RISE- Automatic Certificate Creation
I've been playing around with how to create a custom certificate in a Rise course and I've finally found a workaround using an embedded form that creates and delivers a PDF. Check it out: https://share.articulate.com/IcrVo3X-PV5k7x9CMMFkx I've been struggling with this for a long time and I know a handful of you have been too. Hope it helps! ps. I used the AI Assistant to create this mini course based off of the video I recorded outlining the steps, which I also included as content within the course to follow along.Expert Insight Needed!
Hi Everyone! I am a graduate student in an Instructional Design and Performance Technology program. In my Distance Learning Policy and Planning course, we are conducting an informal research investigation on current use of technology in our field. We are tasked with finding out what practitioners are using out in the real world, and how they feel about those technologies. Can you please share the platforms you use and your own personal feelings about these technologies (what works well, what is challenging, etc.) for purposes such as: Delivering instruction or training (such as an LMS) Communication and collaboration Assessments or testing Analytics Thank you so much for helping me learn from your experience!❓What Is an LMS… Really? And How Do LRS and LCMS Fit In?
I’ve noticed a surprising lack of consensus around this in the industry so I thought it might be useful to do deep dive and ask: 🕵️What is a Learning Management System (LMS)? Is there an official checklist that a piece of software has to meet to earn that title? And what about a Learning Record Store (LRS)? Or a Learning Content Management System (LCMS)? The answer? There isn’t actually a universal, enforceable definition that says, “This is an LMS!” Instead, the industry’s largely settled into a “call it what we want” model, where marketing often defines classification more than behavior. 🤷 But from a practical engineering and standards-based perspective, I think we can be a little more precise—especially because specs like AICC, SCORM, xAPI, and cmi5 clearly define the roles and responsibilities of LMSs compared to other components. 💡Here’s how I define an LMS at the functional level If a piece of software does all three of the following, I consider it an LMS: Hosts eLearning content built to a standard (like AICC, SCORM, xAPI, or cmi5) and makes it accessible via a portal or interface Provides user/learner management (logins, assignments, access controls, etc.) Records user/learner data and makes that data available for analysis or reporting Why those three? Because every major eLearning specification includes a section titled “LMS Responsibilities”—and when you distill that down to a Minimum Viable Product (MVP), these are the pieces that remain consistent. All other features—dashboards, UX bells and whistles, analytics layers—are useful but not required for a system to be an LMS by role. Many elements of an LMS are actually outside the scope of eLearning specifications! 🔍What About an LRS? A Learning Record Store (LRS) is similar in some ways, but with a few key differences: It doesn’t need to host the content (though it can) It can treat events or content as "experiences" tracked through xAPI It identifies users, but doesn’t typically manage roles or course permissions It records structured learning data, but doesn’t always offer built-in analytics In essence, LRSs are structured databases designed for learning data. Because of their database-like nature, they’re often paired with LMSs in what I’d call "LMS/LRS hybrids"—systems that handle frontend access and user roles while leveraging xAPI data for deeper analysis. Fun fact: cmi5 itself is a kind of an LMS/LRS hybrid by design. It was created specifically to fill the gap left by xAPI’s lack of LMS-like mechanisms, such as content launching and attempt tracking. 📚And an LCMS? An LCMS (Learning Content Management System) is the fusion of two worlds: A content authoring tool An LMS While it’s not a spec-defined term, it’s useful for describing platforms that allow you to both create and deploy learning content in one place. These systems can really streamline workflows and help teams consolidate tools. There are a few LCMSs out there on the market—and depending on your use case, some may even straddle the LRS category too! 🤔Is that all there is to it? Maybe! But it's a huge world out there and the number of LMS and LRS platforms grows and shrinks almost daily. Each one brings its own nuances and minor differences, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's a type of system out there I haven't encountered yet! Your turn: Which platform(s) do you use and how would you classify them—LMS, LRS, LCMS, or a hybrid? Or, are there other criteria you’d add to the list when deciding what qualifies as an LMS? It's a big world out there, and I can't explore all of it alone, so I look forward to hearing others' thoughts and ideas!Graphic Design Resources
I've been in ID for years now but was never formally trained - just figured it out as I went. Other companies I worked for didn't have the budget for certification and neither did I. I'm confident in my ability to create clear, engaging content. What I'm less confident in is my ability to "make it pretty." I rely heavily on the available formats and templates, which isn't a bad thing, but I want to grow beyond that. How does someone decide on a splash of color here, a swoop there, creative transitions or animations? I'd appreciate any tips, tricks, resources for improving my graphic design skills in course creation, because I feel a bit stuck at the moment.How does your organization support different ways of thinking and working?
For the neurodivergent folks in L&D… Lately I’ve been thinking about what it’s actually like to build learning experiences with a neurodivergent brain, ADHD in my case. Not just how it influences my design decisions (as mentioned in my previous post), but how it shapes the experience of doing this work inside a team. For me, neurodivergence shows up as a kind of heightened sensitivity to flow, clarity and cognitive load. It helps me spot moments where a learner might lose their place, or where a step needs more framing to feel safe and predictable. That part has become a real strength. But there’s another layer I don’t see discussed much in our field: How well do our teams understand the way our brains work? Not in a clinical sense, more in the everyday reality of collaboration, feedback, expectations, and creative problem-solving. Things like: having time to process before diving into solutions getting clear checkpoints instead of vague “keep going” feedback having tools and structure that reduce mental friction balancing flexibility with predictability For some of us, these aren’t preferences. They directly affect how well we can design. So I’m curious to hear from others who identify as neurodivergent, in whatever way that shows up for you: Do you feel like your strengths and challenges as a neurodivergent designer are understood in your team or workflow? And how does your neurodivergence influence the way you approach learning design itself? Share only if you feel comfortable. I know these conversations can be personal. But I also think they make our craft stronger, because the more we understand our own brains, the better we design for everyone else’s.Check Out the New Free Downloads Section in ELH!
We launched a new section in ELH dedicated to free downloads, a space to grab templates, assets, and resources to help you build faster and smarter. 👉 Link to Downloads Hub 💡 What would you love to see added? We're planning more content for this space and would love your input. Drop a comment and let us know: What kinds of templates or assets would be most useful to you? Are there any specific course types, industries, or formats you'd love help with? Have you downloaded something you found especially helpful? Let us know! Your ideas will help shape what comes next in the hub, and could even inspire new community contributions. Thanks for helping us build a library by the community, for the community.What Would You Love to See in ELH?
ELH has long been a space for e-learning creators to share, connect, and grow, and what makes it special is you. Whether you’ve been here for years or just joined recently, your voice helps shape where this community goes next. As we explore new ways to support sharing, learning, and connection, I’d love to hear from you: 💡 What would make your ELH experience even better? Drop your ideas, big or small, below. Here are a few prompts to get you thinking: What kinds of threads or posts do you always click on? What would you love to see more of? What makes you want to post or reply? Any rituals or ideas you’ve seen in other communities that you’d love to try here? 🗓️ Want to chat 1:1? If you’d like to have a more in-depth conversation, you can sign up for a short call with me. I’d love to hear more about how you use the community and what would make it even more valuable to you. Thanks for being part of this community. 🙌
A lightweight workflow for handling scope changes after storyboard approval
Hi everyone, One problem I keep seeing in training projects is that a storyboard is reviewed and approved, but new requests continue to arrive afterward. The issue is usually not the feedback itself. The problem is that a late request can quietly become part of the approved scope without anyone making an explicit decision about: - whether it is inside or outside the original scope; - what impact it has on course duration and development effort; - who is responsible for the decision; - whether it belongs in the current version or a later release. I have been testing a lightweight workflow with three parts. 1. Lock the approved baseline Record the original learning objective, approved scope, version, and decision owner. After approval, the baseline should not be silently overwritten. 2. Turn every late request into a decision For each request, record: - requester; - requested change; - in scope or out of scope; - impact on duration, effort, and review cycles; - decision owner; - target version; - accept, defer, or reject. 3. Separate four different events These should not be treated as the same thing: - Review completed - Changes requested - Version approved - Final release recorded A reviewer finishing their comments does not necessarily mean that the version has been approved, and version approval does not necessarily mean that the course has been released. I also converted this workflow into a small browser-based pilot: https://training-learning-rails.vercel.app/ It requires no account, does not upload files, and stores the pilot data only in the user’s own browser. The tool is secondary to the workflow. What I am most interested in understanding is: At what point does this process differ from how SME and stakeholder approval actually works in your organization? I would especially appreciate examples where: - multiple SMEs give conflicting instructions; - an approved storyboard continues to grow; - nobody is sure which version was finally approved; - review completion and final sign-off are confused. MosesLess Is More Is Not Just About Content, but About Learning Experience
After working in instructional design for many years, I've come to realize that "less is more" is often misunderstood. It is usually associated with simplifying content, such as making courses shorter, reducing information, or avoiding overload. But in my experience, it goes beyond that. Even when we have correctly identified what learners need to know, do, or change in order to meet business goals, there is still another important question: How should we design the learning experience itself? The goal should be to help learners learn with the least unnecessary effort. Not by removing depth or rigor, but by removing friction that does not contribute to learning. Over the years, I've seen many different approaches to learning design. Some learning experiences feel under-designed, where the lack of structure or intention makes it difficult for learners to stay engaged or understand the purpose of the content. I've also seen cases where, in an effort to avoid being "too simple" or "boring," additional layers of interaction, visual elements, or gamification are introduced. Many of us have probably spent hours building advanced interactions in Storyline or carefully structuring a Rise course because we wanted the learning experience to feel more engaging. There is nothing wrong with using these features. The question is whether they genuinely support learning. Sometimes these additions are driven more by what the tool allows us to build than by what learners actually need. As a result, learners may end up spending more time completing interactions than understanding, retaining, or applying the knowledge that really matters. This is especially important in corporate learning. Learners are often balancing training with their daily responsibilities. Time is limited, and attention is limited. That is why I believe we should be intentional about where we add complexity. Interaction is not the problem. In fact, meaningful interaction is essential for learning. The key word is meaningful. The most valuable learning experiences are those that help learners understand concepts more deeply, retain what they have learned, and apply that knowledge in real work situations. This is where I choose to focus my design effort. Not on adding interaction for its own sake, but on identifying the moments in learning that truly matter. Instead of asking, "What cool Storyline feature can I use here?", I think we should be asking, "How does this interaction help learners understand, retain, or apply what they need to learn?" When we design with that intention, learning can often become simpler while also becoming more effective. That's the kind of learning experience I continue to strive for. I'd love to hear how you decide when an interaction is truly worth adding.Redesigning Under Constraints: Condensing 8 Hours of Training into a 1-Hour eLearning Module
In most projects, SMEs provide slides, facilitator guides, or at least some documentation. In this case, I received none. The request was to convert a full-day (7–8 hour) onboarding workshop into a 1-hour e-learning course. Instead of materials, I was invited to attend the live session as if I were a new hire. The onboarding itself was highly activity-based (discussions, reflections, group exercises...). As a training workshop, it worked well, but that's exactly what made the conversion harder. The real challenge was this: How do you compress a full day of experiential learning into one interactive hour without simply digitizing the activities? That alone would have been enough to deal with. But then another constraint surfaced. The original workshop had been designed by an external consulting firm. Leadership later raised concerns about copyright and ownership. I was instructed not to replicate or closely resemble any of the original activities, even the ones that had consistently received the best feedback. That meant redesigning everything from first principles. How I decided what to keep from the 8-hour workshop Rather than starting with the activities themselves, I focused on understanding what the workshop was really trying to achieve. Observing the learning intent behind each activity While attending the workshop, I paid close attention to several things: * What the company expected learners to gain from each activity * What learning goals those activities were meant to support * How participants reacted during the session and what feedback they shared After the workshop, I asked the HR what they had observed from employees who previously completed the onboarding? Which behaviors seemed to reflect the intended outcomes, and where they still noticed gaps? One question I specifically asked was: What behaviors or thinking patterns do you expect a new hire to demonstrate after this training? Once I understood what the training was really trying to do, it became much easier to decide what to keep and what to cut. Have you ever had to redesign training under similar constraints? I'd love to hear how you handled it. And if there's interest in the design side of this project, drop a comment. I'm happy to share more.
