Here are a few pics from our booth at the BizTech conference yesterday in Wilmington NC. The conference was great. The keynote speakers made some great points concerning the importance of education in NC to small and large businesses in the state.
I get this question all the time and I give my students the ‘estimates’. These numbers are very useful when putting together a proposal and letting a client know just how much it is going to cost them. I have gathered these numbers from several sources which are posted at the end of this post. Now for the stats:
1.According to training magazine, money spent on training increased 13% in 2011 to $59.7 billion.
2. Average trainer (Instructional Designer) salary in 2011: $84,142 (elearning guild reports: $79,890)
3. Development times to create one-hour of e-learning (The eLearning Guild, 2002):
– Simple Asynchronous: (static HTML pages with text & graphics): 117 hours
– Simple Synchronous: (static HTML pages with text & graphics): 86 hour
– Average Asynchronous: (above plus Flash, JavaScript, animated GIF’s. etc): 191 hours
– Average Synchronous: (above plus Flash, JavaScript, animated GIF’s. etc): 147 hours
– Complex Asynchronous: (above plus audio, video, interactive simulations): 276 hours
– Complex Synchronous: (above plus audio, video, interactive simulations): 222 hours
4. Instructor presentation time of face to face courses:
Dugan Laird (1985), listed these instructor preparation times (based on U.S. Civil Service estimate):
– Course is five days or less, then 3 hours of preparation for each hour of training.
– Course is between five and ten days, then 2.5 hours of preparation for each hour of training.
– Course is over 10 days, then 2 hours of preparation for each hour of training.
5. Chart from ASTD 2009:
Type of Training per 1 hour |
Low Hours Per hour of Instruction (2009) |
High Hours Per Hour of Instruction (2009) |
Low Hours Per hour of Instruction (2003) |
High Hours Per Hour of Instruction (2003) |
Stand-up training (classroom) |
43 |
185 |
20 |
70 |
Self-instructional print |
40 |
93 |
80 |
125 |
Instructor-led, Web-based training delivery (using software such as Centra, Adobe Connect, or WebEx-two-way live audio with PowerPoint) |
49 |
89 |
30 |
80 |
E-learning Developed without a Template |
|
|
|
|
Text-only; limited interactivity; no animations |
93 |
152 |
100 |
150 |
Moderate interactivity; limited animations |
122 |
186 |
250 |
400 |
High interactivity; multiple animations |
154 |
243 |
400 |
600 |
E-learning Developed within a Template |
|
|
|
|
Limited interactivity; no animations (using software such as Lectora, Captivate, ToolBook, TrainerSoft) |
118 |
365 |
40 |
100 |
Moderate interactivity; limited animations (using software such as Lectora, Captivate, ToolBook, TrainerSoft) |
90 |
240 |
150 |
200 |
High interactivity; multiple animations (using software such as Lectora, Captivate, ToolBook, TrainerSoft) |
136 |
324 |
60 |
300 |
Limited interactivity; no animations (using software such as Articulate) |
73 |
116 |
NA |
NA |
Moderate interactivity; limited animations (using software such as Articulate) |
97 |
154 |
NA |
NA |
High interactivity; multiple animations (using software such as Articulate) |
132 |
214 |
NA |
NA |
Simulations |
|
|
|
|
Equipment or hardware (equipment emulation) |
949 |
1743 |
600 |
1000 |
Softskills (sales, leadership, ethics, diversity, etc.) |
320 |
731 |
NA |
NA |
Source: http://www.astd.org/LC/2009/0809_kapp.htm
Sources:
http://www.trainingmag.com/article/2011-training-industry-report
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/trainsta.html
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/costs.html
http://www.trainingmag.com/article/training%E2%80%99s-2011-growth-spurt
From nwlink.com: The eLearning Guild. (2002). The e-Learning Development Time Ratio Survey. Retrieved October 27, 2007 from: http://www.elearningguild.com/pdf/1/time%20to%20develop%20Survey.pdf
From nwlink.com: Laird, Dugan (1985). Approaches To Training And Development (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
http://www.elearningguild.com/research/archives/index.cfm?id=148&action=viewonly
I tell all of my undergraduate students that they should not leave college without their own website. I also tell all of my graduate instructional technology students that they MUST have their own website, they are in a technology based field for goodness sake and Learn which UK reseller hosting is right for your brand.
Why have your own website? Well let me ask you to search for yourself on Google, what comes up on the first page? Anything about you? Do other people have your name? Does your facebook page come up? Well guess what, when you graduate and begin to interview your potential employer is going to search for you as well. So if your facebook page is coming up it’s time to make is private. So if you are going to be searched online, why not intentionally point people searching for you to a website that is designed to ‘show off’ your work? That’s right, send them to a site of your choosing on purpose. So, just as an example, search for me, ‘Ray Pastore’ and you will see that this website you are on comes up first. I WANT people to find this site.
Why else do you want a site? You can put it on your resume. Showing a potential employer that you have enough technical skills to build a website can help in almost any career. Plus if they choose to, they can go to the site and this is your chance to show them your portfolio. Show them sample writings, projects, as well as your philosophies toward your field.
Now if I buy and create a site is it automatically number one on search results? NO! You need to make it SEO friendly, with the help of SEO experts from sirlinksalot.co.
So how do you buy a website?
I always recommend Icdsoft.com because that is who I use. In fact, if you go through my link that I give my students, you can own a web address and build a site for $38.50 a year. Here is that link: http://icdsoft.com/promo-code/course359. And I do not get anything if you use that link, so don’t think I am trying to sell you something here. Another company I like is bluehost.com, however, they are more expensive, around $100 a year, which is usually out of a students price range. Godaddy tends to be another popular one however I have only had bad experiences with them, so I do not recommend them.
When you do buy a site, I recommend a .com address. You can choose from .net, .org, .info, etc.
How do I build my site?
Well that is also for another blog post. You can take classes, teach yourself online, etc. I would recommend hiring Shopify web developers though so that you are doing things correctly. Correctly means that your site will show up on all browsers, mobile phones, and be optimized to show up first in search engines.
Hope that helps, let me know if you have any questions:)
Many ask me if our field has competencies or standards. Yes we do. We do have competencies. They are defined by the International Board of Standards for Training, Performance, and Instruction. This board is comprised of faculty and working professionals in the field of instructional design and technology.
Personally, I feel the standards are a bit outdated and that they may be missing some. So I have taken it upon myself to do a research study on this topic. I am in the process of completing the competencies and will be sending out the survey shortly. Look for a post on this site.
Apple’s new iBook App seems great. However, more research into the tool seems to show that when you publish to Apple’s App, you are now bound to an agreement and you cannot just go ahead and sell the material you wrote. As noted by mashable, here is bit of the agreement:
“IMPORTANT NOTE: If you charge a fee for any book or other work you generate using this software (a “Work”), you may only sell or distribute such Work through Apple (e.g., through the iBookstore) and such distribution will be subject to a separate agreement with Apple.”
What does this mean? You cannot take this work and put it into a book to sell or sell it anywhere else. Essentially you are giving Apple the rights to it.
This is kind of scary and not what this app should be about. Copyright needs to be maintained by the author. So Apple, if you are out there are and listening, please change this. I am now hesitant to publish here and I would recommend ALL to avoid this app until this is changed. If you want to publish, publish it online at your own website where you retain copyright.
Source:
Google Swiffy
Have yet to try this tool out but since its from Google, I assume it does what it says – convert Flash .swf files to HTML5 files for use on iPhone/iPad. Let me know how it works:
For those interested in a Master’s of Instructional Technology or Instructional Design, please check out the video that one of our graduate students at the University of North Carolina Wilmington made which highlights our program:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5e8_Sp0VvU]
I am wondering where this app will go in the future. There is a great potential for educators to write/publish their own work. However there is one BIG question that jumps into my mind. Havent we been able to publish our own work, for use on the computer, in Word/PDF/Blog/Website form, for many years now? The answer is YES. So I am a bit confused. I would like to see this tool take off but are people going to have the time to use it? Why will this take off when regular internet/blog publishing, which is the same thing, didnt (as far as texts are concerned)?
Apple’s big announcement today: An app that allows a teacher to create their own book and publish it to iBook. Thus you can take a Word document and the app formats it to be read on the ipad. Its supposed to be very user friendly. I am excited to use this in my courses this semester. For more info see:
My recent article published in Computers and Education:
Abstract: Can increasing the speed of audio narration in multimedia instruction decrease training time and still maintain learning? The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of time-compressed instruction and redundancy on learning and learners’ perceptions of cognitive load. 154 university students were placed into conditions that consisted of time-compression (0%, 25%, or 50%) and redundancy (redundant text and narration or narration only). Participants were presented with multimedia instruction on the human heart and its parts then given factual and problem solving knowledge tests, a cognitive load measure, and a review behavior (back and replay buttons) measure. Results of the study indicated that participants who were presented 0% and 25% compression obtained similar scores on both the factual and problem solving measures. Additionally, they indicated similar levels of cognitive load. Participants who were presented redundant instruction were not able to perform as well as participants presented non-redundant instruction.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131511002351