G-Cube Blog

Keeping in tune with its vision of innovation, G-Cube had launched a unique training program for ID aspirants early this year. Aptly named ID-Edge, it aimed to give that much needed ‘edge’ and professionalism to ID enthusiasts for embarking on a career in Instructional Design. Our talk with Pradeep Chopra, Project Manager for ID-Edge gives us a look into the inside world of ID training.  Poised at culmination, this is, however ‘Just the beginning’, he says. ‘With more levels of training planned and new batches to start, the innovation will continue’.

Read on for a detailed excerpt.

Besides evident need for professional ID recruits, what was the thought behind creating ID Edge?

ID-Edge was developed with a vision to strengthen the pool of ID professionals in the industry. It has two components. The first one – to have a good set of ID professionals on the floor and the second – to create a team which strives to develop e-learning models which stand out in quality and are cost-effective for our clients as well.

So, while it is an answer to our ID specific needs, it has been developed to provide the trainees a 360-degree look at e-learning and its various aspects.

What was the course structure like?

The course structure was set in three broad parts – The Introduction Phase, the Learning Phase and the Evaluation Phase.

When the trainees started the course, they had little knowledge about e-learning. It was necessary for them to experience the entire process that is involved in creating an e-learning module. The first phase provided this much needed foundation.

The learning phase focused on the theoretical knowledge of ID theories, models and taxonomies. Meshed with this, was a practical aspect of training. Samples from  various projects were taken to demonstrate how the theories were used to create apt trainings, as per the requirements of the client and learner needs.

Along with this, other practical skills like client-interaction and inter-organizational communication were sharpened through interactive sessions.

Finally, all trainees were required to create training modules and were evaluated on the same. Every aspect of the training, from its conceptualization to graphics and media, the trainees did it all. This was necessary – helping us to evaluate them on the ID principles learnt as well as on all other aspects of the training. It also instilled a confidence in them to take on live-projects hence on.

ID-Edge stresses a lot on hands-on experience for trainees. Can you elaborate?

In the ID-Edge program we laid great emphasis on hands-on experience for trainees. The trainees got a chance to apply the knowledge they acquired in practice projects. They got exposure to the practical aspects and constraints of instructional designing while working on these projects. This methodology enabled them to learn from their own experience and mistakes and gave them hands on experience in instructional designing.

The ID-Edge program also expanded the scope of the training by not limiting it to storyboarding and designing but also extending it to creating e-learning trainings using a rapid authoring tools. G-Cube provided the necessary infrastructure and the trainees created a pilot project using the popular rapid authoring tool – Articulate. Thus ID Edge provided a holistic and integrated training which gave them practical hands-on experience in the field of ID.

For ID aspirants, what are the skills that you would say are necessary for consideration?

An ID aspirant should necessarily possess good writing skills clubbed with an innovative and creative mind. An inquisitive bent of mind with good analytical and reasoning skills are requisites as well. She/he should be a good listener, a good interpreter with an eye for detail and should be able to communicate verbally and visually. Most importantly ID aspirants should be passionate about eLearning and should be able to deliver effective and engaging trainings.

How did ID-Edge hone those skills?

ID-Edge program sharpened the requite skills that an ID aspirant should possess by creating a holistic training. The trainees were encouraged not to accept things basis their face value but to question and reason things before doing any task. They probed deeper into the content, enhancing their knowledge and inquisitive bent of mind. With considerate exposure to a plethora of eLearning trainings, the trainees learnt about different ways of presenting the content. The practice projects sharpened their writing and visualization skills and also enabled them to experiment and explore various avenues of creativity.

Has ID-Edge managed to bridge the need gaps many recruiters face when looking for ID professionals? How so?

The problem that recruiters in India face while hiring ID professionals is that they do not find people who are trained or specialized in the ID domain. The ID-Edge program has definitely managed to bridge the need gaps that the recruiters face. It has converted ID aspirants into ID professionals who not only have sound basic knowledge of ID but also have practical hands-on experience in various aspects of ID including creation of eLearning trainings using Articulate

How has ID-Edge helped the chosen trainees in embarking upon a career in ID?

The ID-Edge program is conceived in two levels. In the current scenario, the trainees were trained on level 1. This level has provided a sound and strong foundation to the trainees to start their career in ID. After spending some time on live projects, the trainees will be ready for the next stage.

So, on the whole, this training will definitely give them an edge over other ID aspirants in the industry.

What is you future vision for ID-Edge?

G-Cube plans to start a fresh batch soon. In parallel, innovation will continue on developing new and cost-effective ID and eLearning models.

Also, planned for the next year, is level 2 training for the current lot of trainees. Level 2 training will be designed in a workshop mode and will include topics such as designing complex eLearning trainings and providing eLearning solutions to clients.

Keeping in line with G-Cube’s vision, ID-Edge would aim to continue taking strides in innovation and new ways of imparting knowledge in ID as well as the e-learning domain as a whole.

Story-telling as a means of imparting knowledge is as old as time itself. The stories of Ramayana, the Mahabharata, Aesop’s fables, the Odyssey, Grimm’s fairy tales and the like, entertain and educate even today.

While these stories have been passed on through generations- orally and through written text, technology can support us today. A blend of the new technology with the craft of storytelling is a unique combination to create winning knowledge imparters.

The blend we talk about is not altogether new.  In the field of e-learning, edutainment has made efficient use of storytelling to achieve immense success. Everybody relates to a story well told, and if a learning module successfully engages its audience with the help of stories and anecdotes, it’s a job well done!

For an instructional design team working on an e-learning module, story-telling is a tool that comes handy. But like any other tool, it needs to be handled with care. Not every learner group reacts in the same way and preempting that reaction is important. While a strong, hard hitting story might invite a lot of response, an excess would only confuse the learner group. In such cases, the objective of learning is lost.

Also important is the flow of the story. The common elements of a story are: The Setting, the Characters, the Event, Development of plot, Climax and Ending.

While these traditional elements build a storyline, are there other ways of telling a tale? Open-ended stories do not generally follow the traditional dictates of how a story is built. The ending, is left for the learner to mull on. While this is sure to generate a definite learner response and even build on further into the course, it has to be a desired response to impact positively. Leaving an impressionable learner without a definite direction can be hazardous!

And then there is this quintessential question of ‘Where can I use stories?’ Building learning around stories works very well for the K-12 learner as young minds work better with examples and are open to suggestions that are derived from a tale. This is not to say that the concept of story-telling is ineffective for an adult audience. Learning courses on attitude evaluation or awareness programs do well with examples from real-life.

Current topics, social or political, can be infused into attitude evaluation programs to determine the views of the learners. This helps to gauge their attitude towards similar issues and evaluation is simpler. Awareness programs often deal with delicate issues and when preparing them, it is important to keep the learner sentiment in mind. A story, depicting characters that the learners can identify and sympathize with, can make them at ease. Often, it also gives them a sense of solidarity and opens them up to the ideas or information that we want to impart.

Story-telling can also be interestingly infused in Managerial or Sales trainings. Here, graphical depiction or ‘visual storytelling’ can be adopted. Heavy reading can be a deterrent for the learner but images, graphics, charts or diagrams can convey the message – making the course short, yet impactful. For instance, a successful sales pitch can be illustrated through a series of graphical dialogue. This takes away the instructional nature of prose, but can convey the attributes of confidence, product knowledge and patience – all necessary for a sales pitch.

Storytelling then, is more of a strategy, than a methodology. As a strategy, it has to be worked out, keeping the learner and the course objective in mind. A strong tool in the hands of a smart designer – and we not only have a good story but also learn from it!

Styles and guidelines are essential to all forms of instruction. This fact is not debated, but what is certainly questioned is the effectiveness of existing learning styles and their utility. A paper on the Concept and Evidence of Utility of Learning Styles by Harold Pashler, Mark McDaniel, Doug Rohrer and Robert Bjorg, details the evidence validating the success of existing methodologies of teaching and learning. This search leads them to find little or no certainty of a specific method, and to suggest that contrary to popular belief, learning styles cannot be effectively suited in general learning environments.

What stands out in the study for me, in context of the current learning scene, are observations that are simple – but when put to practice means good business for the industry.

Know thy audience: Factors like aptitude, education and cultural influences define each learner in a different way. Defining the learner or the learner group then becomes the first step to fruitful learning.

The origin of this theory can be traced back to the mid-twentieth century, by what was probably the first testimony in the field of human personality by Karl Jung. His thoughts were further concretized into the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Test. To this day, this test is a popular tool in understanding the aptitude and occupational skills of a person. While objective studies have failed to show how this classification of people into clusters helps, it has nevertheless failed to hamper its popularity. The Myer-Briggs test was probably the first in the long line of such studies and test that are now available and popularly used.

Coming back to the moot point, whatever the ways and means are of defining ones audience, the knowledge helps in presenting information and imparting awareness. Going by one of the more popular adverts of the learning-styles movement – ‘One style does not fit all…’ adopting different styles for different groups is definitely warranted.

Interaction is at the heart of learning: Too much or too little – is that quintessential question, when defining the levels of interaction in learning?

How much of interaction is best suited for the learner group? External factors make a learner group highly aware of its potential and capabilities. This knowledge if well understood can be the backbone of any learning lesson. Groups with heightened awareness of their own capabilities do better with little or moderate intervention. Often they tend on learning alone or in small groups of similar-minded people. On the other side are people who are not sure of their capability in adapting to new skills. Hand holding and frequent intervention can show results in this scenario.

Testing… How does that enhance learning? : Is testing just about asking questions and determining retention? Testing is more than just that. At the testing stage too, interaction plays an important role. It is suggested that prompting might be necessary for learner groups to ascertain the success of a learning module. Not only at the final stages or the end, but at an initial level too a timely prompt can enhance retention and infuse confidence. This intervention is needed for all learners. But again, the degree of it will differ for different groups or individuals.

So, to conclude, learning styles and methodologies are many. Some are proven while some are controversial. While not slavishly following a single one, but adopting the best of all worlds, is a road well-trodden. Debates over the utility of these styles and methodologies continue, but learning does not wait for them to conclude, does it?

Teaching and learning are fast changing form. Technology has opened the doors of learning wide, and as a result – the classroom, the learners and the instructors are all changing today.

It cannot be denied that learners today differ in competence and motivation levels at all learning platforms, be it a classroom or an e-learning module. The exposure to newer technologies has led to a gaping gap between the levels of teaching or instruction that a learner expects and what the instructor is able to impart. In such an environment it becomes difficult to attract and sustain the learner’s interest in the subject matter.

We faced this gap in ‘Tune’ (Our VSAT based live blended education program for Grad. & Post-Grad. Schools) as well, which led us to experiment with an adapted version of Dr. Michael Muir’s ‘Meaningful Engaged Learning’ model and we found it quite useful.

And here’s how -

We extensively use audio-visuals from everyday life that connects the most with learners. Young minds are especially impressionable and quick to associate certain qualities with certain personalities. This admiration can be fruitfully directed to a path of ‘aspiration’. Videos of role models of the young generation like Mahinder Singh Dhoni, Rahul Gandhi, or even the guy-next-door, who beat all odds to top the CAT, are a part of the classroom. Their strengths – from exuding confidence to dedicated perseverance becomes an example to learn from.

The tone is far removed from preaching, it is indeed in tune with experience (Pun unintended!).  This tone is maintained throughout and we also include the option of a local language, as per the reactions and needs of the audience.

It has also been realized that an effective forum of conducting such debates is the various sites of social networking like Orkut, Facebook and Twitter. These sites, even if seen in frivolous light by some, have been successful in engaging a whole generation. They have given a space for anyone and everyone to have an opinion. And so, the students who are not involved in a classroom to actively participate in any discussion are surprisingly vocal in online communities on these platforms.

Role playing is another way of creating awareness and interest on such issues. The rules of the Role play are laid out and a demo are run to show how it works. The Audience is then invited to participate in a similar exercise. Art of business communication is taught when the class is split into different groups of people, who communicate within an organization and a dialogue is run amongst them. The tone and format of communication, within the boundaries of organizational hierarchy are thus experienced.

‘Meaningful Engaged Learning’ model has been immensely successful in Tune, the students as well as their teachers standing testimony to its success. Its success is also a testimony to the fact that with virtual learning technologies, social media tools and lowering the cost of interactive sessions, classrooms today are changing to include and engage a variety to learners.

We believe this model has the potential to be equally successful in e-learning courses as well, which require engaging learners in a way that sustains interest as well as assures assimilation of knowledge. Will keep you posted on the results.

“Go-go’s find” happened because we wanted to continue with our series of short films. Also, as the team was between projects at that time, it seemed like a good idea. So, we got together, Bijan Samaddar (still-life man or the illustrator), Suhail Qureshi (life giver or the 3D artist) and P. Kasturi Rangan (the glib talker or the Manager). We decided that we would show that love and hunger co-exist. This story was our funny side of a ringside view on universal love. Anyways, days passed to weeks and then into months before we could sit after our initial discussions as other projects took priority. The 3D part of this story is still under construction and we hope it sees the light of day, someday. Till then, here is a rough cut 2-D version of “Go-go’s find”.

(P. Kasturi Rangan is Assistant Project Manager at G-Cube)

Games are at the verge of evolving into a serious method of teaching pretty soon. Why? Because they are fun, they involve intense and passionate involvement, they give us structure through their rules, they are interactive and can be adapted to a learner’s teaching style and pace, they can take various routes to learn the same concept thus catering to a much larger audience profile. Is that not all? No there is more, they spark creativity, interaction and a challenge, and they also give us emotions. All of this can fit into a game and are needed if a game is developed keeping in mind a basic rule: “Would I like or love to play this game?” I use this rule of thumb while creating a game, if the answer to this question is ‘like’ I know that it is time to relook the strategy, the graphics, etc. If the answer is ‘love’, I take a second opinion

The educationists have been trying their hands on teaching and learning through ‘hands-on’ methodologies. Really great work, I too have for some time worked on such theories with some renowned educationists. And I completely agree with them that having a hands-on experience makes learning most easy and fun. I have sat with children who have been put through some of these teaching materials, gathering scientific data, and no quantitative number can suffice for the joy that you see in the child’s eye when they understand the ‘Why?’ or the ‘How?’.

But a ‘hands-on’ approach may not always work. For example, how do you make a learner realize the demand and supply curve when all they have an idea about it is that it’s synonymous to food and hunger? Do you put them in the market with an assured sum and let them pick the details? No! Here is where a game can help. Learning from experience can only go that much. And for processes that are costly, where actual process life cycle is long, or where situations have a threat to life or property, or are dangerous or risky, games can be of great help. I played a game recently on the web about the situation in Somalia, which very distinctly played with my emotions. I could feel their pain and I was sitting no-where in Somalia at that time. But was this just an isolated reaction or a general reaction to people suffering? Either way there was learning happening.

I believe gaming as a learning strategy has not taken on off in a big way because it has not been researched properly. There is lot of feedback, both positive and negative, that can be found on the Internet, but not much of it is substantiated by any scientific process, so we cannot be sure. I however, found a research done at two universities in Canada and the US that show very positive and conclusive results. My work for one of our clients, where we had to create a similar game that uses student perception to market behavior as its concept helped me understand this research. I could relate much easily to the research work and its findings as I had sensed the feelings of utter confusion and then the dawn of realization too. I could see the results tallied with my initial reaction to our game and how I react to it now.

Now, I am not condemning books but games are more than capable of doing what the books have been doing since man scribbled on sand, and games can do much more than what the books have ever achieved.

Here is something interesting that you may want to read on the same topic – Everything Bad is Good for You – Steven Johnson

(P. Kasturi Rangan is Assistant Project Manager at G-Cube)

This is in response to this month’s ASTD big question – Learning Design Differences for Digital Natives.

Lets first define relevant terms -

Digital native – A person who has had access to technology and is well conversant with its usage.

Digital immigrant – A person who has recently moved towards using technology.

So, basically a divide created by age.

The Vs – This differentiation between the two – Is it a real one or just a perceived one? Was this term coined by people who are scared of technology. Where are they now? Retired? Do they have an active role to play in the actual learning process between the ID or SME and the end user who would be a student in a school or a trainee in the workplace. 

What mostly happens in the real world is that the ID or SME who designs the course and the end user who is using this training or education are both digital natives. ID theories have not changed from when we were creating ppt presentations as e-learning nor while now that we create business games to teach the same old thing/concept. What has changed is our perception about the medium of instruction.

While creating ppt presentations, having a ball zoomed into and then fading off was a great thing, then the ball started bouncing around the screen with 2D flash and people said wow, now the ball has been made in 3D Max and has a 3D feel to it, it can also be rotated or be simulated. Even with the ppts and flash, content at times has been made so that learning may be in the hands of the user, albeit it was very low level scripting and so there were lesser choices available. With gaming, the number of choices available are more, so more students can be included with much more varied answers to the same situation.

I wonder if this influx of technology has had any impact on the learning outcome? Learning still remains the same, 10% high scorers, 10% low scorers and the rest in that 80%. The low and high scores take care of themselves. Its the middle ones that can be transferred, the ones that are targeted for e-learning.

When we say “Our student’s have changed drastically.” does that not sound familiar? Does it not sound something which we have heard over and over, something like a sentence that starts with “In our days…”. So, I believe that this divide shall remain even when the so called digital natives of today become the digital immigrants of tomorrow.

(P. Kasturi Rangan is Asst. Project Manager at G-Cube)

We offered this month’s ASTD’s Big Question: Instructional Design – If, When and How Much? to our ID team to initiate a discussion around this topic, and to understand how relevant is Instructional Design today. This lead to some very interesting discussion – here are consolidated views - 

An ideal instructional designer is like your favourite teacher back in school. You still remember what he/she taught as he/she taught not only from the book but through innovative techniques like presenting a historical period through a film that refers to that period or a poem through a poetry writing session. In my view, though an SME has a complete grasp of the content he/she is not the best person to decide how the content should be taught. Just like all scholars don’t make good teachers similarly an SME and an instructional designer’s roles are very different. In a deadline-driven environment, we often apply the same instructional strategy for different courses, but the fact remains that each course is an independent entity. Each organisation or institution’s needs are different. There might be some traits similar to a specific type of course, however that doesn’t dispense off with the necessity of a design phase. Depending on the requirements of an e-learning course it is for the instructional designer or Analyst to decide if, when and how much of instructional design is needed. Rapid e-learning tools can not replace instructional design, it is never the end, it is merely the means to reach a particular end, and is like any other software application.

Definitely, there are a few corporate courses that can be developed using rapid e-learning tools without any involvement of the instructional designer after the design phase. However, in these cases too, the instructional designer needs to analyse the content and decide whether a ‘templatised’ approach – that is common to all e-learning tools – is best suited for these e-learning programs. Writing skills and being able to use rapid e-learning tools are useful qualities in an instructional designer, but these abilities do not define the role. What an instructional designer should be equipped with is a thorough understanding of educational theories, an insight into how the human mind works in different age groups, an awareness of what enables retention and what kind of content requires what kind of treatment. He/she should be aware about communication theories, psychometrics as well as knowledge of how best to use the different multimedia elements available in e-learning programs.

An instructional designer should also be aware of usability and accessibility theories. Whether an ID strategy has been successful or not can be decided through an analysis of the audience reception. The analysis should include how the end user received the training and how much of the content he/she could retain and apply to his/her work. Like the design phase, usability testing and audience reception too is often ignored while creating e-learning solutions. With the audience reception reports the instructional designer can‘re-view’ the instructional strategy and decide how successful it was.

The role of the instructional designer in both corporate and academic programs remains the same – to design creative an effective strategies or solutions. I believe good teaching whether it’s in the classroom or through e-learning programs is “one-fourth preparation and three-fourths theatre”. Knowledge of the subject, writing skills, rapid e-learning tools are all a part of the preparation an instructional designer might undertake, but the strategy and presentation of content is the real stage for the instructional designer and how well he/she performs there determines the success of an e-learning program.

(By Ms. Bidisha Sinha Roy & Ms. Shruti Gupta, who are Lead Instructional Designer and Project Manager, respectively, at G-Cube)

Ever wondered when your teacher asked you to draw a house on a sheet of paper, why you drew a small or a big one? Ever wondered why even at the age of 70 you don’t forget the name of the person you once loved at 17; but you forget the name of your uncle whom you met 10 years ago? Ever wondered how you used to learn rhymes by repetitive recitation and still remember few of those . Is ‘Twinkle Twinkle little star’, memories of your lover, and the house flashing across your mind?

Answers to all the questions lie in two simple words – Learning and Experience. Theorists proposed three approaches to learning that explains the phenomenon of Learning. Let us have a brief overview of these interesting theories that answers our intriguing queries.

1. Behaviorism
According to this theory, learning is about change in behaviour.
1.1 We learn by repetition – repetitive recitation of rhymes.
1.2 We learn faster when awarded or appreciated. This is known as Positive Reinforcement
1.3 We avoid repeating the act for which we are punished. This is known as Negative Reinforcement.

2. Cognitivism
According to this theory, all learning takes place initially in mind. When we learn driving, we concentrate on the road, get distracted by music or talking. But as we become expert drivers, driving becomes a psychomotor skill rather than cognitive skill.

One very important and fascinating theory is The Schema Theory given by Jean Piaget. This theory states that our mind is a lattice of related information a dynamic changing mass of knowledge. Related concepts are connected to each other. When we learn a new concept, say ‘animal’, we begin to classify or store it in one part of our brain. When we learn about ‘lion’, we connect this with the existing information ‘animal’. When we learn about carnivorous and herbivorous animals, we again connect this with the ‘lion’ and ’animal’ information stored in our brain. In this manner, the schema grows in our minds.

If we leave a schema for a long time, by not associating it with new information or by not recalling, it gets lost. This explains why we forget the name of our uncle.

If we constantly add new information in schema, it grows and does not get lost –as explained in the above animal example.

If we leave a schema for a long time, it sometimes does not get lost because we didn’t let it go. This explains why we remember the name of the person we loved.

3. Constructivism
This is an extension of the theory of Cognitivism. According to the theory of constructivism, based on our experiences, the environment we live in, we construct our own perspectives of life; we create our own world; we give our own meanings; we fill in our own colours. That’s why we think, learn, act, and behave differently. This answers why we draw different houses.

I hope this article instilled some curiosity in you to explore the working of human mind and lets find out if our explorations are convergent or divergent or both.

(Amita Tomar is an Instructional Designer at G-Cube)

How many of us understand what it is? Most of us who are going to read this forum would probably be from the content development division. So, the answer would probably be ‘Of Course, I know that theory!’.

The terminology says that it is the way of imparting knowledge in a systematic way. Now the next question that could be asked here is what is this systematic way? Who has set the rules to define ‘Systematic’? Whenever we do ID, what are the primary things we keep in our mind?

What I think is that there are no hardcore rules that govern ID theories. I have read almost all the theories and I find them to be almost the same. They all talk about what we do while planning anything. Most of us are familiar with the terms “Audience profile”, “Blooms level”, “Content analysis”, “ADDIE model”, “and “Content development”.

Try to compare these theories with any task. For example making a cup of tea or planning for a birthday party hmm… anything! Let me put it in layman’s terms so that people who from other streams can also understand.

Let us try and apply an important model of Instructional design to a fictional birthday party.

ADDIE applied to a Birthday party

A: Analysis
D: Design
D: Development
I: Implement
E: Evaluate

So, let’s start to plan a birthday party. The very first thought that comes to mind is for whom are we going to plan this party, the age group of the participants. Here the concept of Audience analysis fits the best. We assume that our audience is a teenager. Now we analyse their tastes and moods. A majority of this age group likes music and dance, this is what most teenagers like but this is again not mandatory. Again we need to check the lifestyle. Now we need to again analyse that our audience likes what kind of music and similarly we need to analyse the kind of food and other time pass activities that can be done for this party. Basically, what would this Audience like and what will they not?

The next step is designing, whatever we have analysed in our previous step. We need to organise them so that things can move smoothly during the party! Imagine what if you had your complete meal first then someone asks you to have the starters? Most probably you would refuse to have it. And if you do then I would be very curious to know why?

Let’s move ahead to the next step according to our model and that is development. Things should be developed in a manner as we have design otherwise the party goes bump, which of course you won’t like.

Implementation is the fourth step that is when you actually serve. Now when do you think should the evaluation part come? This is when people call you up and ask you to soon schedule a next party. This means they like the way you organised the last party. This is the only positive side of the evaluation but if we don’t do the things in a systematic manner then may be they don’t ask for another party and ask you to come to their place instead , which is not a bad option! You would know what I mean if you had to clean up after the party is over.

I would like your opinion on whether this convinces you to allow a content development person handle the next party?

(Jyoti Sabharwal is an Instructional Designer at G-Cube)