I would add one more link area- a listening post. I find that especially in the behavior modification areas, some trainees have other educational difficulties and some trainees need to get the information in another format. The listening post should cover only the main content areas and should be offered as scenarios with questions posed regularly. If possible, I recommend that the trainee be able to orally answer questions.

Thanks for such a great article.

Chris Babowal

Will the target population apply this knowledge in any reasonable situation?

Is the depth of the content supporting this concept too much for the level of learner we are targeting (will it turn off the audience)?

Does this information already exist in an accessible location? Is it well written enough to support the concepts we’ll present in the course?

How does this support the stated objectives?

To play devil’s advocate…

Sometimes knowledge is absolutely required to ‘get’ the concept or apply the skill. However, this type of information is often misapplied as a chunked series of Text | Image | Bullets for screen upon screen of a reader rabbit chase. Unless your audience is chock full ‘o children that benefit from this model – why use it?

When we want someone to read, WHY NOT let hem simply read it? Leverage what’s good for what it’s good fer. Reading is, to put it bluntly, fracking good for you. And properly structured, can be quite enjoyable.

Assign a reading assignment, keep it short, and bring the learner back into the electronic fold to APPLY what they’ve just learned or to interact and explore the implications of the nuances and details that they’ve just revealed or been reminded of.

We hedge around what’s wrong with the industry at this point by pointing out what we should be doing better, not pointing and laughing at the things that we are doing dead wrong.

I’m up for a candid assessment of the state of the industry and an examination of the influencing factors that are contributing some negative effect. These include:

SCORM – some great things, but this technical packaging standard that has definitely influenced the way we design our instruction – with poor outcome IMO.

Section 508 – hate to be un-PC, but tuning a user’s experience around the least capable denominator ‘just to be nice’ doesn’t cut it when that contingent of the audience simply is non-existent. On the flip side, useful accessibility has some awesome application. I just don’t see the point in leveraging a visualization to articulate a concept, but receding the strategy because it’s not fair to those who can’t leverage the power of visuals sans sight. Without question, Section 508 has affected the way we design training.

Entrenched and seemingly unchangeable Academia – the spread of misconception to the incapable. We have some dynamite folks in the field, those folks are outnumbered by folks that simply chose the wrong profession. Who would dare criticize from whence they came?

Lack of specialization – the expectation that one ring can rule them all, or one person can accomplish everything. The wanton pairing of ISD and Writer into the same block is one example of a really aweful combination. Expecting to find someone who is capable of writing engaging content (both for reading and for screen presentation) AND can strategically and tactically apply instructional principles well is an unfair game. Dynamo’s that can do this are few and far between. My opinion (we have yet to hit peak oil on that commodity) – specialize. Focus on your craft and don’t be something that your not. ‘I like to do graphics, I think I’m pretty good at it’ – Don’t. ‘I wrote a lot in college’ – Don’t. If we all spent some time to focus on our craft, to truly identify in our fields of focus how best to service our learners. We’ll all be better off.