Blog Post

Articles
4 MIN READ

3 Things to Consider Before You Add Interactivity

TrinaRimmer's avatar
TrinaRimmer
Former Staff
9 years ago

A while back I wrote an article on five ideas for turning boring bulleted lists into engaging interactions. Fundamentally, those ideas were about transforming static content into something more engaging for learners.

But making content interactive doesn’t always improve the learning experience—or even guarantee it’s more engaging. Adding interactivity in the wrong situations just puts more clicks between learners and the information they need to do their jobs. So, if you’re not sure when to turn content into something complex like a full-blown branched scenario and when to keep it streamlined and simple, here’s some food for thought.

What’s the Training Goal?

Generally speaking, there are two types of training goals that instructional designers see. Let’s take a look at them and see how they impact course design.

Sharing information 

Here, the goal of training is to convey critical information—like policies or procedures—and for learners to show they can correctly recall them. 

When the goal is strictly to share information, try to keep it simple. Make finding those facts in your course as straightforward as possible, and even consider if you need a course at all. In some cases, an online glossary, an interactive job aid, or some other helpful performance support tool could solve your training challenge more effectively.

Building or acquiring skills

In this case, the goal is to acquire or improve skills. While this training may also involve sharing information, there’s much more emphasis on how learners should apply it while performing their jobs. 

Building a skill often takes time, guidance, and practice. And including interactions can give learners the support they need along the way. Consider experiences that help them practice application or break down complex skills into smaller ones that are easier to master. For instance, learning how to drive a forklift for the first time involves understanding how several different controls on it work. Rather than creating an interaction that has someone try to learn them all at once, you can make this complex skill more approachable by creating several smaller interactions: one for each control.

Interactions like scenarios and simulations can give learners a safe environment to try out how they’d use their new skills on the job. Going back to the example, once your learners had those simple skills mastered, they could take things up to the next level and try a scenario where they use multiple controls together. And since it’s just a scenario, they can safely make mistakes until they get it right.

Is the Interaction Relevant?

I once met with a client who wanted to build a training program for new salespeople. Their vision for it was an interactive history of the company. Learners would start by selecting an avatar and then they’d curate key pieces of company information to get familiar with the organization’s rich past. I’ll admit: it was a very cool concept. But it was also an hour’s worth of content that wasn’t particularly helpful or relevant to new salespeople. Ultimately I had to let the client know that idea wouldn’t help their new salespeople do their job: sell products. 

When it comes to training content, relevance is key. When the information you’re sharing is easy to digest and helps folks perform their jobs, you won’t need to add lots of bells and whistles (or clicks) to get their attention. That said, learners will appreciate a more complex interaction if it’s the best way to help them grasp or refine a skill they care about.

Where and How Will It Be Used?

Another important aspect of context is use. Learners accessing training on the go may not have half an hour to invest in a how-to course. Take an internet installation technician, for example. When you’re training them ahead of time to set up a fancy new modem, that’s the perfect time for an interactive simulation. But when that same technician is out on the job with a customer peering over their shoulder, asking them to sit through a thirty-minute interactive simulation to troubleshoot a faulty setup isn’t very helpful, is it?

More Learning

By considering these three questions before you add interactivity to your e-learning, you’ll avoid sinking valuable development time into interactions that aren’t necessary. It’ll also help you refine the interactions that you do include, giving learners experiences they'll find to the point and useful.

For more on this topic, be sure to check out these articles from the E-Learning Heroes archives:

When do you add interactivity to your courses? When do you keep it simple? Jump into the conversation with a comment below, or add your voice to the mix in our Building Better Courses forum.

Subscribe to our newsletter to get the latest e-learning inspiration and insights directly in your inbox. You can also find us on LinkedIn and X (formerly Twitter). And if you have questions, please share them in the comments.

 

Published 9 years ago
Version 1.0
  • Interesting that this article goes back in time but not surprising. Most developers and especially new ones need to know that just because it is cool does not mean it helps people learn. That should still be the goal of all projects. I like that you start with things like job aids, glossaries, and other support tools. Sometimes people just need information and quickly.

    There have been many times when I saw something in the Elearning Heroes Challenges that was amazing, but when I recreated it for a client, it did not fly. It did not meet their needs, and I needed to recognize that. Unfortunately, several of my clients still do not have fast reliable bandwidth, so the simpler the eLearning the better.
  • Very important questions, Trina! Too often I see interaction for the sake of checking the interaction box but not really meeting a learning goal. Sharing with my team!
    • TrinaRimmer's avatar
      TrinaRimmer
      Former Staff
      Glad you enjoyed the article, Dave. Appreciate the share as well!
  • Great, read, Tina!

    Part of the confusion out there is about the actual definition of interactivity. People tend to mix two types of interactivity: user interface (physical between your mouse and the application) and learning (mental process, decision making, feedback loop). The latter, you do it every day when you work. Without any courses. Like reading this post. You decided to read Trina's words. It does not involve too much, maybe scrolling. But the meaning behind the words resonates, you decide to try something new next time. You get feedback on how it went. That's important mental interactivity.

    On the other hand, for example, here's my pet peeve the "click to reveal" concept. That is physical interaction between you and the object to click on to reveal the text behind. Unless it also comes with a question maybe, or decision, it is strictly a click. AN EXTRA CLICK just to see something!

    Don't get me wrong, there are appropriate ways to use click to reveal but if the learner's goal is to find info quickly, it is just a noise in the system. It also makes me suspicious. If it is relevant and important, why is it hiding? What if I missed clicking on that thing? Oh, that's why I can't move on from this page, it forces me to click. Got it. So, now my mind is totally somewhere else...
  • NeilStevenson's avatar
    NeilStevenson
    Community Member
    Great article! Refreshing to see an objective look at when to add and when to hold back on the interactivity. I think a key point you make is to determine if the content is intended to share information (usually regulatory) or to build skills. Sharing information is usually best done by presenting training that is quick and to the point. Building Skills courses usually make a clear 'What's in it for me' statement that adult learners appreciate. Thank you Trina.
  • MarkDawdy's avatar
    MarkDawdy
    Community Member
    Appreciate the thought-provoking article Trina. It made me think of how important it is to deliver the training in a way that meets the needs of the learners. Sort of like playing the game Pictionary - it's all in the way the picture is drawn.

    For example, if you're trying to get your team to say "train," you don't start drawing the caboose, cars, and then engine.
    You draw either the tracks first or front of the engine with the stack and smoke and 90% of people will say "train." Training is similar and we shouldn't over complicate it, even though novelty is important to stimulating brains, it doesn't mean activity in and of itself is needed.

    I really like what the authors say in Training Ain't Telling, Learning centered, performance based." For example, "you have a group of technicians who have to learn about a new approach to diagnosing a problem. Do you want them to: 1) know about the new approach, or 2) do the job correctly?"

    Obviously your goal is to have them perform the job correctly, not just learn the details or memorize facts.

    Thanks again for sharing the thoughts, much appreciated.
  • Really nice article Nicole! You describe the difference between delivering designing support and designing learning by doing (applying knowledge).
  • Thank you so much! I was beginning to think that because our courses (which mostly share information) weren't scenario-based and ultra interactive, they were somehow less effective--and definitely not as "good." To be sure, I'll still strive for interactivity whenever possible, but I'll also continue to emphasize graphic design principles and traditional instructional design conventions!
    • LindaSampson's avatar
      LindaSampson
      Community Member
      Michelle, thanks for sharing your comments. It sounds as if we're developing the same types of courses and I've had some of the same feelings as you. I guess the phrase "less is more" really does apply sometimes. I will keep striving for excellence in the principles that are important for my courses and at the same time make them as engaging as possible. Thanks Trina.
    • TrinaRimmer's avatar
      TrinaRimmer
      Former Staff
      Thanks for reading and commenting, Michelle. I think you're right that there are a lot of different ways to define "good"e-learning. Just because something isn't full of clicks and scenarios doesn't mean it's not effective.
  • Excellent article and references! Im looking forward to digging more into this topic.
  • LeeMillard1's avatar
    LeeMillard1
    Community Member
    Holy relevance Batman! This is such a great article and only really skims the surface of the how, when, and why to use interactivity in eLearning. Brilliant job Trina! I am sharing this all over!
    • TrinaRimmer's avatar
      TrinaRimmer
      Former Staff
      Holy article feedback, Lee! So great of you to read and chime in. I'm glad this article will be so helpful to you. I'm always happy to lend a hand to a fellow caped crusader in the fight for awesome e-learning!