The need to review the Designer’s lists of Learning Objectives in great detail with the Learners often feels like a sales and/or motivation pitch to the Learners – because it is.
You see the design was for something more generic, and not specific, to the Performance Requirements of those Learners. It wasn’t going to be obvious to them what this was about, how they would apply this back-on-the-job, etc. and what the value to them personally was going to be – if they played along. So they would have to be told, they would have to be sold.
When it would have have been easier to title the Learning Event as: “How to Do XYZ with an Irate Customer.” That would have been the Learner’s first clue as to their needs matching up with what you’ve got for them.
The second clue might have been to show them something akin to this design flow of content – as part of the Advanced Organizer you are doing with those two sets of data (INFOs) – in the Lesson Map of Instructional Activities. Perhaps there is even more than one Lesson in your Event. Show them all up front – and use that later as part of your version of what I call “Reviews/PreViews” – which are in all of my processes transition points.
If the design wasn’t fed by authentic Performance data – it probably has very little chance of truly being authentic – which is different from having FACE VALIDITY.. Why, that would mean conducting something akin to analysis. Which, as everyone knows, always slows you down.
Perhaps the way some analysis is conducted. How many versions of instructional-type analysis do you have in your toolkit?
The first thing I pull out of my toolkit, after clarifying who the target audiences are with the requester (you know: who are the primary targets, any secondary, etc.?) is the Performance Model and the need to see how many AoPs – Areas of Performance – we might be dealing with here.
Determine the Target Audiences, the scale-scope of Performance (determine those AoPs), then clarify the outputs and measures, the tasks, the various roles/responsibilities if more than one player/performer is in the “performance sandbox.”
Focus on Performance – it will give you the terminal objectives, ability to perform, for you L2, L3, and L4 evaluations – feed and anchor design back to Performance Competence – and guide developers who are thinking about APPOs (Application Exercises) from an authenticity perspective – as in: how authentic does this need to be to resonate with the Learners? What needs to be authentic, and what not?
Oh, and Pilot-Test too.
# # #