In the PACT Processes – my ISD methods and tools and techniques – the focus is always squarely on Performance.
As captured by the Performance Model. It is always key. Always.
Because learning isn’t about entertainment that is not relevant.
Especially in an Enterprise Learning Context.
Perhaps that’s OK in an Education Learning Context, or a Personal Learning Context.
And learning isn’t always fun. But if it is authentic and relevant then most Performers like proving they already know it – and if confronted with a different reality – done right – they can begin the shift from their current practice to the practices more closely associated with the Master Performers’ repertoire. If it is incumbents that you are targeting.
New job holders are different. And they might not even recognize that the Application Exercise was a Test. They might have thought it was just Practice. So you can serve them both, sometimes, with the same Content – Instruction and/or Performance Support.
ISD via PACT
In the Lesson Map portion of PACT – there are three types of Instructional Activities – for example each box in the 3 columns of the Lesson Map below – is an Activity – to suggest non-passive approaches to delivering/deploying: INFOs DEMOs and APPOs).
All were designed/ derived directly from the Performance Model – or from the Knowledge/ Skills Matrices that themselves are systematically derived enabling K/S required for that performance. All tied back to the Performance Model.
Oh. Could you use the format above for story-boarding your e-learning?
A visual that any client can follow understand. It’s about flow.
Especially if it – the content in the flow of the Lesson Map – links directly back to a Performance Model that they signed-off on.
They like that best.
Where Do Your Learning Objectives Come From?
Are your Learning Objectives systematically derived from some view of the Performance Requirements ideal in the sense that while everyone may not be performing at the top – some Master Performers are – and perhaps the gaps in the current state from that ideal state for the non-Master Performers has enough R for the I – to warrant closing some or all of those gaps?
Or were your Learning Objectives “made up” – top-of-mind from the client because you asked them?
Which will lead to Performance Support – including instruction and job aids, etc. – that is likely be more authentic – from the git-go?
Which is better: Learning Objectives that are made up – or – systematically derived?
How can you feed your ISD methods – with good analysis data?
To insure authenticity – that is then more likely to transfer.
Depending on the other variables of both “immediate transfer” – and “permanent transfer.”
Where to start?
The Performance Model. Capture the real world with real world Master Performers. And do that quickly.
The derive the enabling K/Ss – and other enablers as your needs dictate – to feed your downstream needs.
That’s what is meant by this next graphic…
…feeding design with quality analysis data, specific to the needs of the downstream processes, in this case: CAD, MCD and IAD…
PACT has 5 methodology-sets, including 3 major ISD levels of design.
See the Resources tab for many “for free” items, and a few “for fee” items.