As I said at the outside, I’d read an article about the predecessor to the Ten Steps, 4C/ID (four component instructional design). Despite the intensely academic language, I thought the article had value, which is why I took the plow-through-it approach I have here. It’s kind of the anti-tweet approach: 140 sentences, maybe, rather than 140 characters, per post.

I think the crucial part for me is what you ended with–tying the Ten Steps directly to work contexts. Otherwise, it’s an academic exercise (pun intended). I wonder whether this approach might topple under its own weight. At the same time, the four main components highlight elements missing from many attempts to aid complex learning.

I’ve followed this series. It’s a pretty excellent assessment and summary of something that, sadly, I wouldn’t have the attention span to wade through myself. I’m still processing much of it, integrating perspective, and organizing where some of the ideas might apply for my own work. It is all valuable, no doubt, whether or not it ties directly to work contexts I’m able to apply.

Good stuff – thanks for this.

Steve