Guiding Questions Boost eLearning Engagement

Most eLearning platforms and course developers are solving for a “default” learner. The problem? The default learner doesn't exist. When you build a course, you make hundreds of tiny decisions. The default font. The assumed reading level. The examples you use. The voices you feature. The assessment style you default to. The pace you set. Every one of those decisions either includes someone or quietly locks them out. I have spent years designing learning experiences across two continents — for teachers in Africa, and for educators in Canadian schools doing the hard work of examining their own bias. What I learned in both places is the same: Inclusive learning design is not a feature you add at the end. It is a decision you make at the beginning. For the organizations building the platforms, the courses, the LMS infrastructure that thousands of learners move through every day — this is a systems question. It means asking: → Who are we actually designing for and who are we assuming away? → Does our platform reflect the diversity of the people who will use it? → Are our course templates flexible enough to serve learners across different languages, contexts, and access levels? → What does our data tell us about who is dropping off and why? Equity-centered design isn't about adding a module on diversity. It's about what happens before the first slide is ever built. If you're an EdTech company, an instructional designer, or an LMS provider who wants to build learning experiences that actually work for everyone in the room — this is the work. And it starts at the system level. To the builders and developers in my network — where in your design process does inclusion actually live? Is it a checklist at the end, or is it in the foundation?

Most organizations think about eLearning as something you build. At HumanKind Learning, we think about it as something you have to live with. That’s a very different problem. We just published a whitepaper on Structured Content Architecture for E-Learning, and it gets at a hard truth: A lot of training does not fail because it was poorly designed. It fails because it was never built to be maintained. Traditional authoring tools lock content inside proprietary files. Want to change one sentence? On the surface, and the first trap for the unwitting, it looks easy. Open the original software, find the right screen, make the edit, republish the whole course, and hope nothing breaks along the way. …and if you do not have the software anymore? Okay, not great, but just buy a license. Unless the old version no longer exists. Then you get to open it in the new version, say a small prayer, and hope it does not break like a luxury watch bought off Temu: technically still a watch, spiritually held together by wishful thinking. We have seen where that road leads. When Adobe Flash went away, entire libraries of training went with it. Not because the content was bad, but because the show curtain came down on it like an off-off-off-Broadway play written by your second cousin twice removed.  There is a better way. A structured content approach separates content from the tool. Store it in open, human-readable formats like JSON, and your training becomes easier to update, easier to maintain, and far less vulnerable to platform drama. That matters for cost. It matters for longevity. And it absolutely matters for accessibility. Accessibility makes sure people can use your training. Maintainability makes sure it still works six months from now. Ignore either one, and you’re not building a solution. You’re building a very expensive time capsule. At HumanKind Learning, we continuously improve the processes and technology behind what we build so your content stays evergreen, maintainable, and accessible. Because “done” is not the goal. Still working five years from now, and still working for everyone, that’s the goal.

More things I’ve learned: ADDIE is not just a cute name for a little girl. It’s what you’ve literally been trained for and have been doing your whole career. First, what it stands for: Analyze Design Develop Implement Evaluate This is my educator-to-corporate translation of it so far. Analyze, Identify learning needs, audience characteristics, and learning outcomes. HELLO!!!! Data much? You’ve done pre-assessments. You’ve analyzed state testing data. You’ve identified gaps in understanding. If you’re familiar with Understanding by Design by Wiggins and McTighe, you should recognize this as the first step of Backwards Design. In both ADDIE and UbD, you identify what learners really need to know. It’s establishing priorities. What should learners know, understand, and be able to do? Posting learning targets for students who never look at them might be annoying, and being docked for not having them posted is even more annoying, but deep down we recognize the purpose and importance of them in lesson planning. Design, According to eLearning Industry: “Designers create a blueprint for the learning program, specifying instructional strategies, content structure, assessments, and learning activities. This ensures the training is engaging, relevant, and aligned with objectives.” I mean… duh? This is basically the educator job description in a nutshell. When lesson planning, you write objectives, identify resources, choose instructional strategies, scaffold information, and align activities to outcomes. Develop, Creating the learning materials themselves. Depending on your years in education, you may have already reached the point where premade resources just don’t fully meet your learners’ needs anymore. Maybe you’ve used Modern Classroom Project. Maybe you’ve made your own worksheets, Edpuzzles, videos, labs, escape rooms, review games, slide decks, or intervention resources. That’s development. Implement, From Academy to Innovate HR: “The training program is delivered to learners, whether through online courses, workshops, or other formats. This phase also includes preparing instructors and ensuring resources are available.” Again… duh. This is your bread and butter. You do this every single day. Evaluate, Literally formative and summative assessment. Going back to UbD, this connects heavily to Backwards Design. Your assessments should actually measure whether learners successfully met the objectives. Then you revise instruction based on those results. That’s evaluation. These are all things educators already think about when lesson or unit planning. Whether you call it ADDIE, UbD, Modern Classroom Project, or just “trying to survive lesson planning,” you’ve been doing this already. This might be my last spam post for the day because I have a Dungeons & Dragons game to get to, but I wanted to include the UbD graphic that immediately made the ADDIE connection click in my brain.

❓ Why do so many online courses fail even when there’s plenty of content? Because eLearning content development is not just content production. Structure, learning flow, LMS setup, testing, and iteration affect whether training actually works. The article breaks down the full process step by step — from analysis and instructional design to integration, QA, and launch. It also looks at common problems like unclear requirements, scope creep, and poor UX. 👉 Read the full guide: https://cutt.ly/LtXS8mJd #Elearning #InstructionalDesign #LMS #DigitalLearning #EdTech #RaccoonGang

The average eLearning course completion rate? Just 20-30%. Meaning 7 out of 10 people who start a course, never finish it. Here's how to fix that. In 5 steps. 🔴 STEP 1: START WITH BEHAVIOUR, NOT CONTENT Most course designers ask: "What do learners need to know?" The right question is: "What do learners need to DO differently after this?" Every course must start with a performance outcome. Not a content outline. Not a topic list. A measurable behaviour change. No clear behaviour outcome = no clear course. 🔴 STEP 2: DESIGN FOR ATTENTION SPANS, NOT PERFECTION 94% of learners prefer short, focused lessons. Microlearning modules (5-10 minutes) see up to 80% completion rates. Traditional long-form courses? As low as 20%. The fix: → Break every topic into standalone micro-modules. → One concept. One objective. One takeaway. Per module. → Never design a course learners need 2 hours to complete in one sitting. If it can't fit in a coffee break rethink the structure. 🔴 STEP 3: BUILD IN INTERACTIVITY NOT AS A FEATURE, BUT AS A STRATEGY Passive content = passive learners. Courses with quizzes and simulations boost completion rates by 30-40%. Gamification increases engagement by 60%. But here's what most designers miss: Interactivity isn't about adding drag-and-drop interactions. It's about creating moments where the learner has to THINK. Scenario-based decisions. Reflection prompts. Application challenges. Make the learner the protagonist not the audience. 🔴 STEP 4: USE SOCIAL PRESSURE STRATEGICALLY Courses with community features achieve 65.5% completion. Without community? That number drops to 42.6%. Build in: → Cohort-based learning where possible → Discussion prompts at key checkpoints → Peer review assignments instead of just quizzes → Manager check-ins tied to course milestones Learning in isolation is the fastest path to dropout. 🔴 STEP 5: DESIGN THE MOTIVATION ARCHITECTURE Most courses are designed for information delivery. The best courses are designed for motivation management. Learners don't quit because the content is hard. They quit because they stop seeing WHY it matters to them. Every module needs: → A hook that answers "why should I care?" → Progress indicators that show momentum → A moment of early WIN, so learners feel capable fast → Completion incentives tied to real outcomes (certificates, skills, promotions) Online course completion incentives can lift rates from 35% to 85%. That's not a small number. That's the difference between a course nobody finishes and one that transforms people. THE BOTTOM LINE: A course nobody completes isn't training. It's content nobody asked for. Design for completion from slide one. Not as an afterthought. Save this for your next build. 📌 What's the biggest reason you've seen learners drop off mid-course? Drop it below. 👇 #InstructionalDesign #eLearning #CourseDesign #L&D #LearningDesign #LearningAndDevelopment #Microlearning #Gamification

Last week, I spent one afternoon building a complete eLearning journey for one of my clients. No Articulate. No Rise. No $1,500+ license. Here's what happened: I was working with a client whose target audience is startup founders. They needed more practical eLearning journeys about financials. So, I designed a 5-module interactive learning journey without an authoring tool (just using Claude). The part that would've taken me days in a traditional tool? A live pricing calculator where founders input their own costs and instantly see their minimum viable price. Interactive. Responsive. Downloadable. Done in under three hours! Honestly, it didn't drain my tokens the way I expected. When you give AI real context (who the learners are, what they've been through, what they need to do after, and more of a concrete storyboard), it stops generating generic content and starts thinking with you. Although creating learning modules using Claude has its challenges regarding accessibility, packaging, learner tracking, and analytics, I've seen very good potential in creating more complex learning experiences, which I will keep exploring. In my opinion, we're not at the end of authoring tools. But we're at the end of instructional designers who are just tool operators. Companies must also let go of their rigidity in using only one famous, expensive authoring tool, and be open to engaging learning designers as problem solvers, not just tool operators! This conversation started a while ago in the eLearning designers community. What do you think about that? And have you tried Claude in e-learning yet? Check the financial calculator in the comments.

Most eLearning tells people what to do. Scenario-based learning makes them figure it out. That single shift changes everything. Here's why it works — and how to design one properly. 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻-𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗲𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘀 The typical approach: here's the policy → here's what it means → here's a quiz. It feels like learning. It isn't. People can pass the quiz and still freeze when the real situation arrives. Because knowing a rule and applying it under pressure are completely different cognitive tasks. Information-led design trains recognition. Scenario-based design trains judgment. 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘀𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 When someone is placed inside a realistic situation, three things happen: 1. Their brain treats it as real — emotional engagement activates memory consolidation 2. They have to retrieve and apply knowledge, not just recognise it 3. Consequences make the lesson stick This is why you remember the case study from your MBA more vividly than the lecture that preceded it. 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗮 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗼𝗻𝗲 Start with the decision, not the content. Ask: what judgment call does this person need to make on the job? Design backwards from that moment. → Make the scenario feel true. Real job role, real stakes, real ambiguity. Not "Sarah is a manager." But "Sarah's top performer just threatened to quit unless you fire a colleague." → Write plausible distractors. If every wrong answer is obviously stupid, there's no thinking happening. The best wrong answers are the ones people genuinely consider. → Branch on consequence, not score. Every choice should lead somewhere different — a result, a complication, a new decision. The scenario should feel like it's unfolding, not grading. → Put the explanation after the choice. Not before. If you give learners the answer first, you've turned a scenario back into information-led design. → Design for reflection, not completion. A well-crafted debrief — why each option plays out the way it does — is where the real learning happens. The goal isn't to teach people what the right answer is. It's to give them enough reps that they develop the instinct to find it themselves. That's what scenarios do that slides never will. Are you designing scenarios in your L&D work? What's the hardest part to get right? #LearningAndDevelopment #InstructionalDesign #eLearning #ScenarioBasedLearning #LnD

In most industries, blended learning is a better way to train. In early learning, it's the only way that makes sense. Here's why. Mia started at the centre on Monday. By Wednesday she'd completed all her online WHS, service policy and procedure modules. But the training never asked her to demonstrate specific routines in the room. There was no walkthrough. No sign-off. No one watching her do things for the first time. By Friday her room leader was still correcting the hygiene routine. Mia didn't miss anything in the training. The training just never checked whether she could apply it. This is the gap blended learning closes. Online modules give every educator the same baseline, consistent, trackable, done at their own pace. But being an early learning educator is a hands-on role. Standards are built through observation, repetition, and feedback. Not reading alone. Blended learning combines both. The module explains the why. The walkthrough makes it real. Mia's induction could have looked like this: Online modules → orientation session → room walkthrough → reflection → manager sign-off. Tribal Habits tracks all of it in one place. Tasks, observations, evidence uploads, sign-offs and reflections. So when someone asks whether Mia is trained on the key centre procedures, you have the evidence to prove it. ...... 70% of workplace skills are learned on the job. The best training programs don't fight that. They build it in. ...... If you want to learn more about how blended learning supports early learning - read our latest blog post (link in comments). #ececproviders #blendedlearning #lms

How To Motivate Learners Before, During and After an eLearning Course. Learning is a process, an experience, and continuous. It is NOT a one-time event. It helps to motivate attendees to a learning experience before, during and after that experience. This article helps you see how that can be done.

The Serious eLearning Manifesto quietly changed how I think about L&D... One of the most valuable shifts in my professional thinking came from the Serious eLearning Manifesto: - Do not assume learning is the solution. - Do not assume eLearning is the answer. Early in my career, that felt counterintuitive. As an eLearning designer, my default assumption was: if there is a business problem, we create training. Over time, I learned that many organizational problems are not capability problems. They are friction problems. Access problems. Workflow problems. Environment problems. And training can become a very expensive substitute for solving the actual issue. This came up again today in a discussion with colleagues from our AI Hub. We were exploring whether deploying a native GenAI application across 1000+ employee laptops could increase weekly usage compared to browser-only access. From a performance perspective, this is interesting because it changes the environment rather than relying primarily on instruction. Lower friction. Higher visibility. Faster access inside the flow of work. It is also relatively low-cost compared to designing and deploying large-scale training interventions. Of course, adoption data will tell us whether the assumption is correct. But I increasingly think this is where modern L&D creates value: not only through content creation, but through designing conditions that make desired behaviors easier and more likely. Have you seen environmental changes outperform formal training in your organization?