Re: Developing CBT

Subject: Re: Developing CBT
From: "Nina L. Panzica" <panin -at- MINDSPRING -dot- COM>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 12:20:37 -0400

At 08:49 AM 8/5/98 -0400, Kelly wrote:

>I've searched the archives, but can't find anything that directly
>relates to what I'm doing. I, along with 2 other writers, are in the
>process of developing CBT for software application (Windows).
>My question is, what should and should not be included?

Why do you think that you need CBT for the software application, rather
than just paper manuals and various forms of online help? A CBT
application's purpose, as I understand it, is to teach a person in a more
or less hands-on (or interactive) manner how to do something, rather than
to simply provide reference and how-to information. If the program is not
really complex (in other words, it isn't some huge business system with
500-1000 screens), if it's like a graphics program or a desktop publisher
or a address book/contacts program, the chances are high that all a user is
going to need to know is:

*what the application does
*where to find and use the things that it does
*what the various graphical and text features on the screen (toolbars,
menus, status bars, etc.) mean.

For the above, a robust online help program that allows you to create
wizards and context sensitive help as well as the standard help system
should be all that you need. You don't need to go near CBT.

If, however, the application is complex (number of screens isn't the only
measure of complexity--an application that allows you to use a programming
or scripting language is often very complex, even if there aren't that many
screens to work with), then the likelihood increases that you are going to
have to teach complex and nonintuitive procedures, routines, and concepts
as well as where things are and how to use them. You may have to show a
person doing a specific task (like cutting a payroll check at a
non-scheduled time) how to navigate through a series of twenty or thirty
screens (out of thousands) to complete the task. If the software doesn't
automatically do that navigation for you, or if there are numerous choices
or branches that only the human worker can make decisions about, you may
want to build a CBT routine that allows them to practice that task, work
through the extensive series of screens so that they "remember" how to do
the task in a way that they never would just by reading about it in a
manual or (even worse, in my opinion--because of the way online help
fragments lengthy information that needs to remain coherent) on a help
screen.

Likewise, if you're trying to teach someone to use an applicaiton that is
akin to a programming language app. in complexity, you're going to want to
be able to teach that person how to create working structures, bits of
programs or code, from the vast number of available commands, objects to
perform those commands on, variables, and so on. If you're new to
programming, it's hard to learn to build such structures just by reading
about them or seeing an example in a book. Unlike menu options, it's nearly
impossible to learn how to combine these diverse elements correctly in a
language just by seeing a list of the elements and what each does.
Practicing the building of these structure in a controlled environment
where you can get help if you are stuck, is very important. While it isn't
as good as a human tutorial, a well-designed CBT application can allow a
person to practice successfully the building of simple programming or
scripting structures.

>I've
>found reams of information on online help and online documentation,
>and guidelines on what they should consist of, but there doesn't
>seem to be much out there on CBT.

Here's some suggestions:

1. Look for books, mailing lists, news groups, Web sites, magazines, and
other reference material that are about "instructional design,"
"multimedia," "educational multimedia applications," "CD-ROM tutorials,"
"online tutorials," "training CD-ROMs," or "training applications." These
days, I see thse terms used more often that CBT to describe what you're
trying to do.

2. Don't neglect searching at a local college or university that
specializes in technology. Try to get copies of the reading lists for
classes in online instructional design. Speaking of colleges, if what
you're looking for is academic theory, some of the older books and papers
on this, particularly the stuff that came out of MIT, are the best, in my
opinion. Look for the works of Seymour Papert on "turtle logic" and "logo."

3. Call up some local "instructional design" or "multimedia" firms, tell
them you are just getting into the field, and ask if you receive a demo
disk or can come in and see some of the applications that they have created
for their clients. I think that this, more than anything else, will give
you ideas about what is possible and how ideas are presented in CBT
applications. If you can't get any firms to send you free demo disks of
their work, get a standard computer catalog like PC Connection, and order a
couple of the CBT CD-ROMs for programs like Excel or PowerPoint or
FrameMaker that they're always advertising in there. (Or, to really hammer
home to yourself--or to those others--the differences between CBT and
online help get a copy the RoboHelp CD-ROM tutorial: you'll see the
features of static online help taught to you with CBT techniques!)

4. Visit the Web sites or do a search on the names of some of the large
Multimedia or CBT authoring firms or their products: Macromedia, Aimtech,
Asymetrix, for example. On their Web sites will be demo CBT apps and links
to firms that produce such apps. There may even be some how-to papers on
instructional design there which will answer the questions you've asked
below.

>For example, context-sensitive online help should be brief,
>simple, and focus on "how" information. Online information
>should be easy to read and when possible, avoid making the
>user scroll. Anyone know of any guidelines of this type for
>CBT, or do the same principles apply?

I don't think that the same principles apply, because CBT apps are usually
meant to use multiple media (sound, animated graphics, movies, and, most
importantly, interaction) to teach people. Some subjects lend themselves
much better to CBT than others. For instance, trying to show someone how
to assemble something or perform a complex physical task (like learning how
to use the buttons and dials on a complex piece of equipment) is something
CBT was made for; teaching someone how to use a software program might be
better approached by using step-by-step wizards that walk people through
the more complicated procedures or by a "silent movie" showing the screen
actions to perform (like the stuff Lotus ScreenCam will produce), rather
than doing full-blown CBT. But again, I think you need to look at some CBT
demos and then decide for yourself if the software would best be taught by
CBT or by something more static, like online help.

>How much information
>is necessary?

When you're talking about CBT, I think the question is "what kind" of
information is necessary, not "how much."

>My instincts say that more is not always better,
>we should be concise, and show one, simple way to accomplish
>a task. In my opinion, a list of components on a window isn't an
>effective CBT, but I'm having trouble getting this point across
>to the group. Are there any studies, articles, or "rules" that I
>can use to make my point?

I don't know offhand a lot about the details of this, although a search for
books about "instructional design" might turn up some good rules of thumb,
but I think that (unless you're a crackerjack programmer) to do CBT you
have to use a full-featured CBT authoring program, like Authorware. If
you're using that full featured authoring program with its complex
interactive programming scripts and its ability to create or import
animations, sounds, graphics, and movies to create a simple list of
components on a menu, something the simplest word processor could do, you
aren't doing CBT. One way to show others what CBT is and what it can do
might be to show them some of the products of an authoring program. Start
collecting demo CDs of CBT applications and then show your people the best
of these.

I have to qualify what I've said above just a little. I automatically tend
to think of CBT applications as being very high-tech, with sound, movies,
and lots of special effects. But they don't have to be. One of the most
effective CBT applications I've ever used was a simple paper workbook that
took me through the steps of building some simple programming structures in
Authorware. But as low-tech as it was, that workbook didn't simply list the
items in an Authorware menu. Instead, it instructed me to do various things
with menu options (in combination with other features of the program) as
part of building a sample application.

In summary, I agree with you that CBT involves a lot more than just
presenting static information, whether on a screen or on paper, but I can't
tell from what you've said whether CBT apps are important for the products
you are working with. Do the producers of the software app. have a special
commitment to "train" the buyers of the program in how to use it? If so,
and if they don't want to go the classroom route, and especially if it's a
big application that costs a lot (thousands of dollars) then you are right
that you aren't going to be able to "get away" with presenting some dressed
up version of online help as a CBT tutorial. Most business software users
have had some minimal exposure to these tutorials--they come free with a
lot of applications--enough to know that a reference screen listing menu
options and what they do is not the same as the hands-on practice sessions
that the other tutorials provide.

Anyway, that's my take on what CBT is. I'd be interested to know what other
people think about this.

Regards,
Nina P.

__________________________________________________________

Nina Panzica
Masterpiece Media, Inc.
(404) 237-7889
Can't reach me at the above number? Try my pager:
404-596-7889

Email: mailto:panin -at- mindspring -dot- com
Home Page: http://www.mindspring.com/~panin/

Links to Other Technical Writers:
http://www.mindspring.com/~panin/


From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=



Previous by Author: Re: version numbering conventions
Next by Author: Re: Types of TWs
Previous by Thread: Re: Developing CBT
Next by Thread: Thanks - LED pronunciation


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads