The need for bespoke content is at the top of the list for most existing e-learning users, however, many struggle to get the right balance between speed and quality in development. Perceived wisdom may lead one to believe that there is an “either/or” choice between in house and outsourced solutions; not being ones to accept perceived wisdom blindly, Cortexa offer a range of development services. This varies from providing help and guidance in the development of in house “rapidly authored” content, to simpler outsourced programmes, through to more measured high impact bespoke content with a high level of interaction and complexity. The diagram below gives a visual representation of how we work. 

I was with a customer recently (I'm going to call her Wendy) and she was expressing some concern over the quality of locally developed "rapid content". Wendy's concerns were two-fold - first it wasn't all that rapid (especially after the first flush of the launch, additional content was taking longer and longer to get out there), but more importantly she felt that there were elements missing from the material they had developed. At first glance the content looked good, but as we explored her content together we began to realise that it was all pretty one-dimensional and relied heavily on point and click screens. This led on to a wider discussion about content structure and the need for instructional designers to understand a reasonable amount about Learning Styles.

Over the years much work has been done on Learning Styles and I have been a follower of David Kolb's excellent work on the topic (see an excellent Article on Kolb's Learning Styles here) and I have used Peter Honey and Alan Mumford's development of his work frequently in the classroom. (For those of you looking for a deeper understanding look no further than Karl Jung, and the modern interpretation/application of his theories in the form of Myers Briggs (MBTI). I've also used MBTI extensively and am happy to talk about its influence on our learning design, too - let me know if you want to hear more). 

As a base for understanding I find Honey and Mumford's learning styles questionnaire great fun and a great source for discussion in groups. How, then do we apply this in e-learning design and how does it add value?. We can start by addressing a simple learning model. On a day to day, even minute by minute basis we go through a learning cycle, whether you are refining a major product laucnh or adjusting your seating position at your desk we follow a simple cycle (see Learning Cycle below). Our preferred learning style then indicates where we might prefer to spend our time. If you, for example have a preference for "reflecting" then you might  - if undirected or unaware - spend a disproportionate amount of time thinking about an issue at the cost of action. The positive side to this is that when working in our preferred style we tend to be more effective. Let's have a quick look at the Honey and Mumford model, they have identified four principal learning styles: Activist, Reflector, Theorist and Pragmatist each of which have strengths and preferences - the challenge for the instructional designer is to design content that can at some stage in a programme cater for all styles.

Activists: our activist friends like to be challenged and to a certain extent being "dropped in the deep end", they also like to stuff that's new to them and very much here and now. They will enjoy challenge based e-learning (i.e. business simulations and problem solving type activities) and will as likely as not avoid formal tutorials. 

Reflectors like to have the chance to ponder and to stand back from activities to listen and/or observe. They are likely to follow up on learning and follow their own lines of research, to engage our reflectors we try to keep the learning environment safe and non-threatening, and to give learners pointers as top where their own discovery based learning might start. 

Theorists need to see that what is being offered is part of a system or model that has intellectual veracity, they are also likely to explore associations and relationships between ideas and situations. They follow logic well, and like to store information and 'models' for future use. With theorists we can offer downloads and additional learning pieces that contain more theory- especially theories that are backed up by a renowned source. 

Finally pragmatists  like a practical link between what is being taught and how it will be applied on the job. They like to see content and exercises that contain familiar language and topics, so they can get stuck in and don’t need to 'contextualise' their learning. With pragmatists we like to use real life examples and if possible integrate input from credible role models from within the organisation.  Given the diverse nature of these learning styles it's hardly surprising then that Wendy has experienced some disappointment in the quality of her team's output. We can't expect to keep all our learners engaged all of the time, but if content is developed to favour one particular learning style it is destined to feel a little flat with others irrespective of the quality of the graphics. For us, then it is essential that our Instructional Designers have a good understanding of learning styles so we can try and add value to our subject matter experts' input, either through face to face discussions or collaboratively online. Who said teamwork is dead? 

I would be interested to hear your views, especially on the subject of "home authored content". 

As people get used to learning online they begin to realise that online learning is more than just modules and modules are more than automated PowerPoints. Whilst historically our customers have stuck to the security of converting their familiar classroom based training into an online format more and more we are now completing projects that can really exploit the power of e-learning. This means getting away from “one hour chunks” and screen after screen of detailed information. Online learning really comes alive when the student can take control of both the pace and the direction of their learning. Bespoke learning design allows us to blend structured learning with what we call “Learning Bytes” (small 5 to 10 minute pieces) so the learner creates their own route through the learning. This approach has come out of observations of how people use the internet especially search engines such as Google. If the Learning Environment can be used as a base from which learning is launched rather than just as a tracking tool for management then we can really get into the domain of learning as opposed to module completion. An American consultant by the name of Clark Quinn uses the term “Performance Eco-System” (see Clark Quinn) and whilst I struggle with the title I am totally in tune with what he is saying, see what you think. The ability of users to customise their own learning experience is central to the growth of learning in the months and years to come.