I'm helping people - adults - learn. Whether I'm helping people learn how to close a sale or print an Excel worksheet (and I've designed and taught all of that and everything in between), there is a cycle of learning. People need to engage, connect, integrate, practice and apply. They need opportunities to use their brains, talk, listen, move... I don't see learning as being anything to which one can say "this is technical, therefore we do this" or "this is 'soft' therefore we do that". It's more like "this is what learners need to connect with, integrate, practice, etc. therefore we need a variety of things for them to do so they are actively involved in the process rather than passive recipients of information."

People who design training for widgets also design training for software. The principles of good instructional design apply to everything.

Designing software is not the most complicated thing you can train. How about software is basic step by step stuff compared to teaching someone how to do brain surgery.

All of the distinctions so far are just arbitrary. Even the one about sex training versus sex education. You're just opening that with sex education that they don't know how to do anything when they are done. That's typical of a lot of education in school were you memorize stuff but you can't do anything with it.

You are correct that at least some of us do both widgets and software. My question is not about design. It is about tactics. You are also correct that good design principles apply in theses situations. BUT the tools used to implement those designs vary. That's what I'm after. Notwithstanding the design methods do you (the specific you, LPC) use the same tools for teaching step by step procedures as when you teach how to be creative?

[Software design is only step by step at a very macro level, BTW. Some of the smaller steps resemble art far more than steps.]

This is learning. We're not building a battleship.

As I said, I think in terms of: this is what learners need to connect with, integrate, practice, etc. therefore we need a variety of things for them to do so they are actively involved in the process rather than passive recipients of information.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: LoveLearning,

quote:

Originally posted by travelerjjm:
Notwithstanding the design methods do you (the specific you, LPC) use the same tools for teaching step by step procedures as when you teach how to be creative?

The depends on how you define "tools". I look at instructional design (ID)/training as the toolbox. The individual tools are all in the toolbox-- which ones I use vary by instructional goal. I don't parse out ID into slices based on which tool I am using at the moment. It's still ID.

Perhaps you can give an example of why you think it is different. What specific tools did you have in mind when you wrote the above statement? How do YOU think it's different?