One of the more common requests we receive is from clients asking for help with an existing course they describe as dull and boring training. When I look back at the history of these scenarios there is a pattern of the courses being technical training. The training is teaching how to use a software application or how to follow a standard operating procedure (SOP).
Recently Scott Weersing of GP Strategies asked the questions “Should we add data science to competency/skills needed now?” in a post he made on LinkedIn. The post referenced a Harvard Business Review article “The Democratization of Data Science”.
The post and string of comments prompted this post which describes the data analysis workflow that is introduced in FKA’s Training Needs Analysis (TNA) workshop. It outlines a basic data analysis workflow that learning and development professionals should have the capability to use. (more…)
TD Magazine published an article in the May 2018 issue (pg. 20) titled “Preparing Your Organization for Adaptive Learning” in which Zachary Konopka outlined six ‘considerations’ that could help an organization as they embrace an Adaptive Learning approach. The fifth consideration was “Rethink the instructional designer’s role”. I would broaden this consideration to “Rethink the organization’s Instructional Systems Design (ISD) methodology”.
In the first part of the blog on Investing in Informal Learning I suggested that even though the learning is ‘informal’ there needs to be a process to enable it. To start the process, identify the need and then describe the knowledge and skills to be learned.
Recent articles and posts prompted me to think about informal learning. At least one of the two words is easy to understand.
Learning – The acquisition of knowledge or skills through study, experience, or being taught.
In a recent online session of our Developing Interactive eLearning program one of the participants asked a simple question,
In a previous post on How to Select an Instructional Strategy I said I wanted to introduce a structured approach for selecting instructional strategies. The structure comes from some job aids like decision trees and checklists. This post presents the decision tree that is based on the four dimensions of the Instructional Strategy Framework (ISF) and adds one additional decision about whether there is a requirement to develop specific learning resources. A formal learning solution does not always need the development of new learning resources. We have worked on projects where existing resources, such as procedure manuals, were used to support learning and we did not have to develop any new learning materials.
As an Instructional Designer what do you think drives the selection of the instructional strategy for any project? In a previous post, Scoping a Learning Solution – Art or Science? Part 2 – Instructional Strategy, we introduced the four dimensions of Instructional Strategy Framework (ISF):
A recent post in LinkedIn generated a lot of discussion about the validity and value of Learning Style Inventories. It became a topic of discussion among our team because it produced strong arguments for both the PRO and the CON perspectives.
The two most frequently asked questions by new clients are, “Can you helps us improve/update/increase …” and “Should we be investing in that new …” Our response is always the same, “Do you have a strategy or road map that you are currently following?”
A recent Brandon-Hall study found that aligning the learning strategy with the business goal was a top priority for learning organizations. Production can be as fast and efficient as possible but if you are producing an obsolete item you will never achieve your goal of increasing market share.