or tips, no knowledge checks or learning aids, no graphic organizers or assessments; just seven screens of fun, color, and magic!

Scripting for TATA Sky Actve Stories is a writer’s dream. It is about writing stories for children in the age group of 3 years to 10 years. Some of the stories are original; some are adaptations from folklore, grandmother tales, mythology, and history; and some others are anecdotes from the lives of great national and international personalities. All stories are moral based or deal with a problem that children of the target age group commonly face like, getting lost, sharing, being clean, being lazy, etc. Each story is of the same small size—just seven screens! The first screen is the title screen and the remaining six house the story with full screen graphics and 2-3 lines of text each.

For me, the greatest satisfaction of being part of this project is being able to see the stories on television and seeing user reactions first hand. Almost every day (since I do not have a TATA Sky connection as yet), I head to the nearest Croma (an electronics retail chain in India, also owned by the TATA Group) to check out the story being aired that day. And while the salesman rattles out the benefits of taking a connection for the umpteenth time, I skip through the seven screens, drool over the awesome graphics, and try to ignore my son shouting, “Mummy you wrote that?” On some days when we have friends and family visiting, the enquiries for TATA Sky connections in Croma are a little more. But the real satisfaction is when I stand behind and watch the little children in the store leave their parents and rush to stare at the screen.

TATA Sky Actve Stories do not have the fast paced animations or the action packed sequences children of today are used to. But it yet succeeds (as initial feedback suggests) in its own charming way, in doing what it is meant to do—introduce children to a magical world of characters who live and learn from experience just like they do, and teach them some morals without actually doing so.

(Susan John is Senior Specialist – Instructional Design at TATA Interactive Systems)

Awards Season for Tata Interactive

Gifts in the festive season are normal and welcome, but awards are even better. And when we landed two awards this month, we couldn’t stop smiling. So allow us to preen a bit.

Blockbuster Approach to Instructional Design

I am eating my words. I am selling myself down the river. I am completely contradicting what I wrote in my blog post circa 2006, titled “Give me Back My Fun Learning!” in which I thundered against rapidly developed, plain vanilla e-learning and lamented for fun-filled, engaging e-learning.

Call it fickle mindedness or call it evolution, but ladies and gentlemen, I have seen light. I have realized that e-learning in the corporate sense is not about the “greater artistic question” but about the “greater business question”.

In a sense, the distinction is similar to mainstream blockbusters and art-house cinema. True, e-learning as it is “ought to be” needs to be fun/funny, out-of-the-box, and challenging; it needs to surprise; and it needs to push the envelope of the medium. But e-learning that works with the masses ought to be plain functional.

This wisdom comes from working with a leading multinational manufacturing company in the past year.

The e-learning we were engaged to develop for them was part of a company-wide strategic realignment journey. E-learning was to be an enabler and a change agent that would help its close to 100,000 employees across the globe change the way they have been working and adopt a new way.

Because of the business imperative, e-learning development was time-bound and mission-critical. So naturally, we chose the blockbuster route. If the word “formula” has already suggested itself to you, give yourself a cigar!

Our formula was governed by some “Thou Shalt” rules, as one of our SME puts it. It included the following:

1. Thou shalt keep it simple: You will not make the learners jump through the hoops of frustrating interactions, bewildering exploratory activities, and tricky questions. Make the learning to-the-point and get to it quickly.
2. Thou shalt keep it short: Remember that the learners have tons of other stuff to learn/unlearn, in addition to their daily job-related activities. Don’t stretch them.
3. Thou shalt keep it consistent: Far too much is changing in the learners’ lives even without playing a game every time they open an e-learning program. Use a template that is easy to understand and rely on.
4. Thou shalt keep it literal: Metaphors, puns, flourishes of style, and “clever” or “cute” animations/images only irritate the learners. They are also difficult to translate.
5. Thou shalt keep it in context: Let the learners know why they are doing it before launching them into games, case studies, or “try it” activities. If you are telling them a fictitious story, let them know upfront.
6. Thou shalt not be a perfectionist: While guarding against blatant errors and inaccuracies, don’t treat e-learning as a magnum opus. In the real world, continuous improvement makes far more sense. E-learning development and implementation is an iterative cycle in which every new version is better than the one before. Get it out so that this cycle can start.

Has it worked? Well, early results seem to indicate that it has. Close to 10,000 learners have taken around 40 hours of learning and they’ve scored us (on an average) 5 on a scale of 0 – 6. Moreover, all e-learning modules are out on time for senior management to implement downstream strategic activities.

And what about me? Much as I dream to be the “independent” e-learning maker, I am currently enjoying my role as the wily studio executive!

(Priya is Deputy Practice Head – Instructional Design, Products & Skills Training Practice at TIS.)

Effective eLearning ID: Tech Skills Req'd?

Alan Kay, a true pioneer/legend in the Computer Science world, once said:

"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware."

Apple CEO Steve Jobs has referenced this quote several times when challenged with the idea of making Apple more profitable by taking a page from Microsoft's strategic play book and concentrating efforts primarily on software.

Without speaking for Mr. Kay and what it was that he intended with this famous phrase, one potential interpretation is that living in operational silos makes for less than stellar results.  The more you have isolated groups who have little/no understanding or appreciation of what goes on in other operational divisions, the less likely you should expect anything groundbreaking or revolutionary to emerge.  The best one can expect in such a circumstance is a more finely polished version of what has been seen before, due to a lack of understanding of what is possible and reasonable.

Relating this interpretation to the world of online learning and instructional design, I have gone back and forth over the years regarding if the best (eLearning) IDs also have a more-than-passing familiarity with the basics of computer science, programming, and some of the more popular/powerful authoring tools. 

Reflect, for a moment, on the following:

• Are the IDs you admire/respect the most tech literate?
• In recruiting, do you explicitly look for tech abilities/understanding as one of the characteristics that are required?
• Are tech skills something your organization supports developing (in the form of ongoing training) in its ID team members?

Why? Why not?

I'm still not fully convinced one way or another, but I have a heavy leaning...

In my 16+ years in the field, I've seen far too many examples of designs thrown over the wall to developers that detail either mind-numbingly simple interactions (for lack of knowledge that anything better was possible) or amazingly complex pipe-dreams that would require a form of A.I. to actually implement (for lack of understanding of what sorts of logic would necessary).  In such cases, I can't help but believe that having a moderate understanding of how development work is done would make for better designs (and ultimately, courseware).

Just as a good architect can't simply design based on what 'looks good', but actually needs to have a basic understanding of the strength of various materials and how they may (not) interact with each other, perhaps the best IDs should know be conversant with Programming Concepts 101 (maybe 201? maybe more?). 

Of course, there will always be the counter argument that such a background should be regarded as a 'nice to have', not a 'must have'. After all, didn't Frank Lloyd Wright design beautiful homes that had notoriously leaky flat roofs? (it is said that FLW once told a client to "Move the chair" in response to a complaint of rain leaking through the roof of their house onto the dining table.)  But should we build the rule based on the exception?

How would the ID profession change (both positively and negatively) if we suddenly began to require more of a tech-bent?  Would we end up cutting our noses off to spite our face?  Or would we see a sudden surge in the quality, sophistication, and ingenuity of the instructional solutions that are thrust upon the world?

I'd like to hear YOUR thoughts, regardless of what they are, or how fully fleshed out they might be!

Weigh in!

(Jon Revelos is the Director of Instructional Design and Story-based Learning at Tata Interactive Systems)

Facts vs. Stories: And the winner is...

Michael Moore's latest movie, Sicko, is a powerful example of how Stories trump Facts when attempting to teach material that is intended to invoke change (mental and/or active).

Although the film won't be in wide release in the US until later this month (June 29th), Moore has been on the promotional circuit non-stop since his latest work debuted at Cannes' annual film festival (where he won top prize of Best Picture three years ago for Fahrenheit 9/11').  This time around, Moore set his sites on the flawed American health care system.

This blog isn't the proper place to comment upon the in/validity of the content within Sicko.  Nor is it the right forum for arguing the pros and/or cons of socialized medicine.  Besides, a quick search on the 'net will turn up more than enough 'discussion' on these topics.

I'm mentioning this movie here not because of WHAT material is contained in the film, but rather because of HOW that material is presented.

Learners Are "Bulletproof"

The title of this entry was inspired by a passage from Craig Wortmann’s terrific book, “What’s Your Story?” It speaks to both how communication has shifted in recent years and the ineffective nature of the way we often attempt to teach.

Just as lengthy memos were replaced by brief emails, which were, in turn, overtaken by IMing and SMS (thanks to increasingly powerful mobile phones/devices), the way we converse and communicate is becoming more and more staccato’d . Increasingly, we are speaking to each other in fragmented facts and bullets instead of descriptive and nuanced narratives. In pursuit of speed, we have traded away “rich/engaging/compelling” for “fast/efficient/familiar”. In many ways, this is a fool’s bargain, and it’s beginning to show.

Q: What is the longest standing, most tried-and-true, and instinctually natural way of passing knowledge from expert to novice?

A: Leave your laptops, Powerpoints, and Blackberries behind… Forget about books, manuals, and job aids… It’s the ancient art of storytelling.

I’m planning to post a series of entries about the power of Story in Instructional Design in the coming weeks/months, but I figured this observation regarding bullet points was a good place to begin the journey. It speaks to the importance of context and the way we process, store, and recall information.

When you tell someone a set of facts and figures, it can make a temporary impact, but it’s usually quickly forgotten as decontextualized white noise. What’s lacking is meaning and relevance to the listener – in order for something to be understood at a deep level and retained for more than a few days (hours?... minutes!?...), there has to be a personal connection made. Something that relates the new information to old, personal, previously understood information. Something that refines, extends, contradicts, augments, or otherwise changes the existing set of cases and rules that exist in the learner’s mind. Without this comparative review and adjustment, any ‘learning’ that may occur will ultimately be fleeting.

So, we need to move away from the expedient habit of disseminating data in meaningless bullets and rediscover the importance of context, which can be created in the form of stories.

Blending ISD and Performance Improvement Models

Training professionals are often called upon to stretch their skills into the broader world of performance improvement consulting. Short of a certification in performance improvement, what is a practical step to take in this direction? I propose the development of blended models that emphasizes the elements that training and non-training solutions have in common rather than what distinguishes them.

My interest in a blended model was heightened by my work last year with Caterpillar University in Peoria, Illinois. In addition to instructional systems design skills, Caterpillar teaches its internal learning consultants a human performance improvement (HPI) model based on ASTD’s model.

While ASTD uses an HPI model, ISPI offers a human performance technology (HPT) model. Both are designed to attack a broad range of performance problems with either training or non-training interventions, as appropriate.

Quality vs. Speed

This month, the Learning Circuits Blog threw up another toughie.

What are the trade offs between quality learning programs and rapid e-learning and how do you decide?

We tossed the question to two of our colleagues. An instructional designer brings the (surprise, surprise!) learner into the picture while a business manager puts his nose to the grindstone (and the client to the forefront) as the two of them put mouse to mouse pad.

Dr. Shwetaleena Bidyadhar, Senior Instructional Designer

I would like to approach the ‘Big Question’ of this month from a Need Saliency perspective.

Most motivation theories stress that intrinsic factors (such as job satisfaction) are higher order motivators and should be valued more than extrinsic factors (like money). Is this necessarily true? In reality, an individual’s needs may be intrinsic, extrinsic, or some combination of both.

The Need Saliency Theory (Kanungo, 1982b) evolved as an alternative approach to such theories. It states that our involvement in a job depends on its potential to satisfy our salient needs. We should first identify an individual’s/group’s priorities and then look for ways to satisfy these, rather than make generalizations about what would motivate them. Is there a lesson in this for us? Should we label a design strategy as being of ‘better quality’ in isolation of learner profile and training requirements? Based on this theory, can we draw a parallel to the issue of rapid vs. quality e-learning?

When designing an e-learning course, quality learning products may seem like the ideal thing to recommend. We know that this approach inevitably means more design and development time. It also leads to higher costs. Does this approach always translate into enhanced learning retention and a high return on investment? Is the degree of correlation between these variables significant?  Is something that is interesting for us to design equally interesting for a learner to go through?

The underlying assumption that rapid e-learning does not lead to quality learning may be questioned. Rapid e-learning has its uses and applications. It may suit certain types of learners and situational requirements better. It also brings higher benefits to clients by reducing development costs and ‘time to learning.’

The design decision should be arrived at after a detailed analysis and evaluation of all information available. We should not approach this stage with the preconceived notion that rapid learning means ‘less learning’.

Borrowing terminology from research methodology, if ‘design decision’ is an independent variable’ and ‘effective transfer of this learning’ is the dependent variable, some of the moderating variables could be:

• User psychographics
• Type of content
• Desired level of learning
• Immediacy of need for learning
• Delivery medium or blend suitable
• Budget

A rule of thumb could be to use rapid e-learning where the important learning material is structured, and simple. It can be ideal for easy-to-memorize skills or for highly motivated and busy learners. Enhanced treatment including use of games, simulations, and multimedia may work best for content that requires a higher degree of cognitive processing and analytical skills. In the real world, our proposed solutions mostly use an optimum combination of both. This increases effort to some extent but may lead to better transfer of training.

I would like to conclude by reiterating the importance of the first and last stages of the life cycle of most e-learning projects – taking into account the learner profile of the present project and analyzing learner feedback from similar projects.

Sometimes it’s as simple as paying attention to the basics!

Sticky Learning

By the time the average next generation student completes college, he or she would’ve spent more than 10,000 hours playing video games and 20,000 hours watching television, sent and received more than 250,000 e-mails and text messages. Can you guess how much time he or she would’ve spent reading? Less than 5,000 hours. In a world full of digital distractions, it is a challenge for educators to keep learners engaged. Traditional e-learning programs seem to have missed the boat on the engagement factor. Narrators are just talking heads. Avatars are plain boring. Sound effects are canned. It’s blah, blah, blah and click Next to yawn. Essentially “sit and get” (that too only if the student hasn’t zoned out after screen 3).

CompassLearning (a WRC Media group company) seeks to differentiate itself by offering programs that engage and educate. The company has created programs based on a concept called Interactive Conversation Interface (iCi), pronounced “icky.”  This concept simulates a conversation with digital devices engaging the user in the content.   Says Josh Braun, Vice-President of Product Development at CompassLearning, “You can have the best pedagogical approach you want, and can cover all the standards, but at the end of the day, if the students are going to zone out, it’s all for naught.” 

The Future Of Instructional Models

Here is November’s Big Question from Learning Circuits: Are our models (ISD, ADDIE, HPT, etc.) relevant in the future? The question does not stop there. The LC blog follows it up with “Are ISD/ADDIE/HPT relevant in a world of rapid elearning, faster time-to-performance, and informal learning?” Although Learning Circuits must have seen both these question together as defining one problem statement, I see two distinct questions here. 

Let me respond to the “first question” first. The relevance of a model depends on how you use it rather than when you use it (past, present, and future). In this case, the question seems to imply that the models in question are traditional (ISD, ADDIE, HPT, etc.). However, the use of brackets, the addition of “etc.” and the absence of the word “traditional” or “conventional” makes the question open to interpretation—which is not a bad thing. 

“Our models” are somewhat like this question. A model by its very definition is generic; it acquires specificity only in local contexts. So, if one is to assume that ADDIE is top-down, behavioristic, and ID driven, then it will appear to be so. On the other hand, if a few learners decide to use the process elements of ADDIE to design learning for their own use in a Second Life kind of platform, the application of this model takes on a completely different perspective. 

Therefore, the problem lies not with the models, but in how we approach them and what we take out of them. We should be able to appropriate models, not just apply them literally or reject them outright. By appropriating a model, we make it relevant to us and to our times.

Rearranging Deck Chairs on the Titanic?

Jay Cross recently posted some interesting (and startling) statistics about the impact of what we, in the custom learning design and development business, make a living doing.

(Low Hanging Fruit is Tasty)

Consider the following blurb (three times - once to allow your amazement to pass; a second time to allow your denial to pass; and a third time to slowly and deeply consider the ramifications, if this is even remotely true):

Formal training programs are not the only learning game in town. CLOs who spend the bulk of their time improving the development and delivery of training might be optimizing the insignificant. Consider this:

• According to Tom Gilbert and Peter Dean, training only accounts for 10.5 percent of the total potential change in worker behavior. Clarity of objectives, working conditions and other factors are more important.
• According to the Institute for Research on Learning, at most, formal training only accounts for 20 percent of how people learn their jobs. Most workers learn their jobs from observing others, asking questions, trial and error, calling the help desk and other unscheduled, largely independent activities.
• According to Robert Brinkerhoff and Stephen Gill, people who do attend formal training never apply 80 to 90 percent of what they learn back on the job. They forget the bulk of what they’re exposed to in a matter of days.

So, formal training accounts for 20 percent x 20 percent x 10 percent of the possible improvements you can make to worker performance. That’s 0.4 percent. To account for potential double-counting and other quirks, let’s say training might influence 1 percent of worker potential. C-level officers who want the human capacity to thrive over the long haul are looking for more.

Now, I'm certainly not lobbying for the end of formal training, but perhaps there is some merit to calling for the end of the *current version of* formal training.

With all that is known about HPT/HPI, Simulations, and Story-based Learning, not to mention long-available but minorly-leveraged knowledge about EPSS, why is it that the vast majority of the eLearning work that is done today resemble electrified versions of what was used to teach our great grandparents?  Why are Jay's ideas regarding "informal" and "free-range" learning (for instance) readily accepted in theory, but largely ignored in practice?

We can do better (and it doesn't have to mean a loss of business).

When will learning professionals, who know in their heart that what their client is asking for isn't going to solve their problem or have the desired impact, feel confident to act on their responsibility/obligation to say as much?

When will customers (internal and external) allow the T&D professionals they've hired (again, internal or external) do what they do best, rather forcing them to act as glorified order takers and production shops for knee-jerk/best-guess remedies?

It may be a utopian wish that will never arrive, but, as Robert Browning said, "A man's reach should exceed his grasp or what's a heaven for?"

(Jon Revelos is Director - Instructional Design, USA with Tata Interactive Systems)

Give Me Back My Fun Learning!

Call me a spoil sport, call me a traditionalist desperately holding out against new trends, but terms such as “Speed is King” and “Rapid Creation” in the context of e-learning sends a chill down my spine. To me, speed often means “plain vanilla” and “no jazz” and “no fun”, because there is just not enough time or resources to add such elements.

I do understand the compelling business requirements that drive Rapid e-Learning. I appreciate the needs of businesses to deliver rapidly-changing information such as the latest product knowledge, competitive intelligence, and corporate initiatives that help employees to respond quickly. We are all living in “future shock” zone and acceleration has become a way of life.

But whither fun learning? What about learning that is engaging, interactive and exciting? What about the amazing things that can be done on the (not so anymore) new medium that adds to the learning experience?

My angst is that of a learner, not of a developer.

When I was 10 years old, my all-consuming passion was to learn Indian classical dance. Fearing that I will waste away with the longing, my parents arranged for an instructor in great haste. She came with excellent credentials—she was a product of one of the premier performing arts institute and had a lot of successful students.

The enterprise lasted for a tenuous 18-month period despite my high levels of motivation because the instructor just failed to engage me in the process. In fact, she managed to de-motivate me with her unimaginative, “don’t-ask-questions-because-it’s-the-way-things-are-done” approach. I think both of us heaved a sigh of relief when I dropped out in the end.

This has been more-or-less the story of my life. Suffice to say that I was never popular with my teachers.

This is perhaps why I am always pushing the envelope when it comes to participative learning experiences.

Give me games; give me case studies that I can sink my teeth into; give me “wow” concept diagrams to fix my mental models; give me an exploratory learning experience that sharpens my “aha” moments; give me humor—in short, give me fun!

(Priya Thiagarajan is a Senior Instructional Design Consultant at TIS)

Examining Learning Environments

To say that effective learning happens only in an environment conducive to learning is to state the obvious. What exactly is this environment? Here are three types of environments that can affect the learning process: 

1. The environment where the learner works (in the corporate context)

• Does this environment support a learning culture?
• Does it employ people who are open to learning new things and unlearning old things?
• Does it encourage intellectual interaction among its employees?
• Does it support positive skepticism-in the sense of not taking things for granted?

2. The environment which imparts learning (the media and the strategies employed to facilitate learning)

• Does the medium suit the learner and the content?
• Do instructional strategies engage the learner?
• How much power does the learner have in directing the course of learning?
• Is the depth of content pitched at the level of the learner’s expertise or lack of it?

3. The learner’s internal environment (in plain words, his/her mental state)

• Is the learner in a positive state of mind?
• Does the learner have any deep-rooted preconceptions about the nature of the content?
• Does he or she prefer the quiet corner of self-paced learning or the active sphere of collaborative learning?

Attrition Analysis

My brother works in Chennai in the South Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Tamil is the dominant language there and while business is conducted in English, Tamil is the language spoken otherwise, even at the workplace. Little wonder then, that the office attendant, the boy who served coffee to everyone and did most other menial jobs in the office, spoke in Tamil.

One day, my brother noticed that boy sitting in a corner reading one of those books that claim to teach you English through your mother tongue (in this case, Tamil). My brother was surprised and asked the boy why he was trying to learn English. The boy replied (in Tamil, of course; translated here), “Sir, I have been noticing that many people have been resigning from the office in the last few months, and the new hires are mostly from outside of Tamil Nadu. Which means that I cannot speak with them in Tamil. So I am trying to learn some English so I can communicate effectively with them.”

Trendspotting? Or Adaptability?

Have similar stories? Do write in. Could provide interesting insights for Training Needs Identification.

(Geetha Krishnan heads Instructional Design at Tata Interactive Systems)