How Can Learning Be Reusable If It Was Never Usable to Begin With?
May 9, 2008
My organization, like many large organizations (and many if not most eLearning development professionals, for that matter), has bought into the Reusable Learning Object (RLO) concept with reckless abandon, implementing a Learning Content Management System (LCMS) (shudder) which shall remain nameless (but rhymes with Neato HorsePen).
This system is not only a horrifically cumbersome environment in which to develop, but, from my experience, it churns out the most banal eLearning imaginable. Personally, I avoid developing in it at all costs. And when I find myself in the pitiable role of the learner, faced with a course that was developed in our LCMS, I do my best to avoid letting out an audible groan while readying my mouse pointer on the Next button.
I found the monotony of flash cards in grade school more tolerable.
RLOs, the theory goes, are merely building blocks (flash cards?) of information that can quickly and easily be lifted from one course and dropped into another. Like a big bin of homogenous parts that just so happen to fit whatever you wish to bolt them to. Why, it sounds almost, well, too good to be true!
It is.
Actually, on paper, the theory makes perfect sense. Achieving peak efficiency is, after all, a noble goal. It’s what keeps business moving ever forward. And with training dollars always in short supply, getting the product out as quickly and cheaply as possible is the name of the game. Why recreate content over and over again?
In practice, however, things start to crumble quickly. The problem is this: if the goal is learning content that’s so generic it can easily be grafted seamlessly from one course into another, it’s doubtful that content will provide any real interest to the learner in the first place. If we’re focused on making the content reusable, are we also focused on making it interesting?
And it’s not just the interchangeable nature of the content that causes the problem. It’s also the authoring tool itself. Because a tool that is designed to assemble a collection of existing parts and quickly burp out a product is typically not a tool that facilitates creativity or innovation. You know, the things that actually make learning intriguing and enjoyable.
Read the sales pitch for any LCMS product. You’ll inevitably find the descriptors “scalable,” “rapid,” “efficient,” and “easy.” You’ll also find a lot of talk about “ROI.” What you won’t find are the adjectives “interesting” or “good.”
I won’t argue that you can’t create compelling eLearning using this type of authoring tool. I will argue, however, that this type of authoring tool doesn’t encourage you to create compelling eLearning. In fact, compelling eLearning is created in spite of such a tool, not because of it.
I tend to see the end product of RLO-based systems (our RLO-based system, anyway) like I see fast food. You have the all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, and sesame seed bun. All the necessary ingredients neatly and methodically laid out for quick and easy assembly. And while this system enables you to crank out that burger rapidly and cheaply, your customer ends up with a meal that neither satisfies the palate nor provides any real nutritional value.
We need to reassess the implementation of the ROL philosophy. Yes, I know, there are a legion of Ph.Ds out there who know more about eLearning than I can ever hope to who will vehemently disagree with me with raised fist and furrowed brow. “Our methodology is sound,” they wail.
But let me lay down the cold, hard facts: as a learner, your eLearning fast food is just not working for me.
I view such LCMS tools as I view certain software applications that can generate music for you automatically by assembling a collection of interchangeable parts and passages. Sure, the result is usually listenable, but you certainly wouldn’t dance to it or load it on your iPod.
And we all know the result of Dr. Frankenstein’s experiment with reusable parts.
Geez, the bad analogies just keep coming. I’ll stop now.
Do we want quick, easy, cheap, and efficient eLearning? Or do we want eLearning that’s good? As a learner, I choose good, thank you very much. And as an eLearning developer, I feel obligated to, um, oblige.
I realize, of course, that for the sake of argument I’m oversimplifying the situation. And I’m sure there are some truly unforgettable, earth-moving, mind-bending courses out there that were built using an RLO-focused development tool.
I personally have never seen one, but I’d love to hear from someone who has.
Posted in Rants, eLearning Design
content rss
May 9th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
I think you get the RLO concept when you consider informal learning. For example, if you do a Google search for some data, it’s reused. What’s nice is that it’s reused and remains relevant to the user, even if it’s outside the context of its creation.
On the other hand, you’re right on the money about the RLO is formal elearning. It’s not like learning is just a process of slapping data together like a bunch of lego bricks.
May 10th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
My experience with LMS or LCMS is they are created by geeks for geeks. They are pretty much useless when it comes to delivering good elearning.
The RLO idea is a fantasy in the same league as unicorns and mermaids. I created a course in Preventing Workplace Violence to be delivered to supervisors. Then, I was tasked with creating a course in Preventing Workplace Violence to be delivered to employees.
Piece of cake. Just recycle the course with a few modifications. WRONG! About the only thing I could recycle were the graphics.
Same policy. Same company. Different audience and the course was totally different.
May 10th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
@ Tom:
I agree with the reusable potential of learning content. What I primarily have a problem with is creating that content using a tool whose primary goal is making that content reusable. Imagine if the only data Google indexed was data created using some Google-mandated development tool. The Web would be a pretty boring place.
@ Galynn:
I only have experience with one LCMS, but I imagine most, if not all, put out similarly mundane eLearning. The problem is these tools focus on the process, not on the product. And in my opinion, the product should be king. Always. Learners don’t care *how* we create eLearning; how quickly, easily, or cost-effectively we do it. They only care about the learning experience. And we eLearning professionals continually sabotage our own efforts to effect the massive culture change required to convince learners to embrace eLearning by churning out forgettable dreck time after time after time.
P.S. I loved your “RLO, unicorns and mermaids” analogy.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:11 am
I know the LCMS you speak of, and when I used it for the first time, I was aghast that such a thing had even been created, let alone adopted by some of the world’s largest companies. It’s the most unusable, uninteresting, clunky solution I think I have ever seen. By contrast, working in PowerPoint is enjoyable. What was/is so bad about the experience of using that tool is the metadata focus to everything; it’s more about being able to find something you’ve uploaded, than about being able to use it.
But the RLO idea is hard to get off the ground to begin with. How much content in an LCMS-generated course really reusable across other courses? If there’s really THAT much reused content from one course to another, then you’ve got an entirely different problem that the fast reusability of media will not solve. In my experience, maybe 5-10% of any course is reusable into another…if that. A diagram here, a text block there, an animation, etc. But nothing close to the amount implied by the very idea of RLOs.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:36 am
I love this article Chris. Good points – and I just can’t get the images out of my head!
I’m not sure if I should thank you for that, Frankenstein!
One point I really liked was about the ipods!, my company is looking into e-learning podcasting as many of the road-warriors are looking for the kind of learning they can take with them to the gym, listen to in their car (note I said LISTEN even though they can also watch just not while driving *giggles*) And I just am not really sure how I feel about this project.
I thought I was craving a burger, but now….. not so much!