The only true limit to eLearning interactions is the capability of the delivery medium. In our case, that’s usually Adobe Flash, or Flash exported from an eLearning authoring tool, or Flash exported from OpenLaszlo. It can also be DHTML, I guess, or plain old Moodle PHP-generated HTML.

I did do a quick Google, and turned up this: http://engaginginteractions.wordpress.com/

You can also look at the demo page for any eLearning interaction design firm and see plenty: http://www.alleninteractions.com/demos-page

The critical elements:

1. The learner is doing more than a routine click-through of the content
2. The learner is required to apply acquired knowledge
3. The learner uses higher-level thinking skills, instead of rote memorization, to complete the interaction correctly

Beyond that, the sky’s the limit. And thank goodness!

In my department, there are 2 tiers of ID work. There is the upper tier, conceptual/creative/writing work, where a designer looks at the content from a customer and turns that content into elearning. That task set involves some sophisticated tasks, tasks that require intelligence and self-directedness:

• Script/lay out/plan interactive activities or assessments based on the customer content
• Write additional instructions and content where necessary
• Proofread and modify grammatical errors where necessary
• Modify typesetting/style to optimize for online legibility, in accordance with department style guide
• Converse with the customer about what they want/need from the end-product, what the learners are capable of, what technological limitations there will be, etc
• Give artistic direction to Flash programmers and graphic designers
• Design social constructivist activities to accompany customer content and create the appropriate Moodle activity modules for these activities
• Based on content and customer needs, determine what Moodle activity types are appropriate for a given course
• Write bids, RFIs, etc with proposals for design and interactivity

The lower tier work is what, in internal parlance, we call “clickmonkey” work. It also requires a great deal of intelligence and self-directedness, but the work is more repetitive. Because we always work in raw HTML in my department (in order to ensure quality and avoid issues related to WYSIWYG editors), even lower tier work involves HTML markup:

• Take existing customer content from other electronic formats (PPT, DOC, etc) and place in Moodle lesson or book module in clean HTML
• Create Moodle quiz, questionnaire, and choice modules using customer content
• Do the same sort of content repurposing using Adobe Captivate or Articulate
• Locate appropriate stock photos, download stock photos, edit stock photos using GIMP, place stock photos on content pages
• Place SCORM packages in courses on customer sites, proof SCORM courses
• Edit audio files, place audio files in Moodle modules or Captivate
• Create simple eLearning interactions using OpenLaszlo or Captivate
• Place Flash activities in Moodle activity modules

Hiring a good ID is hard because all of us do some degree of lower tier work in a given day. There’s just no way around it, even in a supervisory role. I’ve tried hiring folks that had PhDs in Instructional Technology or Instructional Design. That is, people that should have already demonstrated, in their studies, that they have the upper-tier capabilities you need as an ID. Many of these highly educated folks didn’t know how to write HTML markup. They lack the lower-tier capabilities, and don’t like doing the lower-tier work. For that reason, it’s sometimes easier for me to train up. I prefer to hire people with a teaching and language arts background, and some Web experience. In many cases, individuals with working classroom experience have much more intuition about what motivates learners than individuals with PhDs in instructional design.

So what do I want to see on your resume?

• Your capability and working experience with HTML, JavaScript, image editing software, illustration software, Flash, OpenLaszlo (if any), any eLearning content authoring suites, and, of course, Moodle
• Any writing experience or editing experience—if you can proof copy, you’re a valuable candidate
• Any instructional experience, especially any instruction you’ve given to others about or with computers
• Anything else that shows me that you’re capable of working from home, meeting regular deadlines, and generally coming through for the team

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6143653.ece

As always, the comments at the bottom of this article, well…

This is especially not true if the PowerPoint® presentation is well-written as a PowerPoint® presentation. The reason being that presentation slides are not supposed to contain all of the information necessary for the learner. PowerPoint® presentation bullet points are intended to serve as prompts for a speaker, or (if the learners are lucky) for an occasional interactive class discussion. Well-written PowerPoint® presentation bullet points are by their nature incomplete.

Some people assume that it is reasonable to simply supplement this deficit with voiceover, as you would in a synchronous, live presentation. But many learners have a hard time reading and listening at the same time. If we assume that all learners should be forced to listen to voiceover in order to get the full content of the course, we ignore the learning type of some of our most adept (and normally most dedicated) learners, those who learn by reading.

I, for example, learn best in silence. I am ideally suited to online learning because I learn extremely well from reading. I am annoyed and distracted by listening to audio voiceover while reading course content, because the voiceover rarely can keep up with my own reading speed. The ideal eLearning content, for my learning style, would be a course with all content represented visially, in text and diagrams.

If we think about it, that is the foundation from which an eLearning course should start anyway. Because a learner could be caught without the media filters to play the audio, or without the bandwidth to stream the audio, or might be learning on an alternative technology such as a text reader or a handheld device, there should always be an option to only read the text and view images.

Ideally, if there must be voiceover, the voiceover is the same as the visible text. Ideally, the learner is not required to listen to the audio before moving on to the next page. Since listening to 2 minutes of voiceover, or, letting 2 minutes of voiceover play in the background while you catch up on your email, is not an accurate means of assessment. Only assessment is an accurate means of assessment.

Unfortunately, some governmental organizations these days requre some of these flawed practices (Ahem). Others practices are proliferated under a misguided corporate belief in cost-effectiveness or savings, a misguided faith in eLearning authoring suite technologies, a faith in fancy Flash interfaces and clever navigation and page transitions, instead of an emphasis on clear, consistent, accessible content. This is a disservice to the well-documented diversity of learning styles, and in eventuality a waste of money. I do my best to lead our customers away from these practices. In some cases, they acquiesce.

I remember being told how much better the silicone sprays were. That was when I was young and just learning about bike maintenance. One of the signature smells of the WORS series was the parking lot air, tangy with the smell of Tri-Flow. But for winter riding, especially with sand in the mix, ole 3-in-1 machine oil seems to work better. One application lasts a week or more, even in below-zero weather. And no more of that high-pitched squeaking from the rear derailleur.