(http://www.wbtic.com/primer_whatiswbt.aspx)
Web-based training (WBT) is an innovative approach to distance learning in which computer-based training (CBT) is transformed by the technologies and methodologies of the World Wide Web, the Internet, and intranets. Web-based training presents live content, as fresh as the moment and modified at will, in a structure allowing self-directed, self-paced instruction in any topic. WBT is media-rich training fully capable of evaluation, adaptation, and remediation, all independent of computer platform.
Web-based training is an ideal vehicle for delivering training to individuals anywhere in the world at any time. Advances in computer network technology and improvements in bandwidth will usher in capabilities for unlimited multimedia access. Web browsers that support 3-D virtual reality, animation, interactions, chat and conferencing, and real-time audio and video will offer unparalleled training opportunities. With the tools at hand today, we can craft highly effective WBT to meet the training needs of a diverse population. Web-based performance support systems (WBPSS) further help today's busy workers perform their jobs by integrating WBT, information systems, and job aids into unified systems available on demand.
The current focus of WBT development is on learning how to use the available tools and organize content into well-crafted teaching systems. Training designers are still struggling with issues of user interface design and programming for high levels of interaction. Unfortunately, there are few examples of good WBT design visible on the public Internet. As instructional designers and training analysts learn how to write and produce WBT, and as training vendors come to realize the overwhelming advantages of this delivery method, expect an explosion in training offerings available over the public Internet and private intranets.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Web-based training may be compared to current implementations of computer-based training (CBT) in quality of training outcomes. But what advantage would a training vendor have in establishing a web training site versus producing a CD-ROM or client/server-based training system? What considerations would favor CBT over WBT? Let’s look at some of the advantages and disadvantages of WBT.
Advantages
Disadvantages
What Constitutes Quality in Web-Based Training?
Everyone involved in taking, producing, and delivering online learning would agree that quality is paramount; however, objectively measuring quality is difficult and infrequently undertaken. Quality is an unstated expectation, yet we rarely use a formal process for assessing quality of training products. Poor design, project under funding, overly optimistic schedules, and technical barriers are all enemies of quality. So is the apathy of buyers that just want some training, any training, and developers that focus on the quantity of offerings and an impressive client list. A methodical approach to evaluation can help remove subjective biases and achieve a more authoritative analysis.
We tend to judge quality only from the perspective of our own domain. Consider the views of all the stakeholders: the training manager; the designer/developer; the system administrator/IT manager that will host the application; and, of course, the end users. In some cases quality measures are of no concern to one stakeholder while of considerable importance to another. Learner-centered design would propose that you make all decisions exclusively for the learners' benefit. Yet, all stakeholders must be partners if success is to be achieved. Since development and delivery are a team effort, one must weigh all viewpoints on what constitutes quality.
Quality Measures
A checklist of value statements can be used to objectively measure quality. By weighting, and thus ordering, the measures, a process develops for objectively evaluating online training products.
Here are 22 value statements about web-based training quality. Consider these when planning to develop WBT or buying off-the-shelf WBT.
|
WBT Quality Measures
|
||
|
|
The training . . . |
Detail |
|
1
|
. . . meets the objectives.
|
This quality measure is easy to state but difficult to quantify. Certainly, learning objectives defined by instructional designers must be reached for the training to be considered successful. These objectives anticipate cognitive, psychomotor, and/or affective changes, and they are measurable by using appropriate evaluation strategies.
Training managers prioritized differently. The central objective of the organization is human performance improvement that increases organizational value.
|
|
2
|
. . . is learner-centered.
|
Quality training focuses on people, not content. We've all been in lecture halls where the lecturer may not even have seen us, much less addressed our individual learning needs. The best training takes the role of private tutor: presenting, coaching, evaluating, adapting and supporting. Many of the other quality measures detail methods of supporting the learner-centered design philosophy.
|
|
3
|
. . . provides high levels of interactivity.
|
Interactivity is marketed as the ultimate quality measure for web sites and training applications. Computer gaming would not exist without interactivity. Interactions force active participation. Yet, one must ask whether the interactions support learning or merely activate features or navigate an information space. Using the mouse to control a scalpel in a simulated frog dissection enhances learning. Clicking a forward arrow provides no contextual benefit though it does enable learner control. Interactions that support learning objectives are the most valuable.
|
|
4
|
. . . is engaging.
|
Interactivity is an essential strategy for engaging a learner, but engagement goes beyond this. Are the content and its presentation interesting? More important, will the learner recognize the relevance of the content to workplace tasks? Is the training realistic and hands-on? Reaching the highest levels of learning (articulation, analysis, and synthesis) can only be achieved by engaging the learner fully. Correct media selection and a presentation supportive of individual learning styles help maximize engagement.
|
|
5
|
. . . accommodates individual learning styles.
|
Users may fail to learn if the training design does not accommodate their learn styles. Individuals have hemispheric processing preferences and dominant learning styles. These styles may be related to sensory perception (seeing, hearing, moving, touching) or intellectual processing (reading, thinking, abstract reasoning). There are many formal models for describing learning styles for children and adults. They all point to the fact that individuals learn differently and training must recognize and accommodate these differences.
|
|
6
|
. . . uses media effectively.
|
Does the training demonstrate wise media selection throughout, or are media used for their own sake? Some developers use technologies like video and chat just because they know how, or because the boss wants lots of "bells and whistles." Can you justify the "talking head" video?
|
|
7
|
. . . helps users apply learning productively.
|
The relevance of the training plays into evaluation of quality. Businesses want to provide employees training that can be applied directly or indirectly to their business problems. University online learning applications should provide the foundation for more advanced coursework while stimulating independent creative thinking, problem-solving, and cross-domain application.
|
|
8
|
. . . adheres to the Instructional Systems Design (ISD) or similar model.
|
Instructional design models, such as ISD, formalize the process of defining, developing, and analyzing training. If the training adheres to a model, it most likely has gone through user analysis, training analysis, technical analysis, a rigorous design process, development, and a final post-implementation evaluation. These steps ensure that the training is meeting its goals. Which process is used is not as important as the fact that there is a comprehensive process.
|
|
9
|
. . . presents information in an organized, coherent manner while allowing user control of learning (cognitive usability).
|
User-centered design dictates that users be in control of the learning process, each choosing the approach most comfortable to him or her. Some students flourish in an environment where a non-linear design accommodates their pattern for learning. Absolute system control over presentation and patterns of learning must be avoided. Nonetheless, other students prefer guidance in the form of a preferred path through the information space with options to change course and assume user control at will. Multiple navigational controls benefit both kinds of learners and improve satisfaction.
|
|
10
|
. . . presents extended learning opportunities.
|
Surely, the technical ability to link to external resources presents extraordinary opportunities for the user to extend learning. Remember, however, that links are most often information links, not training. As learning object technologies formulate, we will see training applications being defined only as the entry point to an infinite number of interconnected learning nodes. Don't mistake long lists of hyperlinks with learning objects. Such lists can be detrimental if they distract from the training focus. Creative designs present carefully selected external resource links that reinforce the learning objectives.
|
|
11
|
. . . has completed post-implementation evaluations and subsequent revision.
|
This measure focuses on the body of learners rather than the individual. A post-implementation evaluation determines if the training provides expected benefits to individual and organization. Evaluations can be simple, typified by a satisfaction questionnaire, or as complex as an organizational impact analysis. There is an inverse correlation between the quality of the planning and instructional design and the nature and quantity of revisions needed to perfect the training. If I were buying off-the-shelf web-based training, I would evaluate results of testing in environments similar to mine.
|
|
12
|
. . . demonstrates good usability through excellent user interface design.
|
There are many rules of good web page design, such things as avoiding "dead-end" branches and nesting branches no more than four levels in depth. Interface design goes further to consider iconic representation, control and information placement, visual and aural cueing, and spatial mapping of the information space. Learning can occur more rapidly when the user is able to make mental order of the information space. This means knowing where he is and how far he has to go in the four-dimensional hypermedia world of web-based training. The training application's usability has direct correlation to the ease of mental navigation in information space and cognizance of one's surroundings.
|
|
13
|
. . . continually adapts to the user's knowledge or skills.
|
WBT applications that dynamically adapt to the user are, as we say on the farm, as scarce as hens' teeth. You may encounter so-called adaptive training that forces one to answer questions correctly before allowing one to proceed. In a truly supportive adaptive learning application, the courseware will monitor interactions and usage patterns, then customize content delivery to accommodate learning styles, pace, and perhaps prerequisite knowledge and skills. Adaptive courseware exhibits the human qualities of understanding, patience and persistence. Score high.
|
|
14
|
. . . validates learning at each curriculum event.
|
Quality design demands that learners are tested throughout the training cycle. There are a variety of testing strategies that might be used, so don't expect to see multiple-choice questions all the time. Each time new material is covered, an evaluation opportunity is presented. The testing strategy should be followed by feedback, remediation opportunities, or adaptive content delivery.
|
|
15
|
. . . uses group-enabling technologies (mail lists, chat, forums, multicasts) only where they are most effective.
|
If group interactions are important to learning, does this training effectively use group-enabling technologies? On the other hand, if the learning objectives are easily met by self-paced individual instruction, is there any value in adding group technologies? Will those technologies be supported and used?
|
|
16
|
. . . promotes a positive user experience with computer technology.
|
"I had doubts, but yes, I really learned that material."
"That's a fun way to learn and I know that I know." "I was in control and that helped me learn my way. Fast, too." These kinds of comments reveal a positive experience, where learning is the center of attention, not technology. Training that can elicit such responses will motivate users to continue learning and apply what they learn to their work. Identify and use technologies that are supportive of learning rather that restrictive or frustrating.
|
|
17
|
. . . records student data, such as login information, scores, usage statistics, prescriptions for learning, etc.
|
Record keeping, for whatever purpose, is not as easily implemented as web pages. That's why you so many static tutorials on the Web. Yet, record keeping can be used to retain information and control content delivery. Students appreciate something as simple as marking one's place during a break in learning. Managers love to have a comprehensive set of data upon which to evaluate training effectiveness and costs. Decide for yourself the added value of record keeping, but consider all perspectives.
|
|
18
|
. . . will not exceed practical bandwidth limitations of the network.
|
"Whoa! You're not going to run that on MY network!" That was a real response from an IT manager not consulted by the training manager before beginning a project.
WBT should be designed in consideration of real-world bandwidth limitations. A meticulous technical analysis of your network infrastructure will identify the bandwidth ceiling the designers must respect. If the course will be delivered over the public internet, use bandwidth-friendly technologies. If you are considering buying access to online training from a vendor's catalog, test performance exhaustively. Performance leaks give rise to breaks in concentration and destruction of engagement.
|
|
19
|
. . . is easy to access, easy to install.
|
As users of online learning, we want to access that content with a minimum of effort, from enrollment to completion. Barriers in the form of complex sign-up procedures, software installs, under-performing connections, and ineffective interfaces detract from the mission of learning. Highly creative and instructionally sound designs can often offset the need for complex technologies. Nonetheless, the initial pains of installation and learning to cope with technology can be rewarded handsomely with richly interactive training applications.
|
|
20
|
. . . ensures best value for training costs.
|
Buyers want the highest quality training at the lowest cost. Learners want to learn more, learn faster, and retain and apply what is learned. Managers want results leading to increased productivity, motivated and satisfied workers, and organizational competitiveness.
Sellers want to deliver customer value at a reasonable profit. Academic institutions, threatened with rising costs and diminishing enrollments, are scrutinizing distance education as a solution to both problems.
Quality training ensures value for buyers and sellers.
|
|
21
|
. . . content is accurate and timely.
|
We all assume that training developed by a subject matter expert is accurate. This may not be a useful assumption. In fact, the training may have been developed by persons with little in-depth knowledge of the content area. I have recently taken certification training in a highly technical area only to find the material somewhat outdated and littered with out-and-out false information. Questioning the content's accuracy is prudent.
|
|
22
|
. . . follows industry standards for interoperability.
|
Several initiatives are now formalizing standards for interoperability of online training components. Among these organizations are ADL, IEEE, AICC, IMS, and several others. Based on knowledge object concepts, components are described by metadata (data about data) that enable information exchange across development language, platform, and training management system. Since this work is ongoing and the standards are not mature, existing courses will not meet these standards. However, the impact of standards is profound. The ability of disparate knowledge objects to work together in unanticipated ways creates opportunities for unique courseware customizes to specific learning needs. Expect this quality measure to rise in importance as standards are developed, accepted, and implemented.
|
Weight Factors
The next step in evaluating the overall quality of a WBT application is to weigh the importance of each quality measure. As you look over these quality measures, some will seem very important and others less important. We could rank these quality measures and that would tell us what is most important and what is least. However, that would not tell us by how much. Establishing a weight factor answers how much and ensures a more objective outcome.
Imagine if you can that we could assemble ten instructional designers in a room to evaluate a WBT course on, let's say, diversity issues in hiring. There are a number of video clips to show subtle examples of discrimination. The instructional designers use a weighted scorecard that they develop to evaluate the training. They issue a very positive report. Then we bring in ten network system administrators to evaluate the same course using their own weighted scorecard. Their report is far from enthusiastic. The system administrators consider bandwidth issues extremely important and the instructional design process quite unimportant. The instructional designer would likely have the opposite view. By combining the weight factors for each quality measure as determined by members of each of the stakeholder groups, we can come up with a composite that represents the interests of all stakeholders.
One could successfully argue that the groups themselves must be weighted. Learners should have the loudest voice in determining what is good and what is bad. As we develop a combined weight factor for each quality measure, it would help if most of the input came from learners.
The scale used for weight factors is insignificant. Generally, it only needs to have enough range to reflect importance relative to the other quality measures. Several measures can have the same weight factor. You do not want to merely sort these by numbering from 1 to 22. We will use a scale of 1 (low importance) to 10 (high importance) to assign a weight factor to each measure.
In an exercise conducted in 1999 weight factors were assigned to each quality measure by a number of representatives of each stakeholder group. The resulting weight factor averages (with some adjustment to represent stakeholders in proportional numbers) form the basis of an objective quality measuring system.
Scorecard
Now that we have a list of value statements that express quality measures and corresponding weight factors for those measures, we can build a scorecard for evaluating online learning applications. The weight factors will be used to calculate an adjusted score and then a total score for the training application.
To make the scorecard truly effective in evaluating training in your situation, you might need to make further adjustments. For example, if you were comparing two products and they had different levels of record keeping, but record keeping was not an important issue, then you would eliminate that measure from the grading process. Remember that this tool is used to objectively measure quality, not suitability. It is possible that a course with a lower score could be better suited to your learner's needs than one scoring higher—the quality is lower but it is a better choice.
How To Use The Scorecard
Evaluate the courseware in each area, assign a score (0-4), multiply that by the weight factor to find the adjusted score—Score (S) multiplied by Weight Factor(WF) equals Adjusted Score (AS)—then total adjusted scores for the courses's overall score. You can change the scale for score to something else—0-10 for example—as long as you are consistent across all quality measures.
The total score from one course can be used to compare it to the score from another. However, do not rely solely on quality scores to make purchase decisions, for there are other factors to consider: cost, compatibility with learning management systems, consistency with other courseware, reputation of vendor, and perhaps others. This scorecard can be one tool you use to objectively evaluate WBT quality.
|
Scorecard for Measuring WBT Quality
|
||||
|
|
The training . . . |
Enter a
|
Weight
|
Adjusted
|
|
1
|
. . . meets the objectives.
|
|
5
|
|
|
2
|
. . . is learner-centered.
|
|
6
|
|
|
3
|
. . . provides high levels of interactivity.
|
|
6
|
|
|
4
|
. . . is engaging.
|
|
5
|
|
|
5
|
. . . accommodates individual learning styles.
|
|
5
|
|
|
6
|
. . . uses media effectively.
|
|
5
|
|
|
7
|
. . . helps users apply learning productively.
|
|
6
|
|
|
8
|
. . . adheres to the Instructional Systems Design (ISD) or similar model.
|
|
2
|
|
|
9
|
. . . presents information in an organized, coherent manner while allowing user control of learning (cognitive usability).
|
|
5
|
|
|
10
|
. . . presents extended learning opportunities.
|
|
4
|
|
|
11
|
. . . has completed post-implementation evaluations and subsequent revision.
|
|
4
|
|
|
12
|
. . . demonstrates good usability through excellent user interface design.
|
|
4
|
|
|
13
|
. . . continually adapts to the user's knowledge or skills.
|
|
4
|
|
|
14
|
. . . validates learning at each curriculum event.
|
|
4
|
|
|
15
|
. . . uses group-enabling technologies (mail lists, chat, forums, multicasts) only where they are most effective.
|
|
4
|
|
|
16
|
. . . promotes a positive user experience with computer technology.
|
|
5
|
|
|
17
|
. . . records student data, such as login information, scores, usage statistics, prescriptions for learning, etc.
|
|
5
|
|
|
18
|
. . . will not exceed practical bandwidth limitations of the network.
|
|
5
|
|
|
19
|
. . . is easy to access, easy to install.
|
|
6
|
|
|
20
|
. . . ensures best value for training costs.
|
|
6
|
|
|
21
|
. . . content is accurate and timely.
|
|
5
|
|
|
22
|
. . . follows industry standards for interoperability.
|
|
3
|
|
|
TOTAL SCORE:
|
|
|||
Rules for Good Design
- Establish a formal development process that is best suited for your product. Each step of your process should focus on meeting the needs of the user. Listen, plan, design, test, build, deliver, observe, and refine. Quality outcomes depend on complete process fulfillment. Look at The Development Process for suggestions.
- Choose media types based on learning objectives. Never use technology just because you know how or want to impress someone. Before you choose to use video clips, for example, ask yourself whether motion or time-based sequencing are essential elements of the point you are teaching. If not, then forgo using video. Users of your WBT or WBPSS product will be more impressed with rational choices of media types and technologies that speed learning and improve human performance.
- Provide ample opportunity for the user to interact with the information. Clever instructional design forces the user to roll and tumble an idea in his or her mind, an effective method of mental interaction not requiring an oral or motor response. On the other hand, object-oriented programming components; such as those available in HTML, Java, and Shockwave; offer ways to add interactive design elements that engage the learner. Buttons, hot spots (image maps and hyperlinks), controls, voice recognition, movable objects, and data entry fields: each has its use in instructional design. Keep in mind that your design goal should be to encourage intellectual interaction with the training information, not simply include lots of click areas. Interactions should always test informational skills and cognition, or they should activate more information the trainee can use to advance learning.
- Design products that adapt to the users’ abilities and intelligently respond to the users’ input. If the user is having difficulty with one concept or task, offer remediation through extra information presentation and reinforcement or suggest alternative resources (other courses, publications, or hyperlinked information). Provide meaningful feedback to user input that reinforces a concept and hardens the foundation for further learning.
- Keep in mind that people learn in a variety of ways. Even if a user analysis indicates a homogeneous target audience for your product, rest assured that the users will learn through a variety of styles. Visual learners need lots of graphic illustrations to understand concepts and relationships. Verbal learners use text and narration to accomplish the same end. Think through each bit of information presentation and whether learners with differing learning styles will benefit equally.
- Reject linear thinking; abandon linear design. A highly structured, top down approach to instructional design does not address the needs and preferences of most trainees. WBT, and the Web itself, is the world of hypermedia, where the user decides the direction best suited for accomplishing his or her goal: to learn. While it is perfectly acceptable to suggest a path through a course, it is not acceptable to require a predetermined path through linear design or demand the same through disabled choices. Good WBT design allows the user to "begin in the middle and end at the beginning," even though, in truth, the beginning is wherever the user chooses to start and the end wherever he stops.
- Respect the learner. Avoid any content or feedback that is instructionally insignificant, annoying, or degrading. Do not set the user up to fail a task in an effort to teach him a lesson. For feedback, say "A better choice ..." or "The correct choice ..." instead of "No, stupid. Bad choice." People read at different rates, so do not display information that disappears after a short time. Finally, in WBT especially, long load times for insignificant information are annoying--make every bit of downloaded information count.
- Test your designs on real users. This applies to both the instructional design and the user interface, with all its icons, buttons, and navigational features. Your personal concept of usability may not apply to the target audience. Seek the advice of a usability engineer, human factors expert, or cognitive psychologist. Products of bad design instill resentment in the user and place a barrier to learning. The developers' maxim: test early, test often.
Overview of E-Learning Standards
Standards bring order to the world and e-learning standards are bringing great new benefits to this domain. Where would we be without standards like the metric system, international distress signals, and TCP/IP? World travelers know how to deal with the absence of uniform electrical standards. The lack of interoperability is quite evident when the electric shaver plug won't fit the electrical socket. By adhering to standards, courseware builders can construct components completely independent of the management systems under which they are intended to run—that's interoperability. The life expectancy of a courseware component is greatly increased when we know that we can upgrade a management system and it still works, or when we reuse that component in a totally new course. The proprietary learning technologies of the past, while providing good service in their time, do not provide the benefits available by adopting standards. E-learning standards promise —and deliver—interoperability as well as reusability, durability, and accessibility.
HTML is a specification that is a de facto standard. It has evolved over the years through HTML, HTML+, HTML 2, HTML 3, HTML 4, and now XHTML. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C =www.w3.org) is the international body that defined the specifications that ultimately set the standards. WBT developers know that if they create content formatted to the HTML 4 standard, for example, that any browser that supports HTML 4 will also display that course content. Of course, in actual practice no browser supports the HTML standards flawlessly, but for the most part HTML content is durable, meaning it will be useful long into the future; it is accessible, here meaning that it can be easily accessed across common networks; and it is interoperable, meaning that it will play on various operating systems, devices, and browsers.
Standards specific to computer-based training and online learning have been around for years, though general adoption of these standards has been slow. The aviation industry was one of the first to formulate standards. The Aviation Industry CBT Committee, (AICC=www.aicc.org) for short, defined a specification for interoperability between CBT courses and computer-managed instruction (CMI) record keeping systems. The AICC' CMI Guidelines for Interoperability presents a standard syntax and application programming interface (API) for communication between courseware and CMI. Though not widely adopted outside government and commercial aviation circles, the pioneering work of this committee set the stage for standards to follow.
The IMS Global Learning Consortium (IMS=www.imsproject.org ) asks the question, How do we describe learning content, discover and reuse that content, and assure that content is fully interoperable when moving from one administrative system to another? XML, itself a specification of the W3C, is the lingua franca of all IMS specifications. That implies a level of built-in interoperability and durability. However, the IMS specifications go much further. For example, the IMS Meta-data Specification (www.imsproject.org/metadata/index.html )defines a method for describing learning content: a description of the content, the title, the author, location (URL), cost and payment structure, prerequisites, learning taxonomy, and much more. Once I "tag" a chunk of learning content with meta-data, someone else can discover that object and use its description to see if it might fit into their course. Before the meta-data tagging scheme and these formal specifications, consumers of learning content had a difficult time determining what was out there to reuse.
Leaders within the U.S. Department of Defense saw a need to fuse a number of more narrow specifications; like those of the AICC, IMS, W3C, and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC= http://ltsc.ill.org ) into an all encompassing standard for next generation online learning. That work began in with the formation of the Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) initiative in 1997. ADL built upon the work of other initiatives and defined new specifications to glue everything together. The result is the Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM=www.adlnet.org). SCORM is a model for defining, packaging, and managing learning objects. The sharable content object (SCO), the ADL name for a learning object, is the building block of a topic, a lesson, or a course. SCORM defines an API for a learning management system (LMS) to manage and communicate with SCOs and for SCOs to communicate with the LMS. SCORM is a model for designing an interoperable, durable learning system. It does not specify a programming language, authoring tool, or operating system; however, you will find most implementers using XML, Java, JavaScript, and HTML. Furthermore, SCORM does not (currently) address instructional design issues, nor does it prescribe specific functionality for LMSs.
Section 508 (www.section508.gov ) is a relatively new standard for improving accessibility to Web content and applications, including WBT, for persons with physical and cognitive disabilities. Section 508 refers to a specific rule in the United States government Federal Acquisition Regulation that took effect in 2001. This standard followed an earlier and more extensive standard in the form of a recommendation, the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). The latter standard provides three levels of conformance: Priority One, which is relatively easy to achieve and is mandatory; Priority Two, recommended but somewhat more difficult to achieve; and Priority Three, desirable but difficult to achieve without a shift from common and wide-spread coding practice. Many organizations now specify that new courses must be developed to a learning object standard (SCORM) and an accessibility standard (Section 508), too.
These online learning standards are a solid foundation for refinements and additions to come in future years. There are, of course, other groups around the globe that are discussing the issues and establishing specifications. While all the standards mentioned should be considered for their benefits today, and durability is certainly of major concern, one should expect that they will be refined and in some cases modified in only a few years—that is the nature of technological innovation in Internet time.
The Development Process
The success of Web-based training (WBT) and Web-based performance support system (WBPSS) projects depends on fulfillment of all steps of the development process, from conception to implementation and evaluation. Instructional Systems Design/Development (ISD) models a comprehensive training design approach used to design classroom and computer-based training. The steps outlined here are similar to those of ISD, though vastly simplified. I attempt to define responsibilities and job titles which might be appropriate for each of the steps of the development process.
client needs analysis
Determine what the client wants to accomplish with WBT or WBPSS. What are the explicit outcomes of the project? Will the product provide individual instruction while cutting training costs? Will it replace or supplement existing training? Does the client want to integrate training into a larger information system? What will this project cost? As a result of intense client contact, this needs analysis delineates client needs and outcomes that satisfy those needs. It is at this initial stage that the developer and client must decide if WBT / WBPSS is the best choice. Responsibility: project manager, instructional designers
tasks/user analysis
What exactly does the user/learner need to know to perform on the job? Should the training improve skills, knowledge, and/or attitudes? What components of an informational system should be accessible to the user to improve job performance? What are the range of existing computer skills and educational levels of the target users? The tasks/user analysis probes each of these questions thoroughly to understand exactly how to structure WBT/WBPSS to meet the users needs. Responsibility: project manager, subject matter experts, instructional designers
technical analysis
Often, the first questions asked concern the clients and users computing resources. Unfortunately, sometimes this is the focus for project development. The purpose of the technical analysis is to establish the baseline technical capabilities. Most appropriate is to define, with the client’s assistance, a baseline projected to the time of implementation and including capabilities added expressly for this project. For example, the client may be installing fiber optic networks and wants to use multimedia to take advantage of the increased network speeds. From the technical analysis the "toolbox" of technologies can be defined. The instructional designer will then design the course or performance support system to take advantage of technological capabilities in an instructionally sound way. Responsibility: project manager, systems analysts
interface design
Interface design is one of the most critical phases of the development process. The user interface must provide all the features needed for the user to navigate the application as intuitively and transparently as possible. User-centered design dictates that the interface provide features that allow the learner to control the learning process. The client may request features that should be discussed thoroughly at this phase. This will help minimize "feature creep" which can destroy an interface design and derail a project in later phases.
The user analysis should define the range of user computer experience so that the interface designer may choose design elements most appropriate for the target users. Interface designers best understand the complex, non-linear way learners will use the product. Interface designers work with instructional designers and client representatives to define metaphors and the interface to support those metaphors and, if necessary, mesh with established client design standards. The result of the interface design process is a dynamic prototype interface ready for testing. Responsibility: user interface designers, instructional designers
usability testing
Test the interface on real end users or those with similar skill and knowledge levels. Through careful observation, scientific analysis, and subjective evaluation the effectiveness of the interface can be determined. Most likely, this is an iterative process requiring testing, refinement, and more testing. The tested interface prototype becomes the basis for template and technical standards design. Responsibility: usability engineers, human factors experts, or cognitive psychologists
standards definition and design document
For the benefit of all processes that follow, it is wise to prepare a design document. The technical team provide input into the technical standards which include required software, bandwidth limitations, software settings, file naming conventions, and technical details required by the interface. The project site manager sets standards for site maintenance and internal security. The Webmaster should specify procedures and standards which must be followed for server compatibility, external security, and user access control. Instructional designers provide an overview of the prior analyses, learning/performance objectives, and instructional design to meet those objectives. Responsibility: instructional designers, systems analysts
template design
The technical team prepares a template based on the tested interface design. This template includes blank pages with pre-positioned and coded navigational controls and repeating screen elements. The template may also include a library of models of interactive screen designs. Afterwards, the components of the template may be duplicated and expanded by other developers. Responsibility: systems analysts, programmers
instructional design
The instructional design process is one where a trained, highly experienced designer organizes and presents content in such a way that the end user meets his or her learning goals. The instructional designer (ID) must know the subject matter, with the aid of a subject matter expert (SME), and then know the teaching methods best suited for the medium and the learner. Much effort must be placed on "chunking" the information, culling it down to the essential and presenting it in discrete informational units. IDs prepare storyboards from which interactive screens may be programmed. With the advent of WYSIWYG Web page editors, IDs can now prepare rough screens, ready for finishing by programmers. Typically, the client and SME will review and approve the storyboards for accuracy and applicability. Responsibility: instructional designers with input from subject matter experts
media creation
Based on the storyboards, media specialists create the variety of content that will make up the product: text, still graphics, movies, animations, music, narrations, databases, Shockwave content. Media must conform to the standards specified in the design document and be fully compatible with the interface. Responsibility: instructional designers, graphic designers, videographers, sound designers, programmers
document processing
This is the step where subject matter content is formatted into an HTML document—of course, here HTML really means any of the Web technologies for creating pages. Typically, the content elements may be placed in a template page copy using a WYSIWYG editor. HTML converters can be used to automate the document construction process. Since this has become such an easy process, programmers are not necessarily needed for this step. IDs may play a role in this step in that the storyboard and initial HTML document might be similar or one and the same. Responsibility: instructional designers, programmers
server-side scripting
Server-side applications may be needed for creating dynamic documents, performance tracking, student record keeping, and security measures. Documents that include dynamic information (network status, product inventories, legislation status, etc.) offer rich, timely information to the learner. Additionally, the WBT/WBPSS may need to log usage and track student performance. A programmer can write scripts or backend applications that perform these and other tasks. Responsibility: programmers
site maintenance
Project documents and supporting files can become scattered and unmanageable. It is important that a project site manager take control early in the project to establish procedures for everyone to follow in supplying and maintaining project files. There are many site management tools available to help the responsible person keep control of