Our E-Learning.

---

---

Scenarios

We design scenario-based e-learning courses, which employ real-life situations to transmit content. Especially effective in developing "soft skills" and "software training", we use them to engage learners, give meaning to what they are learning, and increase the level of interactivity. 

A typical example might involves students working their way through a storyline, usually based around an ill-structured or complex problem, which they are required to solve. In the process students must apply their subject knowledge, and critical thinking and problem solving skills in a safe, real-world context.

These scenarios are often non-linear, and can provide numerous feedback opportunities to students, based on the decisions they make at each stage in the process. Scenario-based learning may be self-contained, in that completing the scenario is the entire task, or it may be the first part of a larger assignment requiring the student to complete the scenario, and then provide a written or oral reflection and self-assessment on the process.

Scenario-based learning provides FIVE primary benefits:

• Contextualization: The learner assumes a role, becoming empowered and owner of her/his decisions.
• Meaning: By presenting relevant content in credible situations, the learner’s level of retention is increased.
• Motivation: Students are motivated to learn as they are exposed to actual cases in which they can apply the information they are acquiring.
• Reflection: Scenarios provide the learner time to reflect, observe, explore, experiment and generalize.
• Interactivity: They definitely increase the interactivity by creating an experiential space linking content to real-life experiences.​

Realistic Dialogue

​When designing scenario-based e-learning, we avoid common mistakes:

We avoid providing “over-eager-style” feedback. Although feedback is helpful, as it immediately tells (the learner) what I’ve done right or wrong. In the middle of a story, feedback can deprive students of the chance to think and learn. Eager-beaver-like feedback, poorly designed and sequenced, interrupts the learning process by telling students what to think.

• Instead, we believe in being helpful without interrupting. In the real world, we learn from the consequences of our choices. When we realize on our own the consequences of our choices, the lesson is more memorable.

​
We question common but inaccurate trends. In many circles, “showing” learning is inaccurately seen as messy and inefficient. This is untrue. The real world lets us learn from experience. The training world tells us what to do.

• Instead, we believe that students can be trusted to draw the right conclusions.  Design-wise, we believe in the following design principles: 

              - Pose a realistic challenge.
              - Let the learner make a decision.
              - Show the real-world consequence

• Finally, we believe that students should be allowed to click, “Why did this happen?”. This provides an explanation that confirms or corrects the student's knowledge. Ideally, the explanation includes a snippet of the job aid that shows the relevant step.

---

Simulations

In these learning simulations, we have a certain design style:

• We write genuine dialog. We show, not tell. By writing in the 1st person rather than 3rd person, we encourage readers draw their own conclusions like they do in the real world. We avoid small talk and move directly  to the “meat” for more impact. Imagine how a movie would show it.
• We use contractions. If we are too busy enforcing small grammar rules (that do not help the learner), we may not realize that our learner is thinking, “I will leave this course now because this text I am reading did not come from a human being.” Contractions make writing more accessible to the reader and enhances readability.
• We use a “conversational” style in dialogue for eLearning. Research shows that people work harder to understand material when they feel they are in a conversation with a partner rather than simply receiving information. 
• We don’t (artificially) add dialog into the story. If they wouldn’t say it in real life, we don’t add it to the scenario. Not: “Diane, I’d like to hear your opinion about how to handle cultural differences on the new Bradley project, since you have been with the firm for eight years and have worked on numerous projects with companies in Bradleyville.”  Instead, we write dialogue that is structured more conversationally: Bob calls Diane, who has eight years’ experience working on Bradley projects. “How should we handle cultural differences on the new project?” he asks.