Five Pitfalls for Instructional Designers

I have been working the ID industry for over four years across services and product companies. I have gone from being and rigid ID theory follower to "Who cares what the theory says" era and now settled to a moderate level. I had this idea about trying to think about the pitfalls I encountered in these years and writing them down so that people new to the industry can read and hopefully learn from them.

These pitfalls are not based on any priority but are the five most important ones I could think of in the short span of a few hours.

1. The Microscopic View vs The Macroscopic View: When I started out as an ID, my entire focus was on writing correctly and precisely. This is a great habit when you are learning the trade, but after a few months the focus should shift to understanding the bigger picture. You should be asking questions like," Is the best way to create this training?", "Is this training actually needed?", "Do we need any follow up sessions after the training"?, "Do we need to create a four hour training or can we create an intensive two hour session instead"?. I found that I was so wrapped up in getting commas, thus, thereby and other words in place that I forgot to look at the bigger picture. An analyst made the design and I just scripted. Thus, when I made my first design it was really bad because I did not what questions to ask myself when I create designs. It took a lot of time to get into the mindset of asking the right questions, interpreting the right answers, and effective translating the thought process into a design. This process could have been rapidly advanced had I asked questions early in my career as an ID.

Key Takeaway: Ask questions when you feel the need for it. Good writing is important but so is common sense.

2. Excessive Reliance of Subject Matter Experts: I realized if you are working for a service company, the SME is out to make his own money and generally has no interest in your course. The faster you understand it the better. Hopefully you could meet good SMEs who understand what courseware development means, and can give you relevant feedback, but that's a rare case. Also SMEs will never give you the content for a course. You will have to write something concrete and then go to SMEs with relevant questions, answers to which would help you write your course. If you go with questions like "Can you please give me content around HTTP protocol?" they will copy the first four pages from Google and give them to you. The situation in Product companies is a little better because SMEs are generally a part of the same company and have a vested interest in getting your course out. Even then, you have to do your own research or they will shoot you down quickly.

Key Takeaway: Take your time and do your homework. Be specific when you ask questions to the SME. Ask questions that help you create the course.

3. Over Reliance on ID Theories: I read all the ID theories I could possibly find on the Internet and realized that they can be summed up in one word "Common Sense". If someone asks you a question around why you designed a topic a particular way and your only answer is because I applied a theory, then in most cases you applied the wrong theory for that situation. When you apply ID theories correctly, learners do not realize the beautifully flowing course in front of them is a result of the application of multiple theories. There are two common problems when you follow ID theories without proper context. Firstly, there are so many of them that you do not know which one to follow. Secondly, many theories were written before the Internet age so they become irrelevant in today's age. Thus, following ID theories is great, but one should always rely on common sense.

Key Takeaway: Follow ID theories, but also apply common sense to see which theories are applicable in current context.

4. Thinking of One good Idea at a Time and Applying it Everywhere: I had a penchant for learning new trends in the ID field and tried to apply what I learnt in my current courseware. So I had a fixation for Learning 2.0, then for virtual worlds like Second Life, then it was Mobile Learning, and the latest is Game Based Learning. When you go deeper into all these domains you realize that all of them are applicable in specific domains and work best in certain situations. Our weakness is that we learn about one idea, think it is the best around and can revolutionize education, and then never look beyond it. Thus, we have mobile learning fanatics who believe everyone should learn from mobiles, game based learning fanatics who believe everything else is crap and many such clichéd idealists. What I forgot is that the current situation still requires very good application of Learning 1.0 concepts of creating crisp, relevant and engaging courses. It's awesome to create mobile learning for consultants who can access small pieces of content before meeting important clients. It's great if you can simulate how to fix a mechanical drill in second life. Game based learning is great if you want to learn real life skills like leadership or anger management. But, most companies around still want simple skill based training for employees and don't need such fancy ideas. So it is great if we know all these concepts so that we can apply them in relevant situations, but it's better to learn them in detail and realize that they can only be applied in a particular context.

Key Takeaway: Learn about the latest ID trends and techniques but always remember they are best applied in only specific situations. Implementing most of these ideas is an expensive proposition both for vendor and client.

5. Implementing Feedback Just Because it's Been Given by Superiors: This is probably the most dangerous hurdle to overcome and perhaps the most important. We work in an industry where everyone in the world can have suggestions for us. Since everyone has been to college and are generally passionate about their education, they believe they know everything about education and courseware development. It's like the Indian media trying to give advice to senior economists and cricketers. Many times your manager and other superiors can give you feedback on courses that many not be relevant of even grossly incorrect. Mostly they don't have ID experience and can comment on stuff because they believe it's just English. "I don't like the placement of the graphic", "The scenario is a bit weird", " Can the animation be made more flashy?" are some of the most common advice we get. It's best to judge feedback on its merit rather than on the basis of the seniority of the person sending it. You should be able to tell the person that implementing this feedback is not possible because the graphic is appropriately placed and moving it will distract learners and make the slide unbalanced. If they still insist its best to ask them to send a mail stating that they are making this fix in the course and are responsible if the client does not like it. When the adverse feedback does come on a fix, they will the first people to say "When did we s suggest it" or "You are the experts and you should decide the best way to make the course. I just gave a suggestion." That's why it's critically important to take ownership of your work. I am in no way saying don't take any feedback from people because some of the best feedback I have got, is from people who have no idea about instructional design. Examine feedback from everyone in a balanced way and implement what you think adds value to the course.

Key Takeaway: Judge feedback based on its merit and not on designation of sender. Take complete ownership of your work.

These are my experiances and learnings. Please feel free to comment on them. If you like this post you can join my community http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Community.aspx?cmm=85812721 .