This month’s Big Question on the ASTD Learning Circuits Blog asks what software tools, as learning and development professionals, we should set out to learn.
On careful reflection, I’d have to say none.
I’ve witnessed terrible examples of the training friends of mine have received when they decided to become more tech-savvy. In the first instance, some 20 years ago, one of my relatives took a computer appreciation course. The substance of this appeared to be copying out BASIC programs from a handout and then seeing if they ran. You need to know how to program to use a computer? I don’t think so.
In the second instance, a colleague took a course on web design. The body of this course turned out to be learning HTML, even though WYSIWYG editors had been in existence for many years. Do you need to know HTML to appreciate web design? No, of course not.
The tools that most l&d professionals have to use on a daily basis are your bog standard Office applications and a web browser. Yes, they must know how to use these well, but then so does almost any knowledge worker. This is hardly a major personal development challenge. The more specialised tools that l&d people may encounter if and when they engage with multimedia and technology are so varied and fast-changing that I see no point in learning about them on a just-in-case basis – wait until you have to use them, then learn.
I’ve long maintained that there is an e-learning skills triangle, with learning design at the top (importantly) and technical and creative skills in the bottom corners. It’s helpful for l&d people to explore the technical side (perhaps using a rapid authoring tool) or the creative side (simple image, audio and video editing), but never to venture into the extreme corners where lurk software engineers, graphic designers and other media professionals. The tools they use (including all sorts of web programming environments, Flash and the Adobe Creative Suite or similar) are definitely not quick to learn and require more than a modicum of talent and training. These people will do the job ten times quicker than you, which nearly always makes them cheaper.
Of course there are exceptions. I’ve met four people in the past few days who have made extraordinary transitions from face-to-face training to become web developers. But these are not evolutions within the l&d profession, they are fundamental career changes. The vast majority of l&d people did not join the profession in order to become coders or artists. If they’re tired of treading the boards and want to see whether they have the aptitude for a major career change, they can experiment with these tools in their spare time and see how they get on. They should not feel guilty if they give the whole notion a wide berth.
I agree that IDs should not feel they have to learn code but at the same time I don't like to use the rapid authoring tools out there which limit your designs to their available widgets or stock interactions. As you say, it is better to work with a developer.
ReplyDeleteBut that is not always an option, and when I add up all the time I've wasted on some of the WYSIWYG tools, I wish I had invested some of that time in learning javascript - I would be very skilled by now.
I have forced myself to keep learning Flash/Actionscript and don't regret it for a moment. Yes, in the early days there were many times when I knew a proper developer could finish this job in half the time, but in the long run it has paid off.
With the existence of javascript frameworks such as jquery, I'm now dabbling with javascript, though I still consider myself more an ID than a developer.
Clive, I couldn't agree with you more. I recently blogged on the very same http://christian-carter.blogspot.com/2009/07/jack-of-all-trades.html - however, it would seem that over the last few years the assumption is that part of the role of an Instructional Designer is to program as well. I even saw an advert the other day for an Articulate Instructional Designer! Enough said.
ReplyDeleteClive, great post. I have a real appreciation for this as at Yoodoo we bring the techie/media and production skills and look to the L&D pros to provide the content.
ReplyDeleteAs ever when you let experts do what they do best and collaborate to deliver the whole then the results are bigger than the sum of the parts.
Absolutely right, Clive. The software will change, the technology will change, and as an instructional designer I need to keep up with the opportunies (and restrictions!) they offer, but I do not need to know how to use each of them in detail myself. Understanding the learning issues to address and creating an elegant and efficient way to solve the situation caused by that issue is more important than also being able to use graphic and programming packages accurately at speed. Project Author (in the 80s) was such a great course for IDs because it assumed the technogy would change, frequently!
ReplyDeleteI would agree with the spirit of what has been said, but if what you were saying were strictly true Jane Hart would not be as successful as she is. Having been a lecturer, a flash developer and an elearning person, I am thrilled to see the emergence of rapid development tools which allow people to create content without facing enormous technical challenges - much as technology has rid us of the need for typing pools. On the other hand, to achieve what you desire today often requires the cobbling-together of a variety of tools and services since there is not yet a fully integrated learning development solution. On that front, I would recommend knowing how to shoot video, how to edit with Camtasia Studio and share using social networking sites as a minimum. Captivate is quite good, Audacity for audio, and I don't know how I would get by without Photoshop. Firefox and StumbleUpon are handy. Above all, I think learning professionals must be able to inspire others by their own approach to technology: constantly learning and exploring the potential. And it goes without saying: if you can't do learning, the technology won't do it for you.
ReplyDelete