I just completed the final project and it was an interesting task. Creating something as large as a training that could go out to 1600+ employees had its stressful moments. It started out going well and there were not many issues. The clients were people I work with on a daily basis so it was easy for me to get time to talk to them and it was easy to understand what they wanted. I noticed it was easier than the first project because we were familiar with each other's communication styles as well as unspoken communication so it was easier to get meaning from things they said and didn't say.
The module design was not difficult. Getting the pieces in the correct order took some trial and error. We started with two very distinct parts of the training. We had all of Gmail in one and the Calendar after that. When we, the clients and myself, worked through the test modules, it was too much to keep working with the same tool for the entire module. We ended up splitting the tools at natural breaking points to move to something new. The strategy was to keep moving and not stay in one area too long. Hopefully, that will increase engagement which will increase knowledge retention. Once we had these natural breaks, we started developing the content to go into the modules. I tried to use Storyline 3 at different points but did not really like the way it fit into this course. I ended up using a very short piece in the Google Calendar section but it felt too simple for what we were trying to do. I need more time to develop my knowledge of the product to use it effectively. I wanted this course to be interactive and I do not know the product well enough to get it to function in that way. It is something that I could look to use in some sections of training but it did not fit in the ways I knew how to use it.
The modules turned out pretty good. The content was put together well. There are some changes that need to be made if the course is rolled out to the entire staff. There needs to be a way to help with some of the Gmail specific terms. It is something that some of the learners need that are not familiar with technology terms, they just clicked the things a previous trainer told them to click without explanations. I found that to be the case much more often than expected. Some of the low-end users were only clicking things because someone told them to follow these clicks to do a task. There was no why or what each click was doing. This directly led to frustration with the migration because they did not understand the process and could not understand how to set up a new process. I wanted to be very intentional about teaching the why not just the clicks. This added a layer of difficulty to the course but an advantage to the learners in the long run.
The course did meet the client's needs. They were happy with the design and results. They do want to make some changes to the content. They want some more in-depth directions on some of the more complex modules. Other than that, the clients and staff through the course worked well for their needs. We did not really use any low-end users that I know of in the district. That could be an issue with some of those users but we would test that with a few of them before releasing that to that group. There was even talk of creating a different module for them that did not go into as much depth or used different terms. The vocabulary was one of the biggest barriers in the training modules for some of the users we tested.
I do like the course. There were some parts that I wanted to refine. This is the type, of course, that would be constantly under some sort of construction. Because of updates and the nature of the subject material, updates would need to be made. I think it would be good to add in some sort of survey to get the feel of the learners that completed the course to see how they think it could be improved. If enough of them had the same suggestions, that would be something to look into. Overall, I am happy with the course and enjoyed creating it.
No comments:
Post a Comment