Comments on: Rossett and Marshall, is and ought (or “could be”)

By: John

John — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:14:54 +0000

@Steve,

I once had the same problem, but it wasn’t management demanding the return of the ‘next’ button – it was the instructional designers.

Even though, at a macro level, the course was still rather linear, the absence of a ‘previous’ and ‘next’ button caused great consternation amongst the IDs.

How is it that a function that is supposed to help organizations navigate change is so wary of it?

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:08:29 +0000

Steve, I’ve seen that sort of resistance many times. It boils down to function following form: if we’re training, we gotta do X because that’s what training looks like. (“Established navigation standards” often translates to “we’ve always done it this way” which in turn can be code for “I prefer it my way.”)

One depressing consequence can be that the learners are browbeaten into thinking that this is how training is supposed to work (meaning “look”). Same is true for bullet-ridden PPT talkathons, mandatory icebreakers, and similar impedimenta.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:57:32 +0000

We’re dealing with similar issues. In an attempt to branch beyond the single affordance ‘next’ forward navigation, our group attempted to remove that cue completely and replace it with choice based progression and organic cues – completely surrounding concepts with authentic contexts and decision based feedback.

The folks that run the program thought that there was ‘no good reason to deviate from established navigation standards’ and forced part of the group to remove the organic / decision based design elements and push a back/next rail control back into the package. Still fighting that battle.

I think that this is a big part of the problem. Folks are used to seeing a certain pattern of execution and packaging. This has a more powerful influence over the way things are done than ‘try something new and evaluate’.

And btw, we evaluated the results in multiple test groups. The response was overwhelmingly positive. Not that evaluation results seem to have more power than ‘that’s-not-what-i’m-used-to-ism’ ;-D

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:03:47 +0000

Janet: I’m inclined to agree about the frustration–especially among practitioners who’ve moved past the “talking is teaching” stage. Answers provided to Rossett and Marshall may have been more candid because of an anonymous survey than you might get within an organization.

Kelly: possibly because of my own biases, I read “make choices and learn from the results” as meaning decision / action choices — which for most people means something more than a multiple-guess question.

I read your comment as choice within the offerings in a curriculum, or within topics within a course. That’s a different level, though also pertinent: whose hands are on the steering wheel?

…another thought triggered by both of you: many organizations don’t seem to realize what it takes for real learning to occur, including rich experience, spaced practice, challenging yet realistic options.

By: Kelly S

Kelly S — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:31:50 +0000

From my experience e-learning frequently includes “realistic situations”, but does not encourage or allow choice within a curriculum or within individual learning units. Most of the time there is a specific path to “guarantee” completion of objectives.