Modular Learning June 7, 2008
Posted by sallyboyd in Instructional Design.Tags: blended, learning, modular
trackback
When I was working on my degree, I found a great site by Donald Clark called “A Time Capsule of Training and Learning.” There is a lot of fascinating information here starting with OJT (On-the-Job Training) and ending with “2000 and Beyond”. One of the elements of instructional design that has come to the fore in the last century is the need to break up your “presentation” style. This makes the learning more effective, and it makes the design more modular. In this case, the modules create a necessary flow and build on one another.
One of the ways that training design has evolved is to create “Blended Learning”. This usually consists of having learners work outside the classroom by reading or processing some sort of online learning, then classroom time can be devoted to activities and practice. However, the learner still needs to take the new knowledge and skill back to the work setting and use it for real behavioral change to take place. This has led to “Just-In-Time” training (JIT).
Several years ago, as a new manager, I found myself needing to complete some required training, which was fortunately available as an eLearning. There were three modules, which were very well done, though if I needed to stop and start, I had to restart at the beginning of a module. This eLearning, which should have taken a few hours to complete (as it did when I took it again several years later), took me three weeks to complete because I kept being interrupted.
With this in mind, I did a survey of the people I needed to create training for, to see what their reactions were to eLearning. Most people actually preferred to do eLearning to classroom training. Why? There were various reasons, but one was that they didn’t have time for classroom training. They also listed some of the issues they had with eLearning itself. These included: Not enough time, having to do it on their own time and lots of interruptions.
These several reasons have led me to conclude that we need to create learning that is both very modular and interruptible! The big reason is that there is such a limit on the time to train. Blended learning is our friend here. We can provide short reading or eLearning segments and then combine these with short face-to-face or synchronous online modules then follow up with OJT. The different modules will still build on one another, but the key is to make them short and interruptible. Does this affect the learner’s ability to retain the information? Possibly. I would say it depends on the learner and how they have learned to learn. In our “sound byte” world, we all have a bit of “attention deficit,” so we need to work with that to provide learning in the best way for learners to learn.
Michael Allen suggests that learning should be “Meaningful, Memorable and Motivational.” I fully agree. However, instead of 3 M’s, I recommend four. Learning also needs to be Modular.
You are absolutely correct in the need for modularity. SCORM, as I wrote earlier, gives everyone a common format for this modularity, but it is not the whole answer.
I’ve had some recent changes in my life (say, “Hello” to Mrs. Wino, everyone), which included a job change, as well. My previous job was solely training. My new job is not in training, at all. I am now a manager of a group of maintenance and project implementation groups for a large multi-national corporation.
I’ve been doing a review of some of the training they have available. It is scattered in many different areas, and is quite frankly hard to find. It is completely free, and fairly easy, but it is not well-utilized. Why is this? I don’t yet know, but I suspect several reasons:
* No one knows it is there
* The ones they know about are too basic
* The ones they know about require too much time
* They don’t see the value of it
I have not yet concluded what I’m going to do, but part of it is to correct some bad information in some “professional” modules, and to write some modules that are more directly derived from the day-to-day duties myself. This should correct the “no value” area, at least, and the corrections are just plain ol’ necessary.
On the last note, how can someone sell training that has incorrect information? Did no one review the information? Imagine a “professional” product that uses terminology incorrectly. It means that someone who is learning this basic information will have to relearn it later, correctly. That means unlearning the wrong information before one can learn the right information. What a waste of time!
On selling training with incorrect information — I’ve seen that from a major eLearning vendor — it made me not want to take any more of their training! But I still used the vendor because we had a huge corporate license, and I used it on a different topic from that I had taken.
When there are a lot of possible training modules, it’s hard to QC all of them.