« In Case You Missed This Part (with thnx 2 @oldaily) | Main | eBang Theory, Say "Hey" to High Quality Online Learning That Scales »

May 03, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Holly Hooper

Having passionate and deeply held convictions regarding objectives definitely is a mark of the "club." I like to also let my "freak flag" fly with my daily, weekly, or monthly soapboxes about learning and the ID process.

Judy Unrein

LOL! I can't believe I missed this post when it happened. Keep up the good work, Ellen.

Julie Dirksen

Nice list!

The one I always notice is not using the word "understand" in learning objectives -- I've always thought of that as an instructional design secret handshake. It's not a deeply held conviction for me, but I get why it makes some folks irate.

Come to think of it, having deeply held convictions about learning objectives (and I do have some) is probably another ID secret handshake.

And, I tend to think ADDIE is more misunderstood, but we've already kind of had that conversation :) http://bit.ly/ljthxI

ellen wagner

thanks richard, I'm glad for more "secret handshakes". While this *is* a light-hearted piece, the issue of recognizing fellow practitioners, understanding their background, training, values, contexts, etc. for creating learning designs that leverage technology is quite serious stuff, at least for me. Thanks for jumping in.

Richard Clark

That's a nice, lighthearted list!

One of the big differences: "we (IDs) focus more on behaviors than content." We're more interested in what a person does differently as a result of our work than how much content they were "exposed to".

Another: We're big on context, as in "I'm not just going to show you the maillard reaction, I'm going to show you how it applies to baking bread, cooking bacon, etc."

(And dare I suggest a third? We know that powerpoint and a voice alone don't ensure learning, and struggle to explain that to non-IDs.)


The comments to this entry are closed.