Instructional Design is, in my opinion, like any other design process. It is part creative and part systemic. However, there seems to be a pervasive belief in the HRD and ID communities that good courses can simply be created by following some model of ID.

What upsets me is that the creativity in the ID process has been so downplayed that it is virtually overlooked. No one in their right mind would ever propose that a purely systemic method to painting is the best, and downplay the creativity. If you did, you’d see paint by numbers in the Louvre. So far, I don’t recall those in the Louvre’s collection. Nor would you ever downplay creativity in writing to be replaced with systemic models. If you did, all you would have is formulaic movies instead of fantastic novels and short stories.

Instructional Design models or methodologies should more properly be referred to as frameworks. Just like there are frameworks for writing novels, short stories, poems, and epics, and frameworks for painting like oil paintings, watercolors, portraits, and still lifes, we should consider ID models to be nothing more than frameworks. They are starting points for good ID. From there, creativity should start and rule the process. The creator should be able to completely eliminate anything from the framework as long as they do so knowingly. I’d rather have an outstanding course than broke every rule of ID than yet another formulaic course that had eagerly checked off all the points in any particular ID model’s checklist. ARGH!

More importantly, HRD and ID should be taken more seriously, especially by the companies that pay for their products. The same companies that would NEVER consider spending millions on their annual audits with a local accounting temp agency as their auditor are spending millions on HRD from people who merely claim to be experienced at HRD. Now, there is a big WOW for you.

The BIG problem is our metaphor. If you want to change eLearning, you need to change your metaphor. I would like to propose the metaphor of a movie production. I will further subdivide the metaphor into big studio and independent film makers. In the big studio model, creation of eLearning is a group effort. There are specialists who bring their particular skills to the project. Amongst the two most important are the producer and the director. The director has the artistic vision … the story. The producer keeps the movie going by providing the funding and the fiscal constraint. In fact, some of the biggest success stories are movies where the director was constrained by the budget, and was required to come up with creative solutions to be able to tell the story. Likewise, some of the biggest flops have been movies with unlimited budgets. Some, maybe even most, eLearning projects should fall into this category. They should be cooperative efforts with a team of specialists working together for a common outcome.

The other model I suggested was that of an independent film maker. Here is a case where you have one person, or a very small group dedicated to that one person’s vision, who is driven with a creative need to express a story. That one person is a jack-of-all-trades and master of at least one. The one person continually pushes the boundaries, finding solutions to tell the story. Finding creative work-arounds to the lack of money. And when necessary, finding the money that is absolutely essential to move the film forward. That one person is also driven to develop the skills that would otherwise be purchased. They aren’t necessarily concerned with skill mastery, but with having enough skill to complete the project. Most eLearning projects could definitely use this metaphor.

Notice that throughout the discussion of the metaphors, I never dealt with tools. There are film makers who make 8mm films along with 35mm and even 70mm IMAX films. They may use film or digital. They may use live action or animation. They could have experienced actors or just their friends they’ve dragged into the film. They may wish for different tools, but they use the tools that they have. There success is not driven by the tools; it is driven by the story.

eLearning developers should take note. Find the passion to tell your story. If you have the budget, use the better tools. But, better tools are no guarantee of a better eLearning product, any more than better cameras are a guarantee of a blockbuster movie.

In fact, look at a blog posting from Michael Allen. In the post, Michael almost apologizes for the fact that he and his company have a high-powered studio approach to eLearning development. YET! The stuff that they do develop is, by and large, outstanding. Michael and team should not apologize. He should re-emphasize something that he said. Michael wrote, “A common question we get when we demonstrate what we think e-learning should be today is, ‘What tool did you use to develop that?’ When we reveal the expertise it took …” Read that carefully. Michael didn’t talk about the price of the eLearning development tool. He spoke about the expertise. Whether your expertise comes from a large production team with a diverse set of talents or it comes from a single creative talent driven to express a vision, the common fact is expertise. Buy it or learn it, but you need it either way.

Now, quit whining about the tools you don’t have or don’t know, and go tell the stories you can tell with the technologies you do have and know.

In my own learning, I came across the term pedagogy (aka the science of teaching), and it was perplexing at first. After all, if it is a science, there has to be significant hoard of research that outlines the proven best techniques. It is simply a matter of learning from that research, and then spreading that knowledge out into the training world. WHEEW! This is going to be easy.

But, alas, one will quickly come to the conclusion that pedagogy is not a science. I thought I was alone in this thought. Then, Donald Clark in his Plan B blog wrote this excellent piece on pedagogy. Donald says everything that I think needs to be said. Read it. I’ll only add this to the discussion. After you read this point, send it to everyone you know with an interest in this professional. Post it on every blog you write. Save it as a link of importance on websites and wikis. Spread this far and wide. I think this has the possibility of being a classic.

eLearning is suffering from the Beta/VHS or Blu-ray/HD-DVD challenge. In fact, it is probably even more systemic. For example, it is elearning? eLearning? e-Learning? or E-Learning? Heck, if something doesn’t even have a standard for what to call itself, is it really ready for a rev. 2.0?

Imagine if nuts, bolts, screws, all had custom threads and sizes. At one point in the late 1800s and early 1900s, this was precisely the problem. Standardization created opportunities. Looking at more modern times, think of the problems that were caused, and are still being caused, by non-standardized HTML. Remember Netscape? Remember when Netscape and IE were racing against each other to produce new capabilities in their browsers? Heck, remember the <blink> tag. YIKES!

What is happening with the eLearning world is that we lack standardization. Should we support Flash? Where does PowerPoint fit into the standards? Should we be supporting OpenOffice? Where does SCORM fit into the picture? Should we demand that our product support SCORM? What about Adobe products vs. Articulate vs. Qarbon? (see this post on Adobe/Articulate/Qarbon)

Even deeper, how do we really do version control and multiuser access? Google Apps are great examples. But, so are WIKIs. But, should the Web 2.0 social capabilities be built into eLearning 2.0? Do we have to wait until the Web 2.0 settles down? Or should eLearning 2.0 appoint a winner, like Facebook or LinkedIn, and simply go forward.

Like it or not, Word is the defacto standard for word processing documents. Even OpenOffice supports it. Sure OpenOffice has a newer XML format and so does Microsoft with Office Open XML. But, the standard still sticks around. Until eLearning vendors bite the bullet, come to real standards on formats, and then the tools and structure can build up to support those standards, eLearning is never going to be what it can be.

My two cents.

The post sent me off, and I realized I needed to let it cool a little before I responded. I needed to respond unemotionally to his posting. So, here goes.

If pre-tests are learner abuse, let’s find similar analogies.

1. Pre-employment screening tests are employee abuse.
2. Medical tests used for diagnostics are patient abuse.
3. Scholastic tests used to screen college applicants are student abuse.

In a nutshell, Clark Quinn is unfortunately wrong. Now, I will speak for him in that I will interpret what I think he meant. Because, what he follows up with are two examples of pre-tests. One, he states that pre-tests are used as, “…as an advance organizer, activating relevant knowledge.” Clark argues against this technique as being cruel, and their being better ways. What is unfortunate is that people have ABUSED David Ausabel’s work on Advanced Organizers. I have seen this sort of pre-test, but I believe it to be an advanced organizer in attribution only. WikEd has a great article on Advanced Organizers as they should be done.

Two, Clark states that pre-tests are used, “… to show the delta from before and after the learning experience.” This is where I think Clark is most wrong. This is critical information. But, where I think Clark is right and might have intended to say is that these sort of pre-tests should not happen perpetually. For example, if someone is designing a new course that has never been taught, it is valid (and I would argue essential) to have pre-tests and post-tests to show improvement in the expected range. If someone is designing a new version of the course, pre-tests and post-tests in comparison of course versions would be essential information. Now, if you decide to continue those tests as “just part of the course” then the designer or instructor that allows this to happen is just being abusive.

So, PLEASE do not throw out a perfectly valid technique just because some people abuse it or equate it to something it is not. Use it. Use it properly. Improve your learning. And in the immortal words of James Bond, never says never again.

http://www.technicaltrainer.org/TrainingTiki/tiki-index.php

Interesting thing about WIKIs. All I can say is that I have started it. For now, I am the sole contributor. Sooner or later others will add to it, at least I hope they do. And, on that day, I will lose control and gain something greater. It will be both glorious and scary. Glorious because it is the beginning step of collaboration. Scary because I will no longer control what I created. I will be relegated to merely being the father of something. I will do my best to guide it, and let it grow into something wonderful. But, I will lack full control. I guess you could say, I will have become a Dad-e.

One of my favorite blogs in the technical category is Coding Horror. Why? I think Jeff “gets” it. He wrote an outstanding piece that I think applies equally as well to Programmers (his audience) as it does to WLP Professionals (my intended audience). His post is titled, “The One Thing Every Software Engineer Should Know.”

In that post, he said the following.

This is painful for developers to hear, because we love code. But all that brilliant code is totally irrelevant until:

1. people understand what you’re doing
2. people become interested in what you’re doing
3. people get excited about what you’re doing

In a word, WOW! This is an incredibly powerful observation, and one that I have agreed with for a long time. Just replace the word “developers” with “trainers” or “instructors”, and replace “that brilliant code is” with “those brilliant courses are”. This is as true for WLP Professionals, in fact, it may be even more relevant to us. Why? When was the last time you read about an Open Source Learning company? BLUE CAP LEARNING anyone? Or TeachUx? It doesn’t exist because there is no business model for doing it. As WLP Professionals, we have to rely on our abilities to persuade people to do that right thing. Which comes back to Jeff Atwood’s three observations.

Moreso, after Jeff’s post, a commenter on his blog accused Jeff of, “having the most dangerous programming blog.” Jeff, your post is dangerous, just like Thomas Payne was dangerous. It is truth. And truth applies more than just to the situation at hand. It applies broadly in categories you might never have considered. Hopefully, it is dangerous like a virus. Hopefully it spreads the idea about to communities, infecting them with the idea. Hopefully it morphs into other communities considered isolated from the effect. If nothing else, hopefully this gets your idea into the realm of WLP Professionals. We certainly need to hear it.

One, the evaluation is used to punish the instructor. WAIT! I know. The organization refers to it as evaluating the instructor, or perhaps even the less offensive feedback to the instructor. But, it really is punishment. Why? Because, the instructor has very little control over their situation, and yet we blame them for the outcome. The instructor does not control the learning materials. I know! I know! You have a separate area on the evaluation for evaluating the materials. But, I think it is insane to think that an outstanding instructor could teach an outstanding class with horrible or even substandard materials. It just cannot happen. In addition, the instructor does not control any of the other critical factors, classroom, students, setup, the instructor’s training, support, etc. And yet, we boil it all down to a single number, and fully place the blame on the instructor.

Want a secret? If an instructors asks the students the following question at the start of class, “I am concerned with your progress. I want to know if at any point you are not satisfied. If you are, just let me know, and I will do what I can to assist.” And then, at the end of class, the instructor says, “I appreciate your feedback. I tried hard to earn your highest ratings. I just want you to know that I am evaluated on your feedback, and I really appreciate you giving me the highest ranking possible.” If the instructor says these statements or some close variation thereof, they will find their evaluations will go up. Period! This experiment has been done countless times. It is not performance. It is human psychology. And, it shows you when you have an experienced instructor versus a new instructor. The experienced instructor probably knows enough to ask these of their class.

Two, the evaluations are collected merely to be collected. Nothing meaningful is done with them. They are “hmmm” sheets. Instructors look them over, go “hmmm”, and then ignore any recommended changes. Is that bad? No! I would argue that this is probably a far better use of these sheets than just about any other use.

How so? Here is a story. My local ASTD chapter had a monthly meeting that focused on mentoring. The evaluation scores from that meeting were aligned around the poles. About 2/3rds of the attendees thought it was the worst meeting they had attended. About 1/3rd of the attendees thought it was fabulous. Meaningful info? Let me give you more backstory. From that “awful” meeting, came a mentoring process that is an outstanding success. We have a waiting list of people who want to be a part of the mentoring process as both mentors and proteges. It is likely to go down as a watershed moment in the history of the chapter, and yet if we looked at the evaluations we would have never done anything at all.

This is why LEARNING is far more important that teaching, instructing, facilitating, or any other word you’d like to use for the process. You have to read this article by Alfie Kohn. (Note: Do not discount this article because it is written for school children.)

It’s Not What We Teach; It’s What They Learn

He is exactly correct. Learning is based on context. It is hard work. And, it is certainly not someone standing up in front of students, adults or children, and reading from a PowerPoint presentation. It is not a collection of subject-matter expertise that allows you to intimidate the student into silence either. It is hard work that requires understanding, training, and commitment.

Want your company to consider you an essential element of the company, instead of a cost center? Then, learn to focus on learning.

But, Clara did mention one of the authors, Talia Konkle. And, I found Talia’s website, and it lists a soon to be available PDF of the article in question. So, let’s operate with the assumption that Clara’s summary of the report is accurate. Here are some astonishing things with profound implications for learning.

1. The research was done using pictures of objects. Hmmm, remember that old picture is worth 1,000 words? How many of your PowerPoint presentations are textual as opposed to pictorial?
2. Humans appear to have visual memories for such pictures far in excess of what anyone expected.
3. Interestingly, to encourage participants to strive to remember, the researcher gave small money prizes for the participants who scored the highest. Hmmm, are you actually encouraging your students to stay motivated?

This is a fascinating report. I cannot wait until I get a chance to read the entire report. But, I hope you agree that this have profound implications for workplace learning and performance improvement.

The course materials are released under the Creative Commons (Non-Commercial, Attribution, Share-Alike) license. So, you are free to take it, and make use of it. The page for the materials is at:

http://www.technicaltrainer.org/Design101/

• Carnegie Mellon Open Learning Initiative
• MIT Open Courseware
• Rice University Connexions
• Wikiversity
• iTunes University
• TeacherTube
• Small Business Administration (SBA) Training
• W3 Schools - Web Skills Training
• The Open University

So, this is just a start. Hopefully someone out there is reading this blog, and will add a few more that I have missed. Email me (bill@technicaltrainer.org) or post a comment to this entry. Either way, I would like to add a much more sizeable list of free learning resources.

1. FREE IS GOOD! - Not great, not spectacular, but overall it is good. Some of the best software out there is free. Heck, you are reading this blog on a website. Both, Apache (which serves up the website) and Wordpress (which serves up the blog) are not only free, but they are the dominant software packages in their markets. Having said that, there is lots of free junk!
2. NETWORKED IS ESSENTIAL - Your software must take advantage of the Internet. It could simply do something as check itself for updates. But, I look very suspicious at software that isn’t at least network savvy enough to check itself for updates.
3. COLLABORATIVE IS BETTER - In general, if you are looking at two software packages, and they are very close in your evaluation, give the edge to the one that support more collaboration. Get used to software like Wikis, Blogs, Forums, Listservs, Social Networking, etc. All of these allow collaboration in one form or another.

So, looking at these considerations, let cover some resources to get you the tools you need.

1. Jane Hart is a masterful resource. Her e-Learning Pick of the Day is regular reading for me. And, her master directory of Learning Tools is simply stated The Best Resource of its Kind on the Web! Honestly! In most cases, if Jane doesn’t know about it, it doesn’t exist.
2. Free is good, but sometimes you need solutions that aren’t easy to achieve with free tools. The Best of the Best and MUST BUY tools for learning belong to Adobe. If you are building website, you need Dreamweaver. If you are building interactivity, you need Flash. If you are building e-Learning, you need Captivate. Bravo to Adobe for supporting our industry. Support them. They are well worth it. AND! News worth reading … ADOBE HAS A FREE SOLUTION, and it looks like a killer web application. Go an visit Acrobat.com.
3. Need an LMS? Does FREE sound good to you? Try Moodle! It really is one of the best LMS systems out there.

Finally, I have my own list of Trainer Resources. It is no where near as good as Jane Hart’s list. But, you may find it more to your liking.

• ASTD (used to be American Society for Training and Development, but is now just the initials): This is the organization that is defining the profession. You need to belong. Just do it! Here are some of their more important resources for the profession.
  • T&D Blog - The blog based on ASTD’s T&D magazine
  • Learning Circuits Blog - ASTD’s blog on technology
  • Learning Policy - ASTD’s website on public policy for the WLP
• e-Learning Guild - Their website says it best, “A community of practice for e-Learning professionals.” If ASTD is defining the profession as a whole, the e-Learning Guild is defining the e-Learning subset of the profession.
  • e-Learning Insider - ELG’s blog
• ISPI - Internation Society for Performance Improvement - These folks cover the subset of the Performance aspect of Workplace Learning and Performance.
  • PerformanceXpress - ISPI’s Newsletter (JEESH! I wish they had an RSS feed)
• SALT - Society for Applied Learning Technology - These folks focus on the technologies for learning. They have a more academic slant as well. But, an excellent organization that you should consider.
• Toastmasters - While not specifically in the WLP profession, these folks provide the foundational skills needed for any successful WLP professional.

I could add many more. I have a list of Associations on my website. You can refer to that for even more. Do we need more? I’m not sure. There is such a thing as saturation. But, even so, anything that adds to the profession and the professional stature of Workplace Learning and Performance is ultimately a good thing in my book.

Tom Peters - WOW Bill! You went out on a limb here! Why don’t you pick someone really obscure, like Peter Drucker? Well, you probably know Tom Peter, but are you reading Tom Peters? Not just his books, but his blog? Here are some really important things he has to say.

• Yes! You are in Sales! (Video) (PDF Transcript)
• Passion! (Video) (PDF Transcript)
• Definition of Leadership (Video) (PDF Transcript)
• Tom Peters designates what he considers the Best Link Ever.

Will Thalheimer - OK, I know he doesn’t have this designation yet, but I assure you that Will Thalheimer will someday be ranked with the likes of Malcolm Knowles, Robert Gagne, Thiagi, and Donald Kirkpatrick/Jack Phillips (take your measurement pick). He is that good. Seriously! Here are some really important things he has to say.

• The Learning Landscape Model
• Will’s Suggestion of a must-see Instruction Design video … just say Thiagi! (the video itself)
• A FREE research report on Feedback
• Will’s Work-Learning Audit Results
• Absolutely Essential Reading! - Will Thalheimer on Myths and Bogus Research

Garr Reynolds - If you haven’t yet read Garr Reynolds’ book, Presentation Zen. Go immediately to Amazon.com, and order the book now. (Just click this link to make it easy.) He is the master of presentations, and if you read his material you will create better presentations! Here are some really important things he has to say.

• Brain Rules for Presentations (based on Dr. John Medina’s book - Brain Rules)
• Refrain from Using Powerpoint (Toyota CEO urging employees to stop Powerpoint’ing).
• Garr Reynold’s website with his presentations.

All of these people are 5-Socrates teachers. In all honesty, Will and Garr are very close to a 6-Socrates score.

Note: I think Socrates was a tremendous teacher. I don’t agree with a lot of his opinions, but I always learned by reading about him and his methods. So, he is the golden measure by which all teachers should be measured.

• 0 Socrates = Bring on the hemlock!
• 1 Socrates = A trial is in your future!
• 2 Socrates = Does the word gadfly mean anything to you?
• 3 Socrates = Nearly virtuous. At least good enough to talk yourself out of some debts!
• 4 Socrates = Virtuous.
• 5 Socrates = You stand side-by-side with the likes of Plato and Aristotle. Considered exile lately?
• 6 Socrates = You are the ideal of Socrates himself. Bring on the hemlock!

So, I thought I’d start summarizing what I read on the web, specifically my RSS feeds. This might help you, the reader, by point out some useful resources and ideas you might have otherwise missed. And it will definitely help me out by forcing me to write more often. So, here goes.

Storytelling is an essential skill for Workplace Learning and Performance professionals. Yet, almost everyone overlooks it. I really appreciate Anecdote. These folks know storytelling, and how to put it to good work. Summarizing some input points from their work are the following stories.

1. Who Am I / Why Am I Here Stories - Who Am I stories reveal character, and Why Am I Here stories reveal motivation. Together the two stories give insight into who you are. (MORE ON THIS)
2. Cooperation - This article demonstrated the “Tragedy of the Commons” concept, and is an essential point to understanding the values of long-term thinking and the dangers of short-term thinking. (MORE ON THIS)
3. ASTD in their Workplace Learning and Performance definition called the Competency Model lists Knowledge Management as 1 of 9 Areas of Expertise required for the profession. The Anecdote folks have a spectacular whitepaper on Knowledge Management. (GET THE WHITEPAPER)
4. ASTD’s Competency Model also lists Facilitating Organization Change as a core Area of Expertise. Here is an excellent whitepaper on Organization Change. (GET THE WHITEPAPER)

All in all, these folks are people you want to listen to and on a regular basis. Visit their website. Subscribe to their newsletter. You will learn from them, and that is my highest praise.

(My Rating Scale - 5 Socrates)

Note: I think Socrates was a tremendous teacher. I don’t agree with a lot of his opinions, but I always learned by reading about him and his methods. So, he is the golden measure by which all teachers should be measured.

• 0 Socrates = Bring on the hemlock!
• 1 Socrates = A trial is in your future!
• 2 Socrates = Does the word gadfly mean anything to you?
• 3 Socrates = Nearly virtuous. At least good enough to talk yourself out of some debts!
• 4 Socrates = Virtuous.
• 5 Socrates = You stand side-by-side with the likes of Plato and Aristotle. Considered exile lately?
• 6 Socrates = You are the ideal of Socrates himself. Bring on the hemlock!

Are we really that sensitive in learning and development world? Are we so concerned with hurting someone’s feelings that we are unable or unwilling to stand and defend ideas we find important? Come on folks, get both a backbone and some passion.

How about these fights as a start:

1. Tesla vs. Edison
2. Einstein (Relativity) vs. Quantum Mechanics
3. Galileo vs. The Church
4. Newton vs. Leibnitz

This is just a handful. And is really used just to prove the point that conflict is virtually inevitable. It is also the source of amazing burst of human creativity. Take Tesla as an example. He was told that AC current couldn’t power motors. So, he actually invented a motor to prove his skeptics wrong. The Wright Brothers certainly chased powered flight despite numerous doubters.

So, I think we need more not less disputes, disagreements, and down-right arguments. In fact, if you look just a little you can find numerous examples.

1. Kirkpatrick vs. Phillips (measurement)
2. Behaviorists vs. just about everyone else
3. Nature vs. Nurture

You can disagreement politely or not. You can choose small or large forums to air those disputes. You can dispute something privately or publicly. But, I think it is almost a professional obligation to force yourself to challenge your own assumptions about what you know. Heck, I’m proud to say that I have posted my own disputes with my colleagues.

1. Me vs. The 30-minute Masters
2. Me vs. Cliff Atkinson

Sure, not the loftiest of writings, but the act of writing what I thought, and supporting it as best I could, caused intellectual growth. Sometimes disputes cause you to change your mind; sometimes they cause you to stand for what you believe even more. The only true demand should be the requirement for intellectual honesty. When/if you are ever proven wrong, admit it and move on. I only wish that sort of intellectual honesty happened more often.

So, bring on the conflicts! The health of our profession depends upon it.

My two cents …

ASTD has been on a steady push to increase the recognition of the Workplace Learning and Performance profession. One of their efforts is a professional certification called the CPLP (Certified Professional in Learning and Performance). To help candidates prepare for the CPLP, ASTD published an excellent source library called, the ASTD Learning System.

In that absolutely essential library (have I convinced you to get it yet?), ASTD lists the following instructional system design (ISD) models:

• ADDIE
• Gagne’s Nine Events of Learning
• Rapid Instructional Design (Thiagarajan)
• Dick and Carey Systems Approach to Instructional Design
• Seels and Glasgow ISD Model II (see note)
• Smith and Ragan Systematic Instructional Design Model
• Accelerated Learning

Of all of these models, Rapid Instruction Design by Thiagi is the only model that even comes close to reality. Why? Because according to this model it is the alternative when, “designers are working with tight deadlines, limited budgets, and constantly shifting content.” Which sounds like reality to me!

In fact, look at Wikipedia’s entry on Design. The last part of their first sentence is telling, “and other creative endeavors.” Design is a creative process. Most creative processes have constraints but those serve only as guide posts. For example, if Fort Knox commissioned an artist to create a symbol to represent the U.S. Bullion Depository, I seriously doubt that they would allow that artist to create a solid gold emblem weighing several tons. Does the depository contain enough resources to do that? Sure, Fort Knox has about 5,000 tons of gold. But, I don’t think that I would be “out on a limb” saying that they would prefer to keep their gold in its non-artist shape. More reasonably, I doubt the U.S. Mint would allow an artist a lifetime to create such a emblem. In essence, creativity is often constrained, and often those constraints add to, rather than detract from, the creative processes. But, it is still creativity.

Instructional design should be considered a creative process. Stop trying to dictate the steps in the process. Doing so creates instructional products that are as likely to excel as a paint-by-numbers picture is likely to appear in the Louvre, the Tate, or MoMA. All things have to be considered in a design, and everyone of them can be successfully ignored by the right design. Audience, Budget, Time, Media, Delivery Methods are all just parts of a design. The beauty (or lack of) is in the final design. Allow instruction design to express the art of learning. Sure, instructional designers should be well-versed in the theories that form the foundation of their craft, but equally well-versed in tossing those theories out when the learner is the focus rather than just an input to a paint-by-numbers process.

After all, I hear more conversation and hear more recall on most Dilbert cartoons than I do for most formally designed courses.

(My Note from above)

I don’t really know why it is Seels and Glasgow’s ISD Model II. I can only surmise that Model I was a tragic failure. Or perhaps Seels and Glasgow were psychics! Psychics? Yes, real honest-to-goodness ESP-kinda folks. How? In Designing Learning, Volume 1 of the ASTD Learning System pg. 37, here is the quote.

“As noted by Seels and Glasgow (1998), according to the Smith and Ragan ISD model (2004), …”

There you have it. In 1998, Seels and Glasgow were already reacting to a model that Smith and Ragan had yet to produce. Proof positive of real psychic ability. Something far more suspicious than Roswell ever well be!