Pivot: Improving the Quality of eLearning

I’m starting to think one of the reasons there’s so much dulleLearning out there is that the industry can’t agree on a definition ofquality. What if we turned to the International Organization forStandardization (ISO) for guidance on how to define quality, a necessary firststep before establishing quality standards? According to the ISO, qualityrefers to “the totality of featuresand characteristics of a product or service that bears its ability to satisfystated or implied needs.” This definition explains, in part, why qualityeLearning can be elusive: when an organization’s stated or implied needs arenot balanced with those of learners, one side or the other is not satisfied.

With the ISO in mind, here’s a checklist for improving thequality of eLearning. Seven of the suggestions apply to eLearning and organizationalneeds, and seven apply to eLearning and employee needs. Note that these assumethat each eLearning solution is error-free in its functionality and content.

eLearning and organizational needs

It’s reasonable for organizations to expect—and require—thattheir eLearning, whether developed in-house or by an external vendor, be:

• Technicallycompatible. The eLearning solution must be developed using courseware and/orsoftware that is compatible with employees’ workplace or personal computers,tablets, mobile phones, software, and browsers.
• Accessibleacross devices. The solution should meet WCAG 2.0 LevelAA accessibility standards, and provide learners with alternate versions of theinformation to facilitate both screen-reader and post-training access. Itshould also be responsive to different devices and screen sizes, therebywidening learners’ access to the information.
• SCORM-compliant.The solution should be coded to “play well” with the organization’s learningmanagement system.
• Carefulwith corporate branding. The eLearning should adhere to corporate brandingstandards, deviating only when and where appropriate.
• Not toolong, not too short. Gone are the days of three-hour eLearning modules; 20– 30 minutes seems to be the maximum tolerated for separate learning objectstoday. Of course, short learning objects (aka microlearning)can be bundled together in a larger program, but learners should be able tofinish an eLearning course in the time it takes to go for a walk.
• Measurable.The organization must be able to measure whether the eLearning coursecontributed to the desired behavior, and met learners’ expectations foreffective training. Thankfully, we have years of Dr.Will Thalheimer’s work to guide us in conducting better evaluations.
• Designedand developed within a reasonable timeframe and for a reasonable cost.L&D senior managers: please do us all a favor and set reasonable parametersfor the amount of time and money it should take to develop explainer videos,20-minute eLearning, 15-minute podcasts, 10-page eBooks, etc. Some eLearningdesigners and developers are not given enough time or resources to do a qualityjob, while other organizations tolerate six-month schedules for 30-minute storyboards.

eLearning and employee needs

It’s also reasonable for learners, aka employees, to expectthat their digital training be effective (see Dr.Will Thalheimer’s “The Decisive Dozen”), but also:

• Appealingand interesting. If a topic is important, then it’s worth taking the timeto create a learning experience that resonates with employees. If it’s boringand/or dull, their attention will rightfully wander.
• Intuitive.Figuring out how to navigate through an online course should not interfere withactual learning. In fact, eLearning courses should include the same level ofnavigational instructions that an organization’s website offers, i.e. little tonone. If you need to add pages of instructions for navigating the interface,redo the interface. Intuitive designs do not need instructions.
• Diverseand inclusive. Our workplaces are diverse;our eLearning courses must reflect our workforces in a way that tells them thatthey belong and are valued. eLearning standards must include the samecommitment to online diversity and inclusivity that most organizations upholdin person. Courses must stop reinforcing unconscious biasand perpetuating old ways of thinking about gender. For example, can we agreeto lose references to “he/she” and use “they” instead? When was the last timeyou saw a French manicure on that ubiquitous image of a handshake?
• Readable.eLearning should talk with employees in the same way mentors do in person.Quality standards should include a Flesch-Kincaidreading ease score of 60 – 70, which is considered acceptable for onlinecontent.
• Respectful.AsI’ve mentioned before, employees assume they will be spoken to and treatedrespectfully in the workplace, and that expectation extends to eLearning. Thetone of voice in eLearning can easily become dogmatic, authoritarian,impersonal, punitive, and/or dull if this simple feature is not spelled out ineLearning standards.
• Memorable.We remember training when it surprises, enlightens, challenges, engages,and/or delights us. We expect these qualities in our classroom instructors; isit not reasonable to require them in our eLearning as well?
• Motivating.When an organization needs employees to change their behavior, sharpen theirskills, or adjust their attitude, they need to do more than provide information—theyneed to motivate their employees with thoughtful training that shares the “why”and “what’s in it for me,” right up front.

Improving the quality of eLearning