On the Road with Ethan: Swedesburg, Iowa

On New Year’s Day years ago, I had found myself in Swedesburg, a small town in Southeastern Iowa, on a familiar road. For 20 or 30 years, I have traveled this stretch in my holiday trips and it has always intrigued me. The road itself is nothing spectacular, but every time I reach this benchmark I am met with a familiar face; the roadside attraction that I refer to as the Hay Donkey. The creature, composed of straw and ribbons, is a milestone that I always look forward to. 

After doing research on this, I’ve come to learn that this is a Christmas tradition: the Swedish Straw Goat or julbok. Although I’m not Swedish and I don’t know much about this holiday tradition, I have come to greatly appreciate its presence in my travels. 

straw goat

Now you might be thinking, what does this have to do with instructional design? Tradition and routine is rooted in our behaviors and culture, and this also extends to the way that we approach learning.

We are confronted often with the challenge of designing and developing (or in many cases, updating) annual compliance training modules. It is astonishing how uniform the request is:

 

 

We must deliver this training every year and report compliance for all employees to a regulatory agency. Nobody is interested in doing it. Learners don’t want to do the same thing over and over. But we can’t do anything else—we have to make sure every person sees this content.

 

It’s easy to accept this at face value, and many of us do. But on pondering this a little longer, isn’t it strange that compliance training is somehow not like so much of what we are called to do and enjoy? When you think about it, humans don’t really seem to redo many of the things or tasks that occupy our time for leisure. Repetition, or being met with familiar expectations, brings us confidence and comfort. We actually seek out opportunities to repeat things that we enjoy or have significance. People choose to go on the same vacation year after year, people engage in hobbies that usually involve the repetitive performance of a relatively small set of tasks, and people go to concerts specifically to hear music they have heard before.

So it seems that the real problem with compliance training is not actually the repetition, but rather the tedious and punitive instruction that is created, unfortunately with the justification “Listen, it’s compliance training that we have to do; there’s nothing we can do about it.” In fact, there is a lot we can do about it. We need to apply the same rigor of immersive and motivating design that would be applied to any other subject area not cursed with the label “compliance.”

Ethan Edwards

About the Author: Ethan Edwards

Ethan Edwards draws from more than 30 years of industry experience as an elearning instructional designer and developer. He is responsible for the delivery of the internal and external training and communications that reflect Allen Interactions’ unique perspective on creating Meaningful, Memorable, and Motivational learning solutions backed by the best instructional design and latest technologies.

Comments

Daniel Albarran

1/6/2023, 9:37 PM

Hi Ethan. Since I started designing e-learning (18 years ago) to the present day, software simulations are still something clients demand. Recently, I had to create some software simulations, and I noticed that, though using new author tools, some inertias are strong, and the result is almost the same as 15 years ago. So I wonder: What are new tendencies in software training? For example, how industry leaders like Allen Interaction create software training nowadays? I´d really appreciate your thoughts. Daniel Albarrán

Reply to Daniel Albarran


Ethan Edwards

1/7/2023, 2:33 AM

Hi Daniel. Nice to hear from you. Thanks for your question. I wish I had a more exciting answer to offer. Technology has changed a great deal but in most cases has impacted software training in mainly superficial ways. One thing we have had success at is to be able to create sandbox versions of the software in which the learner operates in a "real" sense rather than in the highly constrained simulations that are little more than sequenced screen shots, each with a single "correct" action associated with it. We have been able to, in some cases, monitor learner actions performed in the sandbox system and provide some feedback or, at the very least, very robust help sections. But while our technology for authoring has changed (not always improved), the way people use software has changed very little, and so the required elements for successful software training persist: - Provide meaningful scenarios and context for doing software tasks (that approximate the eventual real-life task). - Provide a demonstration of the software procedural steps (individually and as a sequence). - Practice the steps in sequence to the point of being proficient without extra prompts or instructions. So long as these rules persist for what is needed for procedural learning to be successful, the training structures will continue to share some characteristics. This is actually ok, unless there is some desire that things have to change simply because we somehow think change is always desirable. Certainly there are expanded opportunities for improved interfaces, media, and underlying technologies, but I have yet to see a software training program that has abandoned these core functions and still had much of an impact.

Reply to Ethan Edwards


Daniel Albarran

1/7/2023, 3:10 AM

Thanks, Ethan. You´re right: "the way people use software has changed very little". So the need for meaningful (and if possible, fun) training remains. Keep sharing your ideas, please. I ´ve been a fan of your articles since I discovered Allen Interactions in 2008. Have a great 2023.

Reply to Daniel Albarran

Would you like to leave a comment?

Related Blog Posts