J u n e 1 8

Strategies and Techniques for Designers, Developers, and Managers of eLearning

A publication of

THIS WEEK — DESIGN STRATEGIES

W W W. E L E A R N I N G G U I L D . C O M

2002

Learning objects appearto have significantpotential for creatinghighly personalizedlearning programs, easily updated courses,and performance sup-port tools. However, ase-Learning has becomeheavily dependent ontechnologists, produc-ers, and funders, learn-ing designers have losttheir voice and oftenseem to drop out of theconversation. Learningdesigners must thinkabout better ways toconceptualize and create resources andprograms. Here aresome promising leads.

The New Frontier ofLearning Object DesignBY ELLEN D. WAGNER

The learning objects model for creating e-Learning

products and services offers real promise for creat-

ing learner-centered solutions and tools. Objects —

stand-alone data elements holding “content,” “learning,”

and “knowledge” — promise to take e-Learning to the next

level of personalization and relevancy. Yet for all the buzz,

learning designers and decision-makers continue to wonder

how to realize those promises.

Clearly, a viable learning object strategyinvolves much more than a shared con-tent object resource model and metadatatags. This article takes a look at the cur-rent status of learning objects. It alsoexplores some critical issues likely toaffect the speed and degree to which thelearning object model is adopted.

Learning designers need to play a morevisible role in the new world of learningobjects. Content creation and distributionare the foundation for engaging, collabo-rative learning designs, but more is need-ed in order to realize the power of a fullypersonalized, interactive-rich online learn-ing experience.

Learning objects: changing theface of e-Learning

E-Learning’s most successful commer-cial niche is online courseware for corpo-rate training. Its adoption is generally theresult of expectations for faster times-to-performance or lower costs. Improveddocumentation and records and informa-tion management functionality are alsoimportant payoffs.

Even so, e-Learning vendors are moreaware than ever that customers wantmore out of their e-Learning investments.Buyers want to use their own content tocustomize e-Learning offerings. The final

Continued on next page

product may or may not look like conven-tional courseware. Customers also wantto develop their own content, and theywant it to play in their chosen LearningContent Management System (LCMS).

Content owners and organizations of all sizes and kinds want assurances thattheir content will be available to userseven if distribution platforms change. Thismeans the content must be in a formatthat can be reused and moved. Theseobjects may be repurposed for many uses,not limited to training and education.

The education and training communityis hungry to know more about learningobjects. During the past decade, interestin learning objects has grown slowly butsteadily until they have come to representa “new frontier.” Practitioners now expectthem to leverage existing information, pro-duce new knowledge, and create newmeaning.

Along the way, learning objects haveevolved from a computer programmingstrategy to a metaphor of interoperable

content elements. Ideally these elementscan be repeatedly assembled andreassembled, creating an unlimited number of forms.

Learning object standards have evolveddramatically in the past several years.There is special interest in acceleratinglarge-scale development of dynamic andcost-effective learning software. The hopeis to find a way to build such softwarewith these reusable objects.

The emergence of the AdvancedDistributed Learning initiative’s SharableContent Object Reference Model (SCORM)has already altered the face of e-Learningas we’ve known it. With SCORM and thestandards dominating many of today’s e-Learning and knowledge managementconversations, it looks like objects reallyare here to stay.

However, in the midst of all the excitingstandards developments, more than a fewpeople are feeling confused and left be-hind in a steady stream of “object techno-babble.” How do we make sure to keep

the “learning” in “learning object?”

A quick learning objects review Learning objects are commonly viewed

as the smallest element of stand-aloneinformation required for an individual toachieve an enabling performance objec-tive or outcome. Learning object usesinclude, but are not limited to, onlineinstruction or performance support.

Grounded in the object-oriented para-digm from computer science, learningobjects are central to instructional theo-ries offered by such authorities as Dr. M.David Merrill (Professor of InstructionalTechnology, Utah State University), Dr.Charles Reigeluth (Professor of Education,Indiana University at Bloomington) andothers. These theories support breakingdown content to constituent parts, thenreasse-mbling that content to meet specificlearning goals. Many leading practitionersbe-lieve that learning objects are a coreconcept to creating, maintaining, and man-aging learning content. (See Figure 1.)2

Des

ign

Str

ateg

ies

JUN

E 1

8,

20

02

/ T

HE

EL

EA

RN

ING

DE

VE

LO

PE

RS

’ JO

UR

NA

L

DESIGN / s t r a t e g i e s

FIGURE 1 Objects ensure that complex content can be broken down into smaller, more meaningful chunks that can be assembledand reassembled to meet individual learner requirements. (Used with permission of Wayne Hodgins)

NOTE: Links to all organizations named in this article will be found in the Guild’sResource section. — Editor

Many writers credit Wayne Hodgins,Director, Worldwide Learning Strategies,Autodesk Inc., for coining the term “learn-ing object.” The story goes that in 1992,while watching one of his children playingwith Lego™ building blocks, Hodgins real-ized that his learning design efforts mightbenefit from plug-and-play interoperablepieces of learning content that could beassembled and reassembled as needed.The rest, as they say, is history.

Peder Jacobsen, Co-Founder and ChiefLearning Officer, LogicBay, describes theperiod from 1992 to 1998 as a time ofsignificant activity in the learning objectarena. The Learning Object MetadataGroup from the National Institute ofScience and Technology and the Com-puter Education Management Association(CEDMA) began to address learning objectissues such as modularity, database cen-tricity and metadata. The Aviation IndustryComputer-Based Training Committee(AICC), the International Electrical andElectronics Engineers (IEEE) LearningTechnology Standards Committee (LTSC),the Instructional Management Systems(IMS) Global Consortium, and the Allianceof Remote Instructional Authoring andDistribution Networks for Europe (ARI-ADNE) started their work in the learningobject arena, paying particular attentionto the development of standards.

Around this same time, Oracle intro-duced the Oracle Learning Architecture(OLA), an early attempt at an authoringenvironment using learning objects.Although the OLA never came to fruitionat Oracle, Tom Kelly and Chuck Barrittscontinued their learning object efforts atCisco Systems. Their efforts culminatedwith the release of Cisco’s white paper on Reusable Learning Objects in 1998.

A number of learning object definitionshad been offered by these groups and byindividuals. For example, the IEEE LTSCdescribed learning objects as any entity,digital or non-digital, which can be used,re-used or referenced during technology-supported learning. David Wiley, an influ-ential thinker involved in exploring innova-tive applications, has defined learningobjects as any digital resource that canbe reused to support learning. Go tohttp://reusability.org/read.

For vendors of e-Learning products andservices, these definitions may be toobroad to be functionally useful. E-Learning

content and distribution vendors havetended to craft learning object definitionsthat support the kinds of content develop-ment and distribution applications offeredby their companies. For example,Asymetrix, Inc. (now Click2learn) oncedefined learning objects as pre-scriptedelements that simplify programming. TheEducational Objects Economy (a NationalScience Foundation funded project) simpli-fied the definition even further, equating

learning objects with Java applets.Macromedia’s interest in supportingrobust interoperable content creation isreflected in its definition, which describesa learning object as instructionally soundcontent, combined with opportunities forpractice, simulation, collaborative interac-tion and assessment that directly relateto a learning objective or outcome.

Some developers suggest that a typicalcourse should contain a specific number

THE

EL

EA

RN

ING

DE

VE

LO

PE

RS

’ JOU

RN

AL

/ JUN

E 18

, 20

02

Design S

trategies3

DESIGN / s t r a t e g i e s

FIGURE 2 A learning object is a simple device conceptually, but opinions differ withregard to implementation. (Tanya Heins and Frances Himes. Creating Learning Objectswith Macromedia Flash MX. San Francisco, CA; Macromedia, Inc. A Macromedia whitepaper. http://www.macromedia.com/learning. Released April 2002. Used with permis-sion.)

FIGURE 3 Fewer than four out of every ten practitioners were aware that the SCORMv1.2 update had been released.

of objects, or that objects should be of acertain time duration, or that each learn-ing object must contain a certain numberof specific kinds of elements. Those sug-gestions tend to reflect object require-ments for use in specific settings. WayneHodgins suggests that there is no setabsolute size to a learning object, sincethe size of the object will be relative tothe needs of learners and the require-ments of given learning tasks.

While it is likely that definitional de-bates and discussions will continue, theprevailing views suggest that learningobjects have the following attributes:

• They are the smallest element ofstand-alone information required foran individual to achieve an enablingperformance objective or outcome.

• They are stored and accessed usingmeta-data attributes and tags.

• They are assembled and contextual-ized using metafiles that situatemeaning and application and facili-tate meaningful assembly.

Figure 2 provides a graphic representa-tion of an object in e-Learning.

Why learning objects?E-Learning expert Warren Longmire

suggests that learning objects can satisfyboth immediate learning needs — suchas a knowledge-based or skills-basedcourse — and current and future learningneeds that are not course-based. (Seehttp://www.learnativity.com/download/LwoL3.pdf) Longmire proposes that otherpossible benefits of using learningobjects are:

Increased value of content. The value

of content is increased every time it isreused. This is reflected in cost savingsby avoiding new design and productionefforts. Selling content objects or pro-viding them to partners may offer addi-tional revenue generation opportunities.Improved content flexibility. When con-tent is captured in an object format, itcan be reused much more easily thanmaterial that has to be rewritten foreach new context or application. Improved updating, searching, andcontent management. Metadata tagsdescribing various attributes of a learn-ing object help organize, identify andlocate relevant content. This improvessearching, facilitates management andmaintenance, and helps filter andselect the relevant content for a givenpurpose. Content Customization. The learningobject approach enables a just-in-timeapproach to customization by allowingdesigners to select, assemble, andrearrange content according to stake-holder needs.Not surprisingly, these benefits for us-

ing learning objects relate most directly toconcerns for content and its modification,utility, value and management. Content isthe most tangible asset in an e-Learningdesign. Improved methods for managingcontent may, in fact, relate directly toimproved learning outcomes for individuals and organizations.

But learning content, no matter howrobust, is not the same thing as learning.What are the benefits of using learningobjects for learning or performanceimprovement? In many learning object

models relatively little attention is paid toincreasing an individual’s personal capaci-ty to absorb information and create newknowledge. These days most discussionsabout learning objects concentrate onstandards, metadata and SCORM. Whilethe work involved in creating a sharedcontent object model is important, it isonly a part of the total picture.

What’s happening on the objectfront?

The broad acceptance of SCORM as ade facto standard for content creation anddistribution has resulted in a greaterawareness of the importance of metadataand object models. But just how broadlyaccepted is SCORM in the e-Learning mar-ketplace? The March 2002 eLearningGuild (http://www.eLearningGuild.com)SCORM Standards Awareness surveynoted several important points. First,awareness of SCORM standards is muchhigher in the e-Learning vendor communitythan in the practitioner community. (SeeFigure 3.)

Given this difference in awareness, itfollows that vendors are more likely to beproviding SCORM conformant applica-tions. (See Figure 4.)

The primary reason practitionersoffered for not doing more with learningobject designs is that they lacked thetechnical knowledge to interpret and applythe technical guidelines in a practice set-ting. The second most-offered reason wasthat people are still waiting for useful,widely accepted standards definitions.

Keeping the learning in learningobjects design

What many people don’t yet recognizeis that a working learning object strategyinvolves much more than SCORM andmetadata tags. Realizing the value of anobject strategy will demand a change inthe way we value content. Even moreimportant, this change calls for givinglearning designers a voice and gettingthem back in the conversation.

E-Learning has become completelydependent on technology (e.g. LearningContent Management Systems, contentcreation and authoring tools, XML, metada-ta, SCORM). As a result, the loudest voicesat the e-Learning table are those belongingto the technologists, the producers, andthe funders. Learning designers, masterteachers, and subject matter experts allneed to have a greater say in how e-Learning products and services evolve.

DESIGN / s t r a t e g i e s4

Des

ign

Str

ateg

ies

JUN

E 1

8,

20

02

/ T

HE

EL

EA

RN

ING

DE

VE

LO

PE

RS

’ JO

UR

NA

L

FIGURE 4 Most vendors are developing or deploying SCORM-conformant e-Learningapplications, while most practitioners have not started any development of such systems.

In order to do that, learning designersare going to need to think about betterways to conceptualize and design learningobject based resources and programs. Inmost learning settings, instructionaldesign activities tend to focus on thearrangement of contingencies to elicitspecific responses. (See Figure 5.)Developing object-oriented learning designsinvolves a significant shift from behavioralto cognitive perspectives and from objec-tivist to constructivist perspectives.

The seemingly algorithmic nature of theprocess of design (“First you state yourgoal, then you define your objectives...”)almost suggests a stimulus/responserelationship (“...and your student will per-form certain tasks with 80% accuracy,90% of the time”). Even in cases wheredesigns are developed for cognitive taskssuch as knowing, remembering, thinkingcreatively, and solving problems, designstend to reflect an objectivist rather than aconstructivist orientation. According to anobjectivist:

• The world is completely and correctlystructured in terms of entities, prop-erties, and relationships.

• Meaning exists in the world outsidethe realm of human experience.

• While people have different under-standings of meaning based upontheir different experiences, these are still only partial understandings.

• The goal of complete and correctunderstanding is to get people toknow the entities, attributes, andrelations that exist, unbiased by their prior experience.

Constructivism provides designers withan alternative basis for thinking aboutinstructional experiences. In such a view,there are many ways in which to structurethe world. This further suggests that thereare many meanings or perspectives for anevent or concept.

As a result, there may not be just onecorrect meaning or understanding forwhich learners must strive. In this setting,learning is a process of making meaning,rather than a response to a stimulus or atransmission from teacher to student.Human beings interact with other peopleand with the world. They attempt to makesense of those interactions all of the time.

In their recent book, TheoreticalFoundations of Learning Environments,David Jonassen and Susan Land reiteratethat learning itself is a dialogue, aprocess of internal and social negotiation.Communities of practice provide a real-

world context for negotiating, evaluatingand creating shared meaning. These com-munities have become the ideal learningenvironments for the current era.

This differs from the traditional behav-ioral-cognitive view of learning. The tradi-tional view positions the individual as amedium of learning who processes,stores, retrieves, and applies information.Behavioral principles continue to form thebasis for many large-scale training initia-tives.

For example, a key behavioral principleholds that a response followed by a rein-forcer is strengthened and is thereforemore likely to reoccur. This is the basisfor much drill-and-practice activity.Cognitive approaches to learning tend topresent learners with an objective “rightanswer” defined by others and presentedas true. Each individual compares his orher interpretation of meaning against thatstatement.

In fact all three approaches to learningand to instructional design — behavioral,cognitive or constructivist —- offer solu-tions for helping learners achieve specifickinds of learning outcomes. It’s justimportant for designers to keep in mindthat constructivist learning outcomessuch as shared meaning-making will notbe particularly well-served by a behavioralinstructional design.

While a constructivist perspectivemakes perfect sense in theory, the notionof “self-determined correct answers” caneasily strike fear in the heart of a learningdesigner. In such an approach, how is

one to demonstrate that learners areachieving “world class standards,” or thatthey have achieved specific performance-based outcomes?

To counter such concerns, construc-tivists emphasize situating new (cognitive)experiences within the context of authen-tic (learning) activities. Learners drawupon their own experiences, interpreta-tions, and priorities to fit their instructionto their situation. This is a very differentapproach than the prevailing approach inwhich learners receive a plan of action,and success is simply a matter of follow-ing that plan.

This suggests that the constructivistway may be well suited to learning objectdesign. It also suggests that e-Learningdesigns built using behavioral or cognitivemodels are not likely to work as well whenthe intent of learning involves meaning-making, activity, and social negotiation.

Other barriers to adoptionThere are a number of other common

barriers to learning object adoption. Theidea of constructing a personalized learn-ing program is still relatively new. It isalso a complex job. The designer mustselect and assemble learning objects tomatch learning interests, performancegaps, learning style and presentation preferences.

Courses still represent the most famil-iar way to offer learning content to stu-dents, whether the course is a classroom-based, instructor-led course or a web-based, instructor-led course from a virtual

THE

EL

EA

RN

ING

DE

VE

LO

PE

RS

’ JOU

RN

AL

/ JUN

E 18

, 20

02

Design S

trategies5

DESIGN / s t r a t e g i e s

FIGURE 5 Most Instructional Design activities tend to promote a behaviorist perspective.

DESIGN / s t r a t e g i e s6 D

esig

n Str

ateg

ies

JUN

E 1

8,

20

02

/ T

HE

EL

EA

RN

ING

DE

VE

LO

PE

RS

’ JO

UR

NA

L

institution. This familiarity goes a longway in establishing the trust between thelearner and the e-Learning solutionsprovider that is necessary for buildingbrand loyalty. Nevertheless, “comfort withthe familiar in an unfamiliar virtual space”will increasingly find itself balancedagainst “improved productivity and com-petitiveness enabled by leveraging organi-zational knowledge and personalizing e-Learning programs.”

Another challenge to early adoption bymost organizations has to do with the waythat learning content is valued in organi-zations. While learning and content man-agement system vendors have begun toembrace the SCORM data model, contentproviders have not yet created broadlibraries of digital content objects for commercial distribution.

Until such objects are more readilyavailable, the ability to construct “open

source” e-Learning resources may becompromised. Furthermore, until reusablelearning objects are readily availableonline learning designs will continue toemphasize presenting content in theready-to-use, familiar form of the course.It will take the combined efforts of inter-nal development groups, commercial con-tent publishers, and content aggregatorsto overcome this obstacle.

Another possible barrier to learningobjects has to do with using assessmentto profile learner needs and interests.This is of particular importance if learnerprofiles are going to be matched to con-tent objects. This is the only way in whichthe learner is going to directly improveknowledge and skills and demonstrate hisor her cognitive gain on a valid, reliabletest.

What variety of assessment experi-ences (e.g. objective tests vs. reflective

tests, multiple choice vs. “point andclick” graphical response items) are thebest measures of the learning gained?Can an objective test be used to quantifylearning outcomes that are derived from alearning experience based on sharedmeaning-making?

If the selection of learning resources isto be based upon individual learner profilecriteria, then the validity, reliability andpredictability of the profiling instrumentsmust be empirically supported.Knowledge-based and competency-basedassessment “instruments” may take avariety of forms. They may range fromobjective multiple-choice items to onlinecase-based simulation, to skill demonstra-tions, to the preparation of a professionalportfolio, depending upon the learning tobe assessed.

Whatever the format of the assessmentexercises, the importance of employing

A Summer Intensive for Designers, Developers, and Managers of eLearning

San Francisco California July 25 & 26, 2002

Register Online Today! www.eLearningGuild.com

Imagine an entire conference focused on creating e-Learning that willmaximize learner interaction and engagement...

The eLearning Instructional

DesignConference

■ Metrics and Processes for Evaluatinge-Learning Interactivity

■ Designing e-Learning to be TrulyInteractive

■ Games and Simulations: Making ItReal, Fun and Engaging

■ Adaptive Learning: PersonalizedDesigns for e-Learners

■ e-Learning Interactivity with KM, EPSS, LMS/LCMS, CRM, and Learning Objects

■ Communities of Practice: The Nirvanaof e-Learning Interactivity

THANK YOU TO THESE GUILD ENTERPRISE SPONSORS

Spectra Interactive Learning is a unique full service, e-Learning consulting company — growing and expanding inNorth America and Europe to meet the growing need forexpertise in e-Learning strategy development, instructionaldesign and program implementation.

www.spectrainteractive.comContact: Brenda Pfaus, President bpfaus@spectrainteractive.comOttawa, Canada (613) 230-9978

Cyclone Interactive is a interactive media and web develop-ment firm creating online, CD and presentation solutions fora wide range of clients and industries.

www.cycloneinteractive.com Contact: Earl Dimaculanganearl@cycloneinteractive.com617.350.8834

THE

EL

EA

RN

ING

DE

VE

LO

PE

RS

’ JOU

RN

AL

/ JUN

E 18

, 20

02

Design S

trategies7

DESIGN / s t r a t e g i e s

methodological rigor when designingthese instruments cannot be overstated.This is especially critical when construct-ing resources used for assessing integrat-ed, situated problem-based abilities in(simulated) applied settings.

Poorly designed assessments may onlyscratch the surface of the essentialknowledge; skills and abilities needed tofunction as a highly competent practition-er. In fact, poorly designed assessmentscan obscure the existing competenciesheld by the individual being assessed.Learning prescriptions based upon inaccu-rate diagnoses may themselves be inac-curate. This would invalidate the goal ofbuilding a personalized learning plan foreach individual.

Conclusion Learning objects appear to have signifi-

cant potential for creating highly personal-ized learning programs, easily updatedcourses, and performance support tools.But this may only be true if we can figureout how to bring them to life without com-pletely automating the process of contentcreation, instructional design and assess-ment. The current directions of learningdesign include exciting new ideas such associally shared cognition, situated learn-ing, problem-based-learning, case-basedreasoning, distributed cognition, and activ-ity theory, to name just a few.

The successful adoption of learningobjects will require conversations, de-bates and discussions that bring togetherall parties. Engineers, programmers, and

producers, psychologists, researchers,teachers, and subject matter experts,learners themselves, and senior IT, busi-ness development and marketing expertsall have a share in the process. Learningcontent, no matter how robust, is notequivalent to learning. Learning design-ers, master teachers, and subject matterexperts all need to have a greater say inhow e-Learning products and servicesevolve.

REFERENCES

Tanya Heins and Frances Himes.Creating Learning Objects withMacromedia Flash MX. http://www.macro-media.com/learning. Released April2002.

David Jonassen and Susan Land, Eds.(2000). Theoretical Foundations ofLearning Environments. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

The Masie Center. Making Sense ofLearning Specifications and Standards: ADecision Maker’s Guide to their Adoption.Released March 6, 2002.

M.David Merrill. Various articles andpapers. http://www.coe.usu.edu/it/id2/DDCToc.htm.

Charles Reigeluth, Editor (1999)Instructional Design Theories andModels: A New Paradigm of InstructionalTheory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

AUTHOR CONTACT

Ellen Wagner is Director of LearningTechnologies with the Learnativity

Alliance, a small research institute andadvisory services practice. The Allianceprovides a venue for members to accessand share new research and best prac-tices about learning, knowledge creation,and human capital management. Dr.Wagner leads the Learnativity Alliance’sefforts to explore how technology sys-tems of various kinds can make it easierfor people to learn when, where, and howthey want to learn.

Contact Dr. Wagner by email atellen@learnativity.com.

SIG TALK DISCUSSIONS

Extend your learning beyond the printedpage! If you are looking for more informa-tion on this topic, if you have questionsabout an article, or if you disagree with aviewpoint stated in this article, then jointhe SIG Talk discussions online andextend your learning.

Follow these easy steps to participate:

1. Go to www.eLearningGuild.com2. Click on the SIG Talk button on the

main menu.3. Using the pull down menu, select

the SIG Talk discussion: JournalTopics

4. Select this article from the Subjectlist.

5. Click on ADD A NEW MESSAGE.6. Enter your message. It will be posted

as soon as you hit the Submit but-ton on the form.

To learn how to become a Guild Enterprise Sponsor, please contact David Holcombe at dh@eLearningGuild.com or call 707.566.8990.

Get Published in...

The eLearning Developers’ Journal™ isdesigned to serve the industry as a catalyst forinnovation and as a vehicle for the dissemina-tion of new and practical strategies and tech-niques for e-Learning designers, developers andmanagers. The Journal is not intended to bethe definitive authority. Rather, it is intended to be a medium through which e-Learning practi-tioners can share their knowledge, expertiseand experience with others for the general betterment of the industry.

As in any profession, there are many differ-ent perspectives about the best strategies,techniques and tools one can employ to accom-plish a specific objective. This Journal will sharethese different perspectives and does not posi-tion any one as “the right way,” but rather weposition each article as “one of the right ways”for accomplishing a goal. We assume thatreaders will evaluate the merits of each articleand use the ideas they contain in a mannerappropriate for their specific situation. Weencourage discussion and debate about articlesand provide an online SIG Talk™ discussionboard for each article.

The articles contained in the Journal are allwritten by people who are actively engaged inthis profession at one level or another — not by paid journalists or writers. Submissions arealways welcome at any time as are suggestionsfor articles and future topics. To learn moreabout how to submit articles and/or ideas,please refer to the directions on this page orvisit www.eLearningGuild.com.

Publisher David Holcombe

Editorial Director Heidi Fisk

Technical Editor Bill Brandon

Copy Editor Charles Holcombe

Design Director Nancy Marland

The eLearning Guild™ Advisory BoardRuth Clark, Conrad Gottfredson, John Hartnett,

Bill Horton, Kevin Moore, Eric Parks, Marc Rosenberg, Allison Rossett

Copyright 2002. The eLearning Developers’ Journal™.Compilation copyright by The eLearning Guild 2002. Allrights reserved. Please contact The eLearning Guild forreprint permission.

The eLearning Developers’ Journal is published weeklyby The eLearning Guild, 525 College Avenue, Suite215, Santa Rosa, CA 95404. Phone: 707.566.8990.The eLearning Guild is an operating unit of FocuszoneMedia, Inc., 1030 Beatrice Street, Eagan, MN 55121.

The Journal is distributed to all Guild members free ofcharge.To join the Guild go to www.eLearningGuild.com.

About

The eLearning Guild is a Community ofPractice for designers, developers and managers of e-Learning. The Guild is com-mitted to meeting the learning and network-ing needs of artisan and craftsman — pro-fessionals — who are focused on creating the best, most elegant, and most useful e-Learning applications.

To accomplish your professional goals, youneed access to the latest information, themost powerful tools, the best training, andthe smartest people. Most importantly, youneed time to work on and refine your skills.The Guild makes it possible by putting aworld of information, people, and resources

at your finger tips so you can focus yourtime on designing, developing, and manag-ing — not hunting and gathering informationand resources.

The Guild offers only individual member-ships and charges no fees. We invite thoseindividuals to join who have a personaldesire to increase their professional knowl-edge and peer network, stay in touch, beengaged, and keep current on what's newwithin the community. Members will receiveour online Guild E-Clips™ weekly, haveaccess to other benefits including industryResearch, a comprehensive Resource directory, SIG Talk™ discussions, the Needs & Leads™ board, discounts, andmuch, much more.

Members are not required to make any purchases, however, many choose to takeadvantage of their 20% discount on all Guild events.

This publication is by the people, for the people. That means it’s written by YOU the readers and members of The eLearning Guild! We encourage you to submit articles forpublication in the Journal.

Even if you have not been published before, we encourage you to submit a query if you have a great idea, technique, case study or practice to share with your peers in the e-Learning community. If your topic idea for an article is selected by the editors, you willbe asked to submit a complete article on that topic. Don’t worry if you have limitedexperience writing for publication. Our team of editors will work with you to polish yourarticle and get it ready for publication in the Journal.

By sharing your expertise with the readers of the Journal, you not only add to the collective knowledge of the e-Learning community, you also gain the recognition of yourpeers in the industry and your organization.

How to Submit a QueryIf you have an idea for an article, please submit your article idea by:

• Sending an email to Heidi Fisk at hfisk@eLearningGuild.com.• Include the following information in your query email message:

1: The title of the article.2: What will the article be about? What is the issue/problem that will be addressed?3: Why is this issue important to the reader? Industry?4: Why are you the one to tell this story? 5: List your contact information (name, job title, company, phone,

email). This information should be for the WRITER of the article. NO agents please.

• Limit the information above to approximately one page.

If the topic appears to be of interest, we will ask you to submit an article. Refer towww.eLearningGuild.com for more details.

Become a member today — FREE! Join online at www.eLearningGuild.com.8 D

esig

n Str

ateg

ies

JUN

E 1

8,

20

02

/ T

HE

EL

EA

RN

ING

DE

VE

LO

PE

RS

’ JO

UR

NA

L