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:
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?
30 Poppy Lane
Berkeley, California 94708
1.510.528.3105 (office & cell)
Subscribe to this Blog
Our Infrequent Newsletter
Entries by category...
Recycled from Blogger
Internet Time Group
© 2004 Internet Time Group
Blogger Experience, Housekeeping, Something New
Demographics is destiny
Are you setting the bar high enough?
Work as Video Game
Oracle and Macromedia, Sitting in a Tree
ASTD Silicon Valley
Kingsbridge Conference Center
First Post by Email
RSS Feed for New Site
Testing ... testing ... 1...2..3
IT Doesn't Matter - Learning Does.
All blogging is political
Damn, damn, double damn
The New Religion
Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!
Business Process Management (2)
Business Process Management Conference
Don't Lose a Common Sense: LISTEN
It's only natural
Go with the flow
Time Out for the Fair
Informal get-together in SF this Wednesday
Repetition, reverb, and echoes
Push vs pull
The Big Picture on ROI
New Community of Practice Forming
Training Directors Forum 2004
A Rare One-Liner
PlaNetwork LIVE 2
ASTD 2004 Leftovers
Worker Effectiveness Improvement, not KM
Jay's Talk at ASTD
Mintzberg & Cooperider
Lest ye forget
ASTD International Conference & Exposition 2004
What is Workflow Learning?
ASTD msg 1 of n
Look out, it's Outlook
Collaboration at ASTD Next Week
Tell me a story
The shortest presentation on metrics you will ever hear
Back to Blogger
The Alchemy of Growth
Very loosely coupled
E-Learning from Practice to Profit
Robin Good kicks off Competitive Edge
Emergent Learning Forum: Simulations
The Best Things in Life Are Free
Metrics and Web Services
OpEd: ROI vs. Metrics