There are a lot of training managers and course designers who get stuck in the “bigger is better” mind-set, building exhaustive courses with infinite, minute details that swallow learners wh...
Published 12 years ago
Version 1.0
Blog Post
Seems to me there are a few ways to look at "smaller is better" (which it isn't always)
- Right-sizing the solution for the problem. It's easy to go overboard with information making the assumption that one size fits all. From an economics (http://androidgogy.com/2013/01/06/showing-our-work-design-economics/) standpoint, it makes little sense to apply a $1000 solution to a .25 cent problem.
- Spacing, as Andy points out above, is a great way to aid in time management and improve effectiveness of a training program.
- Stepping to and stepping from. This is something I think we fail to address a lot of the time. We create a stepping stone and plop it down. But consideration isn't given to where someone is stepping to that stone from, nor where they will step after. We create an isolated intervention that isn't connected to anything, won't be evaluated for effectiveness, and we celebrate a win.
- Task sized bits can provide great support for times when a nudge is all you need to get into the range of success. In this article, http://androidgogy.com/2012/05/04/design-formations-30/, I implored readers to consider building fewer courses. I like the lens proposed in the article that breaks the aims of a training aid or package into four categories of consideration. We can prepare someone to perform, provide a practice experience for performance, provide supports to be used during real world performance, and provide an assessment opportunity to measure ability to perform. We can do these all in one package, we can break these down into discrete components, or we can mix and match to combine them.
Maybe we should consider the bigger picture more often, consider where folks are stepping from and stepping to, and take a look at the formations and economics of our designs to avoid simply turdifying information and dropping it where it lands:)
- Right-sizing the solution for the problem. It's easy to go overboard with information making the assumption that one size fits all. From an economics (http://androidgogy.com/2013/01/06/showing-our-work-design-economics/) standpoint, it makes little sense to apply a $1000 solution to a .25 cent problem.
- Spacing, as Andy points out above, is a great way to aid in time management and improve effectiveness of a training program.
- Stepping to and stepping from. This is something I think we fail to address a lot of the time. We create a stepping stone and plop it down. But consideration isn't given to where someone is stepping to that stone from, nor where they will step after. We create an isolated intervention that isn't connected to anything, won't be evaluated for effectiveness, and we celebrate a win.
- Task sized bits can provide great support for times when a nudge is all you need to get into the range of success. In this article, http://androidgogy.com/2012/05/04/design-formations-30/, I implored readers to consider building fewer courses. I like the lens proposed in the article that breaks the aims of a training aid or package into four categories of consideration. We can prepare someone to perform, provide a practice experience for performance, provide supports to be used during real world performance, and provide an assessment opportunity to measure ability to perform. We can do these all in one package, we can break these down into discrete components, or we can mix and match to combine them.
Maybe we should consider the bigger picture more often, consider where folks are stepping from and stepping to, and take a look at the formations and economics of our designs to avoid simply turdifying information and dropping it where it lands:)