One of the most common questions we hear from e-learning pros is What’s the best way to present my content? The short answer is, it depends! As long as you’re keeping your learners’ needs in ...
Published 4 years ago
Version 1.0
Blog Post
You could use all 3, starting with:
1) Madison's to introduce concepts (Absorb-type)
2) Allison's to practise and get immediate feedback (Do-type)
3) Sarah's to extend and personalise it (Connect-type)
Thanks to all 3 for sharing.
1) Madison's to introduce concepts (Absorb-type)
2) Allison's to practise and get immediate feedback (Do-type)
3) Sarah's to extend and personalise it (Connect-type)
Thanks to all 3 for sharing.
- I observed the same thing, Fady. Although the content is the same, the three modules are actually based on different learning objectives that build on one another. A million years ago when I started teaching, I was told that my lesson plans should guide learners through four stages: "touch-build-practice-use." (I've since learned that there are alternatives to that approach, but that is another discussion.) The three modules here do exactly that and actually create a mini-course.
- They do indeed, Lona. Perhaps the lesson here is that it takes more than one designer to create a thorough course, with each bringing a different perspective.
- This is definitely a case where three heads are better than one :)
- Kinda the same thought that was running in my head. I was just thinking it was a great example of how you could use multiple approaches in a course to tackle different objectives. :)
- Haha great minds think alike!
- So true! :) Love this idea
