I started writing scripts for Computer Assisted Teaching (EAO) in the mid-1980s, and I did it later, when e-learning started to be talked about. I have continued to do this occasionally, and my last experiences have been relatively recent, within a subsidized project. All told, my interactive designed scripts may be approaching a million words, including dialogue and apart from diagrams and graphics. In these 25 years I have accumulated some experiences that perhaps are worth contrasting with others, to the benefit of the quality and effectiveness of online training.
After a stage of teaching the gown and chalk in the telecommunications area, I was selected in my company at the time, Fycsa (now defunct), for EAO designs in 1986, and I was also a scriptwriter for interactive video systems at the time on 30 cm optical discs; but I will focus here on the online stage of e-learning. Among the users of the courses whose scripts I have written in the last ten years, there have been workers and managers from Aena, Alcatel, Telefónica, Indra and other companies. I have not always been a direct tutor for user learning, but sometimes intermediate tutors were orchestrated that transferred the questions that they could not attend to.
Before I start, let me go back to the 70s and 80s - I worked as a trainer in a large company - when I sent my manuscripts (teaching manuals) to the typing pool; I then suffered some unpleasant surprises in the correction phase. The texts were treated there quite automatically, and any request or clarification that I wrote in the margin could be faithfully transcribed as if it were part of the newsroom, without any consultation. I soon decided to type the smaller volumes myself, and thus leave the appropriate spaces for formulas, drawings, diagrams, etc. Then, soon after, personal computers would happily arrive, and soon Computer Aided Teaching.
The truth is that I had some tantrums because of that typewriting issue, and I remember it now because I have had similar experiences afterwards, as a scriptwriter of courses for computer learning.
Recently, for example, I sent an interactive teaching unit in Word to an APeL-associated businessman, and he showed it to me right away, once it was "posted" on his platform. The annotations that I had written in the margin about hypertext links of some words were treated as if they were part of the lesson, apart from skipping some of my screens and presenting everything as a linear text. They explained that they had hung it just so I could see how it looked, and they immediately cut off access to the platform.
I know that the providers of e-learning systems (many of them associated in APeL) work with animations and interactivity formats, and also with linear texts in pdf; but I have always been commissioned typically with interactive scripts, and so I asked about the interactivity formats they worked with, to incorporate them into my storyboard. They were not always identified a priori, but the worst thing is when the provider extracts a pdf from an interactive script, because then they can simply cut out some screens and figures, and leave a linear content with some inconsistencies. When working with pdf, I prefer to design the document myself, because the author works with meanings and the production technicians (in the last cases that I have met) seem to do it merely with signifiers.
Obviously, my memories focus on the supplier companies I have worked with, which may not have always been the best. Indeed, my experiences have not always been good and I will start with the best and the worst, so that my precautions are understood. Then I will also formulate my general conclusions, in case they are of any interest. I know that it is not possible to generalize, but I did find my experiences as a screenwriter to some extent revealing and that is why I try to synthesize them.
The best experiences
Here I have to say that I have experienced the most professional pleasure when I have been tutor of the courses of my authorship, and I have exchanged messages with the users of other companies. In the emails received, some users showed me argued satisfaction with the content of the course, and, although the objective is not that it is pleasant but effective, I could see how design efforts of each course were appreciated, efforts that had not been detected in my own company.
Indeed, with or without success, I have tried to work more for users than for my boss, which in my case was certainly different, in my opinion. Those responsible for the projects seemed to ask me for more speed than care, and I fear that they were more concerned with their clients (training areas for large and medium-sized companies) than with the users. So the contact with the users and their consent have always been very pleasant to me.
I must say that, years ago, my impression was that users were sensitively obliged in their companies to follow online courses, typically of short duration (“pills”), and many did them quickly, as if to get rid of them.; This made me value more the satisfaction shown in their emails, apart from the usual questionnaires. But I have also worked with users who have chosen the courses they take, even long-term and up to 600 storyboard pages (screens), and have received messages of satisfaction with the content.
In short, the most pleasant aspect of design has always been its application to each training program and contact with users, which seems very typical of teachers, which is what I have been throughout my career; first in telecommunication issues and then in issues related to the human side of business management.
The worst experience
In general, I have always found the relationship with the production technicians of e-learning systems somewhat difficult, perhaps because I saw information and communication more important than technology, and they seemed to see technology more important than information and communication. the communication. Determined to multiply the number of clicks to be made by users, they seemed to be able to divide the Eiffel Tower into sections, click by section, and avoid showing it to the observer in its entirety. I do not pretend to be right, but I do formulate my vision of the thing, after so many years.
But I want to talk about a really bad experience, related to intellectual property. In the subsidized project that I was talking about, and although I was the sole author of the script-storyboard -with more than 150,000 words, apart from diagrams and figures-, the company decided to hide my authorship from users (in its project documentation for the body that subsidized, included an extensive team of designers), and even on the virtual platformPeople outside the course content were listed as tutors. In addition, I knew (due to the negligence of the partner involved) that my script-storyboard was going to be taken to the Intellectual Property Registry behind my back. I had never worried about intellectual property before, but that seemed frankly ugly: hiding my authorship and then taking the script to the Registry "without Pepe knowing."
I do not elaborate on the details of the case, but I bring you this experience to underline the convenience that, as with training books and manuals, there is an identification of the authors of the courses in the e-learning systems, which could contribute to their dedication and commitment to results. I think it is obligatory to do so, both thinking about authors and users. I like to know who wrote it, before reading a book.
Other reflections and memories
The first designs, in the 80s, were materialized by us, the teachers themselves, with the help of simple authoring tools; but later, already in the online stage, a whole business sector was set up around e-learning, and teachers began to occupy a secondary role, as a kind of "outsourced" in projects. One got unpleasant surprises, when sometimes seeing on the screen didactically distorted the scripts (texts, diagrams, drawings…), by people outside the subject.
More than the disgust at the changes introduced regarding the design, what worried me was the right that the production technicians attributed to themselves: manipulate the texts without knowing the subject or accrediting teaching experience. In most of the cases that I have known, the technicians have handled signifiers and non-signifiers, and that explains why I have been encountering various errors after production.
The least of it is that they wrote me (for example) "serenity", instead of "serendipity", or they introduced me misspellings, or put me a photo of a man who was not, because they are mistakes that we can all make, and I also; I see worse that the you was changed to the you, or that, for example, I was divided into steps the ladder of inferences of Argyris, which is something like breaking the Eiffel Tower into pieces when the author wants to show it complete.
Yes, what worries me is the right that has been attributed above the author. Apparently -always within the cases I have met-, the teacher is considered merely an expert in each subject, but unable to design an interactive script. Once, in 2008, an entrepreneur from the sector (APeL) told me: "I see you as an expert, but I don't think you are capable of designing a script." I asked for an example to guide me, but they gave me nothing; so for my first job there I stuck to my previous know-how. Then I learned that a sample of that first job for that company was provided to other designers for reference.
For a teacher today, writing a script according to the formats of interactivity of the producers, not be more difficult than designing a presentation with PowerPoint or similar tool: this is my opinion. But, in the era of information and communication technologies, in the so-called Information Society, technology seems to claim a greater role than that of information itself. I would, of course, be in favor of the teachers themselves continuing to develop the products, with suitable authoring tools that should not be more complex than PowerPoint.
I remember that, in an intervention of mine on the quality of e-learning at the University of Seville (April, 2009), I defended that knowledge comes from information and not from the technology that supports it. I watched, however, surprised how the speaker who followed me maintained that he did not agree; that knowledge did not come from information. I kept silent and I do now: the reader will have his opinion about it.
Today it seems to be believed, by the way, that a script can be written by people outside the subject of the course, based on a linear starting text. I think that nobody can teach what they do not know, but in fact I have been asked (another businessman associated with APeL, in 2009) if I could prepare an interactive script for a course on a subject that I did not know. My answer was that first I would learn it and then I would teach it, although obviously I prefer to make scripts of the topics that I already know, and in which I have delved more. In effect, I try to delve into each topic, before starting to design interactive scripts for the so-called virtual training.
Actually, I fear that the appearance, in 2008, of the AENOR UNE 66181 standard did not come to improve things, but to provide arguments to those who see quality as something proportional to the number of clicks that the user is forced to do. Interactivity is fine, insofar as it recreates teacher-student dialogues to encourage, for example, the best user inferences; but not so much, when he merely remembers the turning of pages in a book.
Here I remember how some production technicians broke the text on a screen into four pieces, so that the user had to click four times to read it. If I had been asked to use that format of interactivity (“1-2-3-4”), I would have applied it within the script in the summaries of each unit, for example. Yes, I find it curious that some formats that were handled in production were hidden from me, and then the technicians incorporated them with dubious success.
Everything can be improved, everything is perfectible, and undoubtedly in the production phase there can be valuable improvements in the course content; but I would entrust them to the authors, or to experts in the topics covered. For the benefit of e-learning, in no way would I let people outside the subject manipulate the scripts to a sensible degree: I must say what I think, just as the reader can think otherwise.
I also accumulate some experiences as a user and as a mere observer, although I have wanted to limit myself here to my role as screenwriter. However, I want to refer to those talking dolls that I have ever seen on screen, to add animation: I do not like them. There may be cases when this appeal proceeds, but I have seen it ridiculous when I have seen it. On the other hand, I have also seen animated figures that demanded the user's attention, but the screen timed without the user being able to read the rest of the content displayed. And I have seen an online Spelling course that, to my amazement, only partially reproduced outdated rules; Better buy, for a few euros, the booklet of the SAR. I do not wish to mention to which client the businessman claimed to have sold this course.
Insisting on my experience as a scriptwriter, I must add that the most complicated are usually the system-user dialogues; for example, writing true and false sentences in questions. It is not worth anything; I believe that this must be done with care and care, so that it serves as a didactic reinforcement. I fear that normally it will only be appreciated by the user, but it is a special effort to demand of the screenwriter, who must be, of course, and above all, a good editor. Clarity, precision, relevance…
As I write this article, a message just came from Barranquilla, Colombia, asking me for information on success stories in the application of e-learning and I do not know what I am going to answer. I digress because I fear that what may be seen as success by suppliers, or by the training areas of client companies, may not always be seen as such by users. I'm not saying that there are not satisfied users, that there are; I say that perhaps they should be the ones to assess the contribution of these courses to improving their individual productivity and competitiveness.
Final messages
In case they were considered and derived from my own experiences, I bring you some conclusions: the reader will already value their interest. Summarizing, I wanted to tell you that:
- Teachers should be given greater prominence in the development of courses. In this sense and as a student, a linear text in pdf could suffice, for example, if it were didactically prepared, with due care. It would also be cheaper, since in more than a few interactive programs, more cost than value is added, in my opinion.
- I think what to learn is more important than how to do it, so perhaps there should be less talk about e-learning compared to other methods, or new versions or modalities of e-learning, but rather content better tuned to the profiles of the emerging economy of knowledge and innovation.
- The contribution of ICT in our domestic and social life, at work and in lifelong learning cannot be questioned; but the information should not be trivialized or ignored for the benefit of technology. This, in the case at hand, must serve learning and not so much the brilliance of technicians.
- I would ask teachers to use ad hoc tools with sufficient ease, for the production of the courses of which we are authors; But I do not rule out that there are good production technicians who know professionals in their field and not others, for the development of the courses.
- An online course is worthless if it does not contribute to an effective, fast and pleasant learning of the users. I met an entrepreneur in the sector who was saying that he had trained thousands of people from a large bank in project management, but the bank said that, in more than a year, he had not used it yet; who would surely offer it to the new staff.
Without a doubt, each company that produces online courses is sovereign, and also my conclusions, if worthy of consideration, will be highly debatable. I only pretend what I am entitled to do: say, wrong or not, what I think. In fact, I would add that perhaps, it seems to me, different things are understood by e-learning. I think it is also e-learning when I browse the Internet inquiring about different topics of my interest; Obviously one should treat the information one finds carefully before translating it into valuable and applicable knowledge, but there is a lot of information on the Net.
Here I leave it. To say a transcendent phrase and taking the risks of analogies, I would add that there is no good movie without a good script, although it may be subject to improvements during filming. What I'm trying to say is that, perhaps, the last word on the script should correspond to whoever appears as a screenwriter, in tune with the director of the film. I do not see any camera or decorator modifying the script freely, as the best e-learning provider companies, associated or not with APeL, surely know.
