I'm working at a company that is new to e-learning. We are trying to develop standards so, as a team, we can be consistent as to when we need to use interactivity in our elearning. I was thinking that a matrix of some kind would be helpful. Does anyone have one, or has anyone heard of something like this?

Help me understand something... why would deciding on appropriate interactivity for an online learning opportunity be any different from deciding on appropriate interactivity for ANY learning environment?

Good, sound, learner-centric instructional design happens first. THEN comes the delivery mode.

Yes, my company was in the same boat you are in about a year ago. The best way to approach this is to develop a library of templates. If using Adobe Flash, you can develop many different interactivity templates (e.g. drag and drop, click here, etc.). Keep in mind as FF mentioned that sound instructional design is important and should be thought out first. For example, depending on your subject and audience, your interactivity will be different.

Also, don't just simply put interactivity screens in a course just to make it interactive. Think of the purpose and how it will help the learner engage in actually learning the content.

Back to Flash, templates save time, money, and are the best way to go! You can even purchase templates via the Internet.

Best of Luck!

Thanks for the input so far. We are using Captivate 3, so if you know of any templates (or where I can find some) I would be appreciative.

As far as the types of interactivity...I agree, learner-centric instructional design should come first. However, I am the only person here who designs/creates/delivers learning with a true learning background and education. I need something that will help the other people on my team come up to speed quickly and consistently for the actual deliverables of instructional design (i.e. when to use interactivy, when to use a presentation, when to just send an email, when to do in-person). Make sense?

quote:

I agree, learner-centric instructional design should come first. However, I am the only person here who designs/creates/delivers learning with a true learning background and education. I need something that will help the other people on my team come up to speed quickly and consistently for the actual deliverables of instructional design (i.e. when to use interactivy, when to use a presentation, when to just send an email, when to do in-person). Make sense?

What is the background, training, and experience of those on your team?

I'm not trying to pick on your case Ransom, and I mean no offense, but if the team members are not truly qualified to do their job, it represents thousands of situations in our learning organizations. People are in jobs for which they are not qualified. WHY? Why does the field of training, workplace learning, or whatever you might call it (including the ASTD organization), even encourage people to "transition" into the training field? Isn't that just asking for trouble if they are going to be hired to do actual work BEFORE they can do anything? It makes no sense to me, and only makes the work of qualified learning professionals that much more difficult - especially when it comes time to defend our value to organizations.

And it seems that more and more, even basic work skills, like doing research and thinking critically are lacking in many of our profession. Oh well, I don't know what the answer is. ASTD and other organizations are trying to educate people, but there's a long, long way to go yet. But in the meantime, who bears the burden? The employees for one.