In an earlier blog, we discussed the fundamentals of objectives, specifically: why create objectives and what makes objectives effective. We described an objective as a clear statement of what we expect the learners to be able to do by the end of the learning program. We defined effective objectives as being specific, measurable and learner-centered.
I recently reviewed an article written by Michael Dalmaridis, Manager of Learning and Development at Meridian, that focused on, “The word you should never use in Learning Objectives……Understand!”
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.
We are writing to you live from the Training 2018 Game Changer Conference and Expo, February 12-14 from Atlanta, Georgia. This is TRAINING Magazine’s 41st Annual Conference and FKA, as an industry leader in workplace learning and performance, has been a proud presenter at this event for over 25 years.
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):
Way back in 2005, one of our senior instructors presented a session at the annual Training Magazine Conference, with the same title as this blog. It’s still a valid concern in 2018! There are many projects when instructional designers can’t do their jobs without the valuable help of subject matter experts (SMEs)! They can help with many steps along the way:
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.
This morning two colleagues and I finished presenting a six-session online program for instructional designers. Participants had a range of design experience from beginners to four or five years. As we were wrapping up, one of the new designers commented that the biggest surprise for him was that instructional design is actually more of an art form than a science! He thought we would be able to provide procedures and formulae that he would follow making the process foolproof.
We believe that the three pillars of solid instructional design are the: