USDLA Journal Bulletproof Instructional Design:

USDLA Journal
Bulletproof Instructional Design:
A Model for Blended Learning
Frank J. Troha
Corporate Learning Consultant and Adjunct Professor of Instructional Design

Allow me to apply the lessons of the previous post.

This well-written artcle calls for planning ahead of training, with the twist that F2F be considered and then online, divvying up the learning tasks for which each is appropriate. (Check out the original article for the full argument.)

Early on, the author cautions us that: "The following design model presumes a performance analysis has indicated the need for training, as opposed to another type of performance improvement intervention." That gets caught in my crap detectors. I always presume that performance analysis indicates the need for better performance, and generally it's unsound to assume that training alone can carry the load.

The author describes the necessity of having a transfer strategy to insure that the results of training are applied to the work. Since this isn't school, where we purposely wall off kids from the real world, why are training and work separate in the first place? All the bulletproof content is delivered in courses, i.e. the model presumes that all learning is formal. What of informal learning, where most of learning really takes place? For that matter, why is there no discussion of groups to accompany the focus on individuals? Furthermore, conceptualizing learning as a series of courses doesn't provide a pathway for future learning as the course content becomes dated.

The "Bulletproof" Instructional Design Document includes these topics:

Course title Purpose Statement Audience Title Duration Prerequisites Learning Objectives Constaints Content/Learning Activities Outline Transfer of Learning Strategy Evaluation Strategy Content Sourcing

I can't go along with deciding that we have a training problem and then trying to solve it as if the larger organization that spawned it has ceased to exist. This is like the scientist who prefaces everything with "everything being equal," knowing full well that it's not.

Why would anyone take this "bulletproof" approach to stakeholders for review rather than a statement of the performance problem and how we'll know we've solved it. Better we should go back to Robert Mager, asking What are we trying to do? How are we going to do it? How will we know we've done it?

Posted by Jay Cross at July 10, 2002 09:28 AM | TrackBack