And Design Follows Analysis
Design APPOs then DEMOs then INFOs – after first articulating the Learning Objectives – after capturing the Performance Objectives and letting them dictate the Learning Objectives.
I had posted this graphic above on Twitter and LinkedIn yesterday:
T&D: I employ a Backward Chaining Approach to Instructional & Informational Design – after 1st establishing the Performance Competence Requirements, and then the Enabling Awareness, Knowledge and Skill Requirements. Focus on the Performance Requirements – and Enable Them!
I got this response:
Nope. Learning Styles is a bogus concept. There’s way too much research against it. I let the task to be learned and learner’s context dictate the mode and media, as guided by a Design Team of Master Performers. More on both at: eppic.biz
So – here, next, are some links to resources, about “both.”
Note: As a T&D Consultant since 1982, most of my work has been targeted at Critical Business Issues, and not low hanging fruit – and my clients have almost always allowed me to use my preferred approach of a Facilitated Group Process, of handpicked (by the client) Master Performers and Other SMEs, in Analysis Teams and then Design Teams – to make sure the Analysis data and the Designs that that informs as: Accurate, Compete and Appropriate. The Risks and Rewards of the terminal Performance usually dictate a need to get it very right – and actually create and/or improve the Performance Competence of the Target Audiences.
These Master Performers and Other SMEs almost always insist on being involved in the post-Design “Development” efforts and Pilot Test efforts – much to the surprise of my clients. My “brand for these ADDIE-like efforts is: MCD – Modular Curriculum Development.
For Content on this site Lesson Maps & Lesson Mapping – please go here.
For Content on this site about (the fallacy of) Learning Styles – please go here. And this is covered elsewhere on the Internet. But be careful – as some covers this as if it – Learning Styles – was real.
# # #