The main reason was that such simulation tools are not always used for developing just any type of learning but focused on training content creation for a specific software application or system.

The software simulation in turn, can be divided into screen capturing tools and interactive simulation development tools. However, it’s matter of debate that whether software simulations can be considered as part of EPSS. I’d like to leave the discussion around EPSS and software simulations to the experts in the eLearning industry.

As the name suggests, the screen capturing tools are used to capture and record whatever is visible on the computer screen inside a recordable area. It captures the mouse movements, clicks and on screen changes along with any narration audio which can be recorded through attached microphone lively and in sync with the capturing screen. Annotations, instructions etc are automatically generated based on the user’s action while in recording. The tools generally provide facility to later on edit the recordings before publishing the output. The editing is sometimes important for making the content more meaningful and to chop down any unnecessary parts. However, some tools may not provide full editing so as to facilitate just-in-time authoring and publishing. The published output is typically in the form of the video viewable over web as well as on desktop. If you want then the tool can also bundle the standard tracking features with the published output so that one can directly upload the output – called a screencast – to any standard compliant LMS to deliver to the intended learners.

Now-a-days with the advent of technology, one can start recording their screens for small just-in-time screencasts, without needing to download and install any software. Screenr is one such great tool, which in collaboration with Twitter also eliminates the need of third party delivery platform. Camtasia Studio is a typical example of sophisticated screen-capturing tool which along with a bunch of features includes the facility to automatically insert callouts and annotations based on user’s actions.

However, a screencast is not necessarily interactive. Except the playback controls, one cannot interact with the elements shown in the video. However, to achieve a better impact and to assess the learner performance, it is important to let learners try out functions through a simulated application software environment for which training is to be given. In this case one needs a tool that does much beyond simple screen capturing. Such tools do provide facilities to develop guided simulations, wherein the learner is guided through a set of steps to achieve a specific objective in the application training. The context-based feedback lets learner latch onto the minute details of the application in question. Unlike screen capturing tools, the published output is not just a passive video, but is in a fully interactive format such as Flash SWF. Such tools also provide facility develop the course just out of several screenshots of application if the access to the application is not available.

Adobe Captivate is one such popular tool for developing guided or exploratory software simulations. Here we just wrote about the Adobe Captivate CS5 which is the part of recently released Adobe eLearning Suite 2.

In the past I was involved in development of some courses where we didn’t have chance but to use Adobe Flash to develop the guided application simulations. However, such development would not be considered as rapid authoring. Because in these cases, one would need to create all the interactivities and environment simulations manually – to maintain required fidelity.

I’d like to hear your experiences with application simulation and screen capture tools while developing such type of courses.

The post Rapid eLearning Through Software Simulations And Screencasts first appeared on The Upside Learning Blog.

Last year, we mentioned that there is a time and place for rapid authoring while opting for it. Here, let me just put some characteristics of the two types of rapid authoring methodologies. To focus more on rapidly authored eLearning content, I am excluding the screen recording tools which are mainly used for software simulation type of courses.

First, let’s look at template-based tools. These tools present several type of templates, each designed for some specific behavior and onscreen layout. Udutu is one of such tool which uses templates for authoring. Authoring in such tools is typically achieved by filling up several forms associated with each template. As the behavior and layout is pre-programmed for each template, it doesn’t require programming or designing skills to develop the course content. However, instructional designers or the SMEs should be able to select the right template for the right kind of slide in the course content. Typically, the learning curve for most of such tools is not very steep. The fixed behavior of each template, in my opinion, supports the “rapid” property of the tool. But such tools may not be suited for all types of eLearning courses as the fixed behavior templates may pose constraints on the instructional design and creativity. Such tools are mainly suited for the kind of courses which use patterns in the course outline and could include a number of simple interactivities. Typical just-in-time courses do possess such property.

Now, let’s check what freeform tools are for. These are like a blank canvas. A set of elements are provided which can be inserted and laid out on the blank canvas to create content for the course. These are typically WYSIWYG kind of tools. However using these tools involves not only a learning curve for the tool itself but certain designing and programming skills as well. But, the best part of such tools is they provide an opportunity to use one’s imagination (and understanding) to create very good and engaging eLearning content. Conversely, such tools might make your life difficult if your course mix requires many more interactivities than just passive learning. They do provide facility to include interactivities, but yes, being familiar with the workflow may in turn require some more skills.

While considering rapid authored eLearning, one should consider the balance between freeform and template-driven tools. Many template-driven tools provide facility to include custom developed content in the course mix. While developing courses using our internal rapid authoring framework, we often use a few custom complex interactivities – like small games – developed through Flash and integrate it in the course as external interactivity. This gives an extra dimension to the course, without affecting the scope and budget significantly.

However, if you are opting for freeform tools like Articulate, do consider to induce some kind of templatization in the workflow. Articulate community does provide some readymade PPT templates which you can use and save time on design and layout.

Do let me know your thoughts and experiences while working on the freeform and/or template-driven rapid authoring.

The post Rapid Authoring – Freeform Vs Template Based first appeared on The Upside Learning Blog.

1. How to Create a Visual Design for Your E-Learning Scenario
2. Rapid Authoring Of E-Learning
3. Rapid e-learning is gaining ground
4. Rapid e-learning is swimming in too small a pond
5. Seven Tips for Bringing the Rapid Back to Rapid eLearning
6. The Truth About Rapid E-Learning
7. There’s nothing rapid about Rapid eLearning
8. What Everyone Ought to Know About Designing an E-learning Course

Do let me know of any other posts that you find useful to be added in this list.

The post Top 25 Rapid eLearning Blog Posts first appeared on The Upside Learning Blog.

Here’s the table from that article:

Do you feel comfortable with these numbers? I don’t.

If you wish to contribute to this continuing survey you can do it here. I will certainly be doing so.

The post eLearning Development: How long does it Really take? first appeared on The Upside Learning Blog.

The latest version, Articulate ’09, has some interesting new features like Single-slide Preview, FLV Support, Easy Audio Editor, and Articulate Branding Removed. You can read more about some of its popular features here.

With all its advantages, Articulate does have a few bugs – although the company did recently release a patch for Presenter ’09 that resolves a large number of bugs [view the whole list of resolved issues here].

Based on our recent experiences with Articulate ’09, we’ve compiled a list of common problems we came across, together with tips on how to work around them:

1.	Missing lines in graphs – The PPT graphs sometimes don’t convert properly to Flash, leading to missing lines. If your project uses relatively less graphs, then converting the graphs to images and importing them into Articulate can be an effective solution. However, if your project is graph-heavy, then images may not be a good idea. In this case, try setting the player template display at an optimal level and avoid scaling (this worked most of the times for us).
2.	Font styles – At times, ‘bold’ or ‘italics’ text in the PPT doesn’t appear the same way after publishing in Articulate. Another thing that happens quite often is that extra spaces are added before/after the text. You could avoid this by using a ‘Bold’ or ‘Italics’ style font from the Font families. For e.g.: Arial Bold, Arial Italics, etc.
3.	Adding a user name in a certificate – The default course completion certificate in Articulate doesn’t include a user name. To get around this, we created a new custom certificate wherein the HTML file containing the certificate SWF file extracts the user name from the LMS using a SCORM API.
4.	Inconsistent indents for bulleted text – For clarity, here are some mockups that can help relate with this situation better.
	Solution: You can avoid inconsistent indents by adding the bulleted text in a separate text box in the PPT. Engage Output Solution: Try the following to avoid this: (a) Add the bulleted text on the slide. (b) Check the preview to identify which word is wrapping onto the next line. (c) Press CTRL+Enter immediately before that word in the PPT. (d) Press Tab and preview again.

Hope these tips will be of help.

If you have some other ways to resolve similar issues, do share them with us. Or if you have faced some other issues and not found a solution, please do share those as well. Maybe we could find a workaround for them.

The post Articulate ’09: Tips for Resolving Common Issues first appeared on The Upside Learning Blog.

For relative newbies, the middle path to elearning salvation lies in trying to find out when rapid authoring (RA) tools should (or should not) be used. And if we’re using these tools, well, please let’s not forget about learner engagement. Because the most commonly heard crib is that a rapid authoring tool does not an engaging course make. (Here, ‘engaging’ refers to a state where the learner is an active participant in the learning experience, not just a passive receiver of information).

RA tools won’t design your learningPerhaps one needs to realise that the problem may lie with how the tool’s being used, rather than the tool itself. Take a look at these posts from Tom Kuhlmann and Mark Berthelemy, which explain why elearning goes wrong with RA tools.

It’s true that RA can eliminate the need for an elearning developer; but it certainly doesn’t eliminate the need for good learning design. The content that is put through rapid authoring is, a lot of times, an SME created presentation, which kind of kills it right at the start. SMEs are indubitably knowledgeable in their chosen field; but they may not necessarily be clued-up about how and why content needs to be delivered in a certain way to the learner.

Secondly, a PowerPoint presentation is a PowerPoint presentation. It’s an aid for the content that the SME would normally deliver face-to-face, while calling on their internalized knowledge and experience to add depth to the session. The PowerPoint is not the content. Sometimes, this gap is plugged by adding details to the point that the learner is set adrift in a sea of information, with no learning whatsoever in sight.

When you have content like this, know that no RA tool can save it; actually, nothing can save it if you don’t redesign it.

RA tools are also the weapon of choice when the eLearning development team is small, where a few members have to carry out multiple development roles. Also, when the developers are more used to dealing with content in a PPT (which, once again, are usually SMEs), it helps to have a tool that can convert it into ‘eLearning’ with the minimum of fuss. Perhaps the last point is one of the biggest reasons for the buzz behind RA tools. Philip Hutchison says about these tools “Most eLearning tools do not promote the creation of effective courses, do not promote web standards, and do not promote accessibility; they merely make cookie-cutter course development easier for technically inexperienced course developers.” This comment sums up the feeling that most elearning professionals have towards rapid authoring.

There’s a time and a place for RA
Rick Nigol suggests using RA tools when time is a major constraint. At Upside Learning, we feel that RA works best when:
–The content to be delivered is almost completely at the knowledge level of Bloom’s Taxonomy (facts and information),
–It’s going to be frequently updated or changed,
–It’s a JIT (just-in-time) reference,
–Demands for training requirements are sudden,
–The budget doesn’t allow for “proper” eLearning development, and
–It needs to be rolled out in about 2 weeks or less.

The RA tools that are available these days do have a lot of options to help make your course engaging. You can do neat interactivities, have branching scenarios, insert multimedia, and create different types of practice for the learner. Ultimately, it depends on you how you use these tools to create a learning experience.
If we keep the content type and the “shelf life” of the course in mind, RA courses may prove to be useful in creating job aids and refreshers that can be used during transferring learning to the job.

Whether or not you approve of them, RA tools can’t be ignored. It’s up to you to decide whether the content lends itself to rapid authoring or not, rather than what Philip Hutchison pithily calls “shoehorning course content into templates”.

The post Should you be using rapid authoring tools? first appeared on The Upside Learning Blog.