When we study design, we learn rigorous methods based upon sound research and elegant theory. Then we hit the real world and are faced with deadlines, limited resources, and unrealistic demands. How do we cope? We generally choose some design shortcuts,
We generally choose some design shortcuts, heuristics, that give us what we believe to be suitable approximations to what we’d prefer to do in a perfect world. These heuristics, experience-based solutions which may not be optimal but are often good enough to get the work completed, are often unexamined.
Our major steps in designing learning, whether ADDIE or SAM, still (or should) require determining meaningful objectives, creating essential practice, providing conceptual guidance and supporting examples, and creating a learning experience. However, we might not do the full cognitive task analysis, simulation-based practice, model-based concepts, story-based examples, etc. Some of our shortcuts are well-founded, yet some might also preclude us from exploring more effective alternatives. Still, we need to be conscious of the tradeoffs.
For example, rapid e-learning tools make it easy to capture knowledge, present it, and test it. Yet how often is knowledge the real barrier to success in performance? Most of the research suggests that, instead, the emphasis should be on the ability to apply knowledge, not just recite it. Knowledge alone isn’t sufficient for the ability to use the knowledge to meet workplace needs. Do we find effective ways to even use these tools or are we just putting content on pages?
We need to be conscious of the shortcuts we take, the tradeoffs they entail, and reflect from time to time on where our practice in regards to where it could, and should, be. What are the shortcuts we’re taking, and what are the assumptions they encompass?
This post was written by Clark Quinn, who is directing this week’s #chat2lrn tweetchat. Thank you, Clark, for your contribution!