At 7:42 PM +0000 1/2/03, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: >The Long and Winding Road wrote: >> >> Howard attempted to get a discussion going earlier this week >> about practice >> lab design assumptions, something that has so far drawn little >> attention ( >> as opposed to the CCIE versus college degree thread that just >> won't die ) >> I'd kinda like to see a discussion of book writing / training >> material >> writing design as well. I personally believe the Parkhurst >> method, while >> maybe not the be all and end all of study materials, packs a >> lot more into >> it's pages than most others I have read. I wish there were more >> like the two >> Parkhurst books. > >Thanks for the book review. I can comment on book writing and course >development. In fact I did before too. My number one axiom is that an >untested lab will not work. The reason Parkhurst's books are so good is >because he obviously tested everything he discusses. > >Just like with networks and software, the most important phases in book and >course development are at the beginning and end of the project: design and >testing. The worst books and courses are those that were thrown together >without much analysis up front. > >The process can be quite complicated. Masters degrees and even PhDs are >awarded in the instructional design field. But the process can be >streamlined also, and I think that Howard would agree, that sometimes the >instructional designer, education major types cause more problems than they >solve. At one point Cisco's training department consisted mostly of these >types. You wouldn't believe how many projects can stuck in the analysis >phase and never got produced. The training department was infamous for >starting and never finishing projects.
It's a widespread phenomenon. People from instructional design backgrounds, sometimes condescendingly, speak of "SMEs" -- subject matter experts -- who they will call on as they feel they need them. Now, don't get me wrong. Instructional design has some valuable techniques. But my own feeling is that to develop a course or major book, the person in charge needs to have subject matter, instructional, and, for courseware, project management experience. When I'm running such a project, I have no hesitation going to an instructional designer, a statistician, a specialized subject matter expert, etc., and both listening seriously to them and respecting their contribution. There do exist good instructional designers, but they have a regrettable tendency to get more involved in process than in substance. When I was primarily a course developer (and secondarily an instructor) at Geotrain, my manager, an instructional designer, literally gave me a bad review because I knew too much about the technology, and would write courseware myself rather than call on SMEs -- who had no budget for the extra work -- to contribute material that would then be edited by the instructional people. It was far faster for me to define requirements, write the courseware, and send it for technical review than to go through multiple iterations of requirements with a harassed engineer. It's very hard for some instructional specialists to recognize that an engineer can be a good writer and curriculum designer. I don't know if they are taught this, or it's a threat to them. Some of the processes get ridiculous -- with more than one set of such people, I've written a list of quite readable learning objectives, but had them rejected because each objective did not begin with an "action verb." Another aspect comes from test writing, when courseware is turned over to professional question writers with no knowledge of the subject matter. They tend to pick out easily testable factoids rather than significant bits of knowledge. It's also important to have someone other than the author test labs, so the there are no internal assumptions that the instructions are "intuitively obvious." In other words, every educational production project is a team effort, and the makeup of the team means mutual respect, and recognition of the real skills of the real people involved. Sometimes, an instructional designer should lead the effort, especially at the more beginner levels. In other cases, an engineer with instructional skills should lead, but use the instructional designer as a resource for optimizing the presentation techniques. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60126&t=60093 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
