The Learning Strategist

Recently, someone from Bloomfire contacted me over LinkedIn and requested me to give answers to some questions. I have been late to respond but thought they were pertinent given the way things have changed in the training world. So let me answer them for myself anyway before I send them to Bloomfire. From your perspective, what are some of the challenges in writing curricula that resonate with the learner? The main challenge I see is Knowing your audience precisely. Knowing your audience helps you scope out the training accurately and achieve the right level of detail. It will be the key to any kind of task you want to do; build a product, create a game, or plan training content. How might these challenges differ from the challenges of yesterday? I believe the challenges of yesterday were more than the challenges of today. The intervention of Web 2.0 and the increasing tech-savvyness of the learner have made information immediately accessible to one and all. Today, most informatio...

I am attending a deep dive training for the product I work on, and this is probably one of the first detailed internal trainings that I'm attending. I have a lot of observations and learning from the way the training has been designed. In effect, attending the training gave me a much deeper perspective into what goes on in the learners mind during a class. I recommend that all IDs attend trainings sometime, just to get a better insight into the learner's mind. When creating training for complex and advanced products, learners benefit from having a greater number of hand-on exercises and demos. They help in improving a learner's confidence on the subject tremendously. Such cases call for classroom training . Here are some of my insights... Examples and scenarios I think the instructor needs to be loaded with relevant real-world examples to help learners grasp the concepts better. Examples help build the connections that learners are looking to make. As you delve deeper into ...

Donald Kirkpatrick coined this model in 1975 and it could most probably be outdated. He talks about the four levels of evaluation of a course: Level1: Reaction- Observe and record learner reaction to a training. Level2: Learning- The extent to which learners change attitudes, increase knowledge, and/or increase skills. Level3: Behavior- The extent to which change in behavior occurs on the job. Level4: Results- The final outcomes that occur as a result of training. I find this interesting though not surprising as the levels seem to be quite obvious. The model says you need to use 2-3 tools to evaluate each level and you need to define the measurement at the beginning of every project. The figure gives a matrix of the measurement required at each level. Another thing he says is if you don't get past level 2, you aren't using Kirkpatrick. Also he claims that using this model will cause a minimum wastage in your training investment. I would like to try this out whe...

Background I recently read this post by Tony Karrer discussing the development of what we traditionally call pure courseware versus the creation of Reference Hybrids Shift in eLearning from Pure Courseware towards Reference Hybrids . Though posted in 2006, this post seems very relevant even today and I feel like I have a lot to say about the probable solution to the discussion that this course brought out. Citing past experience In one of my previous organization, our management was looking at buying a rapid elearning tool that would make the creation of courses faster and easier. Now thats the impression the general audience has about rapid elearning tools, and is also the obvious reason why they think that buying the tool will solve all their training problems. Exactly what the vendors would love you to believe when they sell their tool. But, I think it's time we start being more realistic and start looking at what it is that we really want, and not conclude on using rapid elear...