The Blend Podcast EP011 - Effective eLearning examples

Yeah, they’re enormous. Coursera is like an online learning platform where you can do different courses, similar to Udemy or this type of thing. I did a couple of courses through them and it was just talking heads doing videos, and then multiple choice at the end. That was it. That was easy. I couldn’t believe how boring it was.

Brendan Cox 01:25

Okay. I won’t be checking that out, then.

Tom Payani 01:30

I just thought if these guys are the go to place for online courses, and every course I’ve registered on is just some guy talking into a screen, and then some very boring multiple choice questions at the end; then surely there’s room for improvement in the elearning world?

Don’t get me wrong, we want to be quite positive and we don’t want to slate other people, not that I think Coursera gonna get very upset with me criticising them.

I’m sure Coursera would be absolutely fine whether I’ve criticised them or not. But I just was a bit surprised by the lack of engagement, the lack of interactivity. There wasn’t really any personalization or gamification or anything like that. And just for a company so big, who are totally dominant, I was just a little bit surprised by that.

Then I thought, okay, I want to look at some good examples. I want to be inspired and that’s sort of what gave me the idea to talk about it on this on this episode.

Brendan Cox 02:44

There’s two ways we can look at this, we started blend, and we were basically coming at it from two different sides, and to sort of discover in the industry. And I think that part of the approach that’s important, from a kind of startup kind of view, is that, yeah, there’s going to be people that do a good job of things, there’s going to be like existing players that are very well established, have the prestige level where maybe they aren’t really putting in the work as much as they could have.

They aren’t pushing it as far as they are as they can. They aren’t innovating as much as they should be, but that’s also an opportunity.

Tom Payani 03:33

I’m sorry to interrupt, but just like with Coursera, as an example, they are so big, obviously, scalability is going to be an issue here, isn’t it?

Brendan Cox 03:42

There are tiny companies that buy lots of smaller companies that innovate, absorb them. And then over time, that level of innovation kind of just slowly dissipates. Because like you say, they’re giant, hulking, huge, huge companies that don’t innovate because they don’t compartmentalise what they try and they make everything in the company the same.

I think that’s something that we will chat about in a little bit, how some big companies are actually very good at focusing departments and splitting people in special projects.

Tom Payani 04:22

Compare McDonald’s to some guy offering a gourmet burger that he’s doing it by himself, and he’s taking a lot of pride and care and each burger is preparing. You know, McDonald’s can’t offer that bespoke type experience. And it’s the same for any industry, isn’t it? I guess Coursera is just the McDonald’s of eLearning.

You have a lot of elearning agencies in India as well don’t you? They reel off a tremendous amount of work very quickly. But let’s just say it’s not as personalised or bespoke It could be.

Brendan Cox 05:01

There are a number of people that are pushing out interesting examples that we’re going to look at now. I think that’s what’s cool, even one of the biggest companies in the world, Google is doing really cool stuff.

Although that’s what’s interesting, is that they’re not so much an eLearning Company. They’re a global, giant company in innovation that’s now playing with eLearning.

Tom Payani 05:47

You have the design background, you worked in motion design, animation, all of this stuff. How important are the visuals and the design in a more traditional sense, in terms of elearning, what influenced the visuals and motion graphics and animation, all these things that you’ve worked many years, and how much influence do they have on the quality and the UX of eLearning?

Brendan Cox 06:19

I’ve realized a lot of what the different design parts are. So you’ve got the user experience, which is how they actually use the piece of whatever it is you’ve created or experience it. And so something like advertising or commercials or explainer videos, the idea is that for a commercial, you’re using design, and you’re using the storytelling, you’re using the experience of it, to make them feel something, make the audience and the target customer feel something, so at the end of it, they want to buy something.

You can use all different types of design, but it’s important to consider it because basically a choice to have lots of design or have to very minimal design is still a choice, it’s good design. And as long as it works towards that goal, it’s a good design. And the thing is that with elearning, the design aspect comes in everything, you should ask why everything is there?

So if there’s music in a piece, why is there music in the piece? Does it make the learning? Does it enhance the learning experience? Does it make the user more engaged? And the same with the visuals? Is it distracting? Or is having a minimal approach actually helps them focus? Or are you trying to make something super immersive and make them feel like it’s a real world place that they’re experiencing to give them a real life scenario to practice in, in which case, a lot more content.

A lot more design goes into it. And I think the thing is, it really depends on what you’re going to use it for. But design. At its core, the point in design is asking why? And asking why is something there? Is it in there because it’s working towards a goal? Is it making them experience something that will make them want to buy something in my previous industry experience? Or in the eLearnings case: Is it aiding them in the learning process.

For example UX as well could be is a good one. Because when you look at the design of an end user experience, basically a really good example of basic user experiences are parks and architecture. We all forget that we actually live in buildings or apartments or walk through parks that are designed by people, in theory for people.

But over time, you’ll see in any park, unless you’ve got a little sign that says keep off the grass, you will get people walking diagonally across things. And they’ll walk their own footprint and walk their own little road into the grass. And it’s because user experience users at their core have their own drivers, they have their own goals.

Humans like taking the shortest route, the easiest route possible to that. If you can include that, understanding that empathy for the end user and include it in the design, you can design a park where people walk in the direction that you want, and they’re happy to do so towards the goal and the common goal of learning something as opposed to one going to make them sit through a big fat chunk of elearning.

What they’re going to do is skip sections, or they’re going to just start phoning in the answers and not really care and switch off over time because you’ve ignored the actual behaviour of that learner.

So design from the experience itself down through the visuals is fundamental, I think. It’s not about the quantity or the complexity of it. It’s about the thought that goes into it. And basically at its core, it needs to be user centred. So you’ve always got to have the learner at the centre of every decision of why are we doing this? Is it helping them learn something?

Tom Payani 10:21

There’s a lot of parallels here between my experiences from an educational point of view. In my old role in a school setting, I used to have to observe other teachers in their lessons. And I’m not picking on any teacher, specifically. But often, you could see in classes that the kids didn’t really know why they were learning something.

It wasn’t user centred, it was a box ticking exercise, they had to tick off an aspect of the curriculum, they had to tick off a topic because, you know, that was going to be assessed in some way. But it had no real value, it had no real value to the students. And, even if it was mandatory, or compulsory, from a curriculum point of view, it wasn’t taught in a way where the kids at least felt like it had some value for them, where at least it had some sort of practical application.

Because there’s one thing saying you have to teach some sort of accounting formula, let’s say in economics, because there’s going to be on the exam. And everyone knows it is pointless, but they need to do it. Another thing is making the kids start some sort of business, let’s say they have to produce that accounting formula for real world applications, so they can then progress to the next stage of starting their business. There is a big difference there from a learning perspective. Do you see what I mean?

Brendan Cox 11:48

I’ve got very little interest in maths in general, like using Excel. But what I absolutely love is basically keeping all the data from whenever we do projects, whenever I work with clients, whenever I’ve got any freelance work going on, I keep all the data of every project. Like how long it took, how fast it was delivered, things like that, because it’s not understanding those basic tools that’s my driver.

It’s being able to sit back from it and be strategic about how we run the business and gaining something that I am passionate about. Linking what you’re learning to something that drives the learner.

Tom Payani 12:40

That’s the point, isn’t it, you’re not going to go on YouTube, or google and type: how to use Excel. But if I tell you, for Blend you need to know these aspects of Excel, because this is going to help us track our business development, it’s going to help us track our projects, our jobs, there’s the motivation for you, right?

Brendan Cox 13:01

I was kind of looking forward to doing the business and just focusing on doing strategy, having chats with clients, coming up with cool ideas, and then doing design. And I didn’t think I would enjoy how many things I have – how to learn to set everything up.

You’ve learned how to do coding, I’ve learned how C+, we’ve both learned how to use WordPress, and like HTML stuff, dabbling with SEO, all these kind of things where actually, we, in theory have got zero interest in it, but actually, it’s for the greater good of the business. And so there is a level of satisfaction that comes from that.

Tom Payani 13:47

This is what I tried to integrate when I was in a classroom environment. I tried to teach the kids thematically. And what I mean by that is, let’s say instead of teaching SEO as a subject, or WordPress as a subject, or HTML as a subject, you teach them that they need to start their own small business.

Within creating this small business, there’s certain skills and technical capabilities you need to understand to build that business. So you know, it’s moving away from this idea of lesson one, you have Maths. Lesson two, you have English. Lesson three, you have science. You teach them a theme that you know, goes on for the whole day or half the day or whatever, that encompasses those subjects in different ways within that theme.

Brendan Cox 14:33

You know what I’ve just realised? When we were at school, this sort of popped into my head. The only class that was really like that was Woodwork. You didn’t have a lesson on a hammer. You probably should have – some of the kids I was at school with, there was always this battle with the teacher and the kid that used to like putting things on the wrong end of the bandsaw to like fling him across the room.

But the thing is…that was the whole point across the whole semester, we built something. And by building it, we learn how to use all the tools, we learnt to measure stuff, we learnt how to map things out finishing all this stuff. And it makes so much sense. And it was one of the one of the reasons I really enjoyed the course – you’ve got something tangible at the end of it.

It’s quite funny to actually realise now, that was the only part of education that had project based learning in terms of something that ran across and use the gamut of all the skills.

Tom Payani 15:33

There’s no coincidence that that’s the subject that you remember most fondly, is it?

Brendan Cox 15:40

Yeah, that and Art. I mean, both to where you actually use project-based learning, and you got to use a bit of everything. But that’s the old school way of doing apprenticeships. You don’t just do the theory, you jump in and you learn while doing a real life scenario. And I mean, apprenticeships have been around for millennia.

Tom Payani 16:05

Well, the point is, it’s a practical application of learning. And unfortunately, I think there’s a lack of personalization in the education system in general, isn’t there? There’s lots of reasons for that. But this is an advantage that we have at Blend – we can create branched scenario learning, which we’ve spoken about before, where each user can go off in a different direction in a Choose Your Own Adventure style project. And this is a go to methodology for us.

Brendan Cox 16:36

Yeah, I think there’s a slight misconception that people think, because it’s personalised, it’s not all leading towards the same goal.

Tom Payani 16:45

I am really glad you said that, that’s really important, that point.

Brendan Cox 16:50

You’d be amazed what people can learn, if you just let them learn it their own way. I think the misconception is you can’t if it’s personalised, it doesn’t all go to the same focus, the same goal. The other thing is that it’s a lot harder to make something personalised.

Then they’re not personalised, there’s some really simple things that you can do just putting someone’s name into a bit of elearning. That is enough to make someone care more about the scenarios that you’re using. There are really simple ways of doing that. And I think there’s some quite good examples.

Tom Payani 17:33

I really want to rubber stamp that point you’re making because if you know who your learners are, then you can get each learner to the same learning objective in a variety of different ways. And it’s not as convoluted as you think.

It comes into this concept of what type of learner you are, which I know, we’re going to talk about in a minute. You could have a learning objective. Let’s break it down is a very quick example. Now, you’ve got your learning objective. You’ve got route one, which is aimed at more kinesthetic learners, you’ve got route two, which is aimed at more visual learners, you’ve got route three, which is aimed at more auditory learners.

I mean, this is a very simplistic example. But you can the learning objective you require. And they can all go on those different paths and reach it just as efficiently and understand the topic just as efficiently as each other.

Brendan Cox 18:32

Yeah. The thing is that people say about things being inefficient or like more complicated like what’s better, something where you take the time to do three sets of three routes, and everyone in the class gets it, or you only choose one route and half the class doesn’t get that, even understand that by the end of it.

It’s like which is worth doing. It comes down to tangible impact, if personalization improves, the learning experience at the beginning is definitely worth it. Because again, it’s this sort of delayed gratification thing if you personalise something in three different ways.

And you let that person choose their route, and they learn it, that it’s that bit of a learning continues to be usable for indefinitely, as long as the contents relevant as well.

Tom Payani 19:28

The idea of putting the hard work in at the beginning. So it might seem like a bit of a nightmare. I’ve got to do 5,6,7 branched scenarios here for this piece of learning. But, actually each learner will only have to do that once. Whereas if you just had a singular map to the learning objective, then you’re gonna have to teach that a dozen times anyway. So it’s actually going to take you longer in terms of effort and, you know, intensity and all those things regardless.

Brendan Cox 20:06

Yeah. And if you want to try and still do a good job for all different learning types, but not do personalization, it means you’ve got to create content that appeals to everyone at the same time. You’re basically trying to make something that pleases everybody, and it pleases nobody.

Tom Payani 20:28

I see this a lot in instructional design, where people try and skip through the discovery phase, the analysis for doing needs analysis and things like that. Because no, I don’t need to do a needs analysis, I just want to get on with it, designing the learning, and then all of a sudden, you’re gonna have a lot of problems later down the line, because you haven’t realised you’ve got these different types of learners who haven’t been accommodated.

Brendan Cox 20:54

You’ve reached a kind of critical point where you’re like, oh well, we’ve got it to this point, we might as well just finish it then. And surprise, surprise, it’s not really, everyone’s switched off by the time you finished it.

I think putting the effort in upfront for the design and the strategy, the focus on the user, and finally the learner. It is key, because the irony is we front load all of our projects – prototype, test, and run through at a rate of knots, but basically we design print it.

So we try and get through, we try and make as many decisions test as many kind of assumptions early on. And then by the time we’re actually building the thing, we know exactly what it’s doing. And we know that we there aren’t any surprises. And I think that’s key.

Tom Payani 21:54

So let’s get into some examples then.

Brendan Cox 21:56

Oh, yeah. Yeah, we were just talking too much.

Tom Payani 22:01

We can do these in any order. But we’ve noted down some different examples, I want to start off with one called playspent.org. And my level reveals examples in the show notes so people can see what we’re talking about. But playspent.org is a really cool one, isn’t it?

Brendan Cox 22:26

Yeah, that’s the budgeting one.

Tom Payani 22:29

Basically, you’re put into a situation where you have a monthly budget, and it’s very low. And this is to try and create an understanding of people who are living on the poverty line in the US. So it was done by I think, a local government type organisation in the US.

What I really like about this one is how it measures soft skills, and how soft skills are important in eLearning. And I think this is probably one of the best examples I’ve seen of a piece of learning that is very good at creating empathy, and really does a great job of putting the user in the shoes of the character you’re playing.

Brendan Cox 23:20

Yeah, and he’s also a really good example of reductive design, it’s not complicated, in terms of the thought that’s gone into it, that makes it a good bit of eLearning. And it’s got really simple, elegant design. It’s that thing of having empathy with the person that is doing it. And so you feel pressured, you feel that the stress of trying to make it through the month.

Tom Payani 23:46

Yeah. So for example, you’re driving to work and your car breaks down. And then you need to decide, well, do I fix the car properly at a mechanics, but then my insurance premium is going to go up? Do I do a bodge job on it myself, so I don’t have to go through insurance.

But then if I get caught by the police, I might have some problems. You know, it’s these types of decisions that are genuine decisions people in that situation have to make. And what I really like is, normally when someone on the poverty line has made a decision, and it affects them negatively in the future, there’s a lack of empathy for people saying, Well, why didn’t they just go through the proper system? Why didn’t they just do it properly?

They couldn’t do it. They can’t afford medical insurance. All of a sudden, your empathy level goes up, because they couldn’t afford to take their grandmother to the hospital because they don’t have health insurance. So they had to try and help them in any way they could, even if you don’t think that’s the best way of looking after someone.

Brendan Cox 24:57

It’s like when you tell someone something that you’ve done, or that you’re going to do. Their reaction is rarely (unless they know you very well and are used to it) not tinted by their own experience. And the thing is that everyone is a combination of their surroundings and their experiences. I think we forget that when we try and empathise people are usually good. They just made a mistake.

Tom Payani 26:03

I’m going off track a little bit here but I was listening to the Joe Rogan podcast and he had Ben Shapiro on there. Ben Shapiro, I would say is more on the right. He’s a conservative political commentator. But you know, very eloquent, very intelligent, clearly. But this conversation we’re having now reminded me of an excerpt of the conversation.

Tom Payani 26:38

They were talking about how to solve the problem of gang violence and violence in general, in certain communities in the US, particularly inner-city communities where there’s a high percentage of African Americans as a population.

Shapiro said, you know, I’m Jewish, and when the Jews came over to America, in the 20s, however long ago, they faced a lot of discrimination, which was true. They weren’t allowed in certain educational institutions, they were discriminated against in many different ways.

But as a community, as a culture, they made good decisions. Those good decisions helped them long term. His argument was, well, African Americans, if they made these good decisions, they wouldn’t have the problems they have now. And Joe Rogan turned around and said, yeah, but the ancestors of these African Americans were dragged onto ships, and dumped in the US and sold as property. You know, the Jewish people chose to come to the US.

It’s the context behind a conversation, on one hand, you can look at Ben Shapiro’s statement there and be like, yeah, just make better decisions. But if you have this context, if you have this understanding of the history of African Americans in the US, how systemically they’ve been oppressed in certain ways, it’s easier said than done, isn’t it to just make good decisions in inverted commas. And I think something like playspent is a really good way of illustrating this.

Brendan Cox 28:16

Yeah. It puts you in their shoes and we have an opinion about it, but we’re really not experiencing the full thing.

Tom Payani 28:27

You mentioned Google earlier. Google are obviously up there in terms of the quality of elearning they produce. There’s one I want to ask you about, specifically, because you’re the design guy. And when we talk about design, being reductive, UX, and that sort of thing. I want to ask you about the Google phishing elearning they have, can you just give a bit of explanation for that one?

Brendan Cox 29:03

This is a really cool example of scenario based learning where: what’s the best way to teach someone to recognise phishing emails, where they’re trying to get your details. And you might do a bit of eLearning letting the technology drive the actual content that you’re making.

Instead, what they’ve done is that perfect thing of letting the content itself drive what the medium they present it in, they’ve basically made it so you can log in, create your own email address, and then you start to get emails, and you have to decide whether or not they’re phishing emails or not.

Its so well designed that it feels obvious. This is the best way to learn. To just feel like you’re getting emails and have dubious titles and different bits. It’s a body of text, and you have to kind of work it out. To guess whether or not it’s a phishing scam or not.

You get kind of graded as you go through. There’s different ways they do it. As someone who thinks that they’re aware of all the ways that emails can be dodgy, I learned a load of things. I didn’t realise, you don’t know what you don’t know, right?

So the thing is, where a company that is not necessarily an eLearning Company, per se, but an innovation company they focus heavily on users experience and use that data. This is a good example of how they’ve explored a simple way, an elegant way of teaching people something quite boring.

Tom Payani 30:47

I want to stick with Google for a second, because I also did a piece of elearning called Interland. Interland is this fictional group of islands, where you’re an Interlander, which is the name of the population there. You’re basically learning how to be safe online. So it’s aimed at younger people. I wanted to speak about this one, because what I really liked about it was how it uses gamification.

It makes something that traditionally could be boring about not falling for spam emails, or don’t overshare on the internet, or make sure you’ve got a strong enough password. You can imagine this type of learning being really dry.

I played this game, and it was for kids. I was well into it. The gamification was absolute quality. I really enjoyed playing it. It gave me the same feeling as when I just played a normal video game. That’s how good it was in that aspect. I made a few notes about it that I wanted to just get your thoughts on.

Firstly, for me, the sound was great, the music was great. You have four different islands and have to basically complete certain achievements in each island.

You unlock certain other things, you have to have a minimum score and unlock certain achievements to progress to different stages. And I just thought it was it was slick, really professional. Each Island, depending on the style of gameplay had a certain soundtrack and a certain musical element, which I thought was cool. For example, you had the first island called tower of treasure. This was the same point of view as the old like Crash Bandicoot games. Do you remember them?

Brendan Cox 33:07

The low polygon type stuff was cool. There’s a lot of crossover now between motion graphics and animation where rather than being content that’s made, and then just plonked online, like in a video, they’re actually designing it directly in code.

So that whole thing runs in the browser using low polygon, which is like a cute kind of style as well. It’s quite charming, and it’s really efficient. You can actually play that without having really fast broadband.

Tom Payani 33:42

Yeah, that’s also important, because this comes back to this concept of the digital divide we were talking about last week, and how learning to be accessible to different people. The reason why I mentioned Crash Bandicoot – how it had that perspective from behind the character as they’re moving forwards was because clearly the person who designed this had played those games, or clearly the team who designed this and played those games, because it had that Crash Bandicoot style soundtrack.

It had the African drum like music, and it just connected really well with the gameplay. It was just a really good example to me of how music is so important in any creative project, but particularly elearning as well.

You also had another island that you had to you had to go through. It had multiple choice answers. You were on like a lily pad that dropped you in the water if you got it wrong. And that really reminded me of that old school Zelda style music.

For me, I just I thought was a really good example of, of how music can be really important in elearning.

Brendan Cox 35:08

We can probably do an episode on music. We can get some musicians and sound designers. They’re also learning from past experience and the different approaches they’ve got, they know what works in their gameplay as well.

It’s a bit like that thing with Netflix e.g. Stranger Things is so addictive. Because it’s a blend of all of the nostalgia elements that everyone has across a number of different generations. And so it has a sticky content. It’s really, really sticky content.

It’s produced presented in an elegant way, but it touches on all of these key points of cute nostalgic music, and low polygon sort of design style that basically reminds you of the computer games you played as a kid.

But within that, it’s got the content that would otherwise be completely dry. It’s a really sticky way of doing elearning. And it means that you remember playing it. In fact, whenever someone asked us about a good bit of elearning, we say you should check out Interland. It’s really good.

Tom Payani 36:28

Particularly for gamification, for example, you had this tower of Treasure Island, which was about securing your secrets and making sure your passwords were good enough for young people. So you went through this Crash Bandicoot style points collection, and you had to get a certain number of points, different items, objects, you have to pick up, you have to get a certain number to get to the next point, then progress, you get to a tower, then the hackers try to hack into your tower.

And this was all visually done in front of you. You can see these hackers trying to get into your tower. And to stop them doing it, you had to answer multiple choice questions in a certain period of time before they hacked into your tower. So there’s gamification-style pressure, the time element, giving you that pressure.

What I really liked was the next Island had a completely different style of gamification. The island was called Kind Kingdom. It’s about cyberbullying and this sort of stuff. It reminded me a lot of like Mario, the sideways view of the old Super Mario, you have to jump and collect hearts instead of coins, like it would be in Mario.

You have to give those coins to sad characters, and you have to make them happy. When you made them happy enough, an obstacle was removed, and then you have the progression of difficulty, it was harder to jump to the certain objects, and then there was bullies that appeared who were giving negative vibes to the characters that you gave positive vibes to.

So you have to then block the bullies from being able to do that. And it made it a bit trickier. It was a really good example of increasing the difficulty of something as you’re playing it, whilst the narrator is telling you things you need to remember, for the test at the end as well.

On the test at the end, you have to sort of kill the bully with kindness, and then the bully stops being a bully. It was all very sweet.

Brendan Cox 38:32

And the cool thing is that I played it in a completely different order.

Tom Payani 38:35

The third island I mentioned before. It was Zelda style, where you’re trying to get across a platform. To get across the platform, you have to answer certain questions. Again, they use the example of some questions being timed, but not all questions.

One thing that I found interesting was that the questions weren’t timed, then they became timed. It was in a random order, which I thought was interesting, because it kept your attention by doing that, because you didn’t know which question was going to be timed or not.

Brendan Cox 39:11

Yeah, it made you familiar with the mechanics, it kept you on your toes because you had to pay attention. That was cool about it. It had enough gamification that it felt genuinely like a game. And not just a straight line of decisions that you have to do. It is cool.

Tom Payani 39:32

The last island was like a puzzle style game, where you had to fire documents that you made with your friends or your family, but you didn’t want people to overshare them. It was almost like candy crush, Tetris style, firing these documents to the right people and making sure you avoided like the gobby oversharer who just told everyone your secrets.

The different coloured characters represented your friends, shared it with your friends, the public or your parents. You have to avoid the public or the gobby mate. At the end, you’ve got your certificate. I just think it’s a really cool example of gamification, and making sure that they’ve integrated learning within that gamification.

For young learners, I think it would have been effective for a typically dry subject. I thought that was a cool example of gamification. I think it is something that we can aim for, isn’t it that type of learning?

Brendan Cox 40:50

It doesn’t have to be complicated. It just has to be well thought out from something as simple as the Google phishing one where its scenario based, where you’re practising the thing that you’re practising. With the amount of things that we all do digitally there’s absolutely no reason you can’t rebuild whatever the interfaces of the thing you’re supposed to learn about, and practice actually doing it, all the way to the more gamified version of interland, where you’re making a dry subject a lot more fun, and a lot more enjoyable, and memorable.

I encourage everyone to go off and have a go as all of them are really good. Playspent: using the power of well thought out design, and to actually empathise with someone is a really powerful one. That one stands out because it’s something that takes you out of your comfort zone, and deals with quite an important subject. It is well done.

Tom Payani 41:52

I think it’d be really cool if people have any other suggestions for good elearning that they’ve seen?

Brendan Cox 41:58

We didn’t we didn’t find half of these on our own. People tell us about them and things like that. So if there’s any really cool bits of elearning that you’ve seen, tell us and we’ll check them out. We can talk about them on another episode.

Tom Payani 42:11

Pleasure as always, Brendan.

Intro/Outro 42:22

Thanks for listening to the blend podcast. It’s available on Spotify, Google and Apple. You can find Blend interactive content on LinkedIn, or www.blend.training. Don’t forget to like and subscribe. See you next time.

The Blend Podcast EP011 – Effective eLearning examples

Listen here:

Shownote links:

Transcript:

What people are saying

Partners that trust us

Get in touch

Listen to the Blend podcast