Skip to main content

I guess I would say that I have always been a fan of a Backwards Design approach.

The process essentially goes like this - Start with the end in mind.

  1. What is the desired objective of the training? (Need to Know)
  2. How does the learner show they have met the objective? (Assessment)
  3. What experiences does the learner need to best prepare them? (Content)

So once I know what it is that the learner needs to know, (1) it is time to identify what sort of proof that the learner can provide which will serve as acceptable evidence that they have gotten what they need to know. In many online cases, it is a quiz but is that the best form of evidence? I have some courses where I ask the learner to submit a video of themselves performing a variety of tasks while explaining the process, submit photographs of themselves holding things they have created, or perhaps upload to me a configuration file of sorts. (2)

In my training - I sometimes offer two “tracks”.

The first track is to simply consume the material for personal knowledge and use.
The second track is if they want to earn a certificate of completion in order to show others. In that case, they need to demonstrate to me that they have learned.

I build all the learning content they need to reach the goal of being able to do that. I also try to provide written instructions, video demonstrations, and interactive simulations in each case where possible and appropriate. (3)

So what is your approach? How do you decide the “what” that goes into your courses? Do you ever go beyond the simple quiz as evidence in your online training?

Please share in the comments.

Reading this I kept thinking to myself…my philosophy or those I work for and by extension have to implement ….two very different things :)

It is interesting - I have been a gymnastics coach for many years and my philosophy of coaching is not something I will waiver on. When I look for a coaching position - we talk philosophies because if me and the gym owner are not on the same page - it won’t work.

Training design, on the other hand, while that also goes back a significant amount of time, I am a little less rigid on that point.

This would certainly be my default position and I could handle some alternate approaches but if all you are interested in is for me to upload your weak PowerPoint and call it eLearning… I am not your guy.

@gstager - this is a great discussion. And the backwards design is favored.

I find in the healthcare industry? Many folks that are not seasoned at training find themselves training many other folks...but they do not get into the most basic of discussions - of what does success looks like on the other end of taking your course...what are those outcomes you were striding for in the first place...and then work backwards to get to that one place of creating truly intriguing learning.

Instead they drive in forward - and often engineer poorly covered materials for adult learners...which then lends itself to disengagement...and a disengaged adult learner will then go deep into gaming mode when it comes to the learning made available - which is “what is the fastest way and minimal amount of effort I can do possible to get done with this?”.

What I find amazing is that “speed to product” often drives our learning business as well. People want certain key functions from learning and learning systems - but literally do not care about the rest. And maybe the point there? Is that it (the learning) is our business and so we should care.

That though is where they go wrong...and it is where we begin to separate the hobbyist, the good, the trained, and the seasoned instructional designer.

I often tell folks that I can tell the level of an instructional designer that I am working with by the questions they engage a customer in and how they respond to a thread of thought during the initial assessment of a project. An instructional designer that is the novice is asking for materials to come from the SME. But they will be worried (and novices will be even terrified) about changing the contents information hierarchy and emphasis. The concentrate on delivery…and the quickest way to get to a “speed to product” solution.

And that is not even considering sythesizing materials more deeply into truly learnable objective - people may even claim they love it because it met one of their goal. But it then takes disruption of that model to get folks out of working with novices to show that what is being put together is truly garbage. 

The seasoned ID knows how to engage a group to solicit the right details...they are used to the right questions...and learn how to balance the drivers that the SME is facing.

Odd - just got the notification of this post a moment ago and it has been three days.

Everybody wants things yesterday apparently.

...and Rapid eLearning Development - never heard of it… 😉

In many ways - I use PowerPoint as a litmus test… at least when comparing to eLearning authoring tools.

If I can make the same thing with PowerPoint, you’re not using it right...

I expect information from my SMEs - but as a designer and developer - it is my job to shape that information into an experience.

Reply


Terms & ConditionsCookie settings