The last post "Defining E-Learning Objectives" ended with a comma. Figuratively, that is.
It had passed the baton to the current discussion, to address a few questions on e-learning objectives.
Have a request for those of you who are landing straight on this post. Please take a quick glance at what we discussed in Part 1 of this post, before taking off from here.
These are the questions we need to get the answer for.
Why do e-learning objectives take a back seat? Why are they so skip-worthy?
Because, THEY ARE NOT WELL WRITTEN. Simple.
This rather stark answer does not, however, point to either grammatical glitches or unimaginative sentence constructions. Far from it, in fact.
It underscores the absence of THOUGHT. The thought that would act as the blueprint of the entire course architecture!
Before getting into action (of writing objectives), I need to put my thoughts to what my objectives would address.
- Behavioral change that would demonstrate learning
- Criterion that would determine acceptable performance (as a result of learning), and
- Conditions that would govern the performance
I need to assimilate this key learning: It is the measurable behavioral objectives that would effectively guide the design of my learning application. If I am meticulous in this exercise, I would find it relatively easy to work around the needed/expected behavioral changes.
Now, I see the next question standing in queue, peeping at me. "Even if I manage to craft measurable behavioral objectives, how far would I succeed in MOTIVATING my learners?"
Now, I just can't help marveling at the demands of this art. Or, should I say science?
Let's reserve this interesting question for our next post.
(Nirmal Ranganathan, Instructional Designer, C2 Workshop)
Comments