Comments on: Anyone can be an ID. But should *anyone* be an ID? http://gminks.edublogs.org/2009/09/29/329/ Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:45:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: How CarTalk can save your e-Learning « The Usable Learning Blog http://gminks.edublogs.org/2009/09/29/329/comment-page-1/#comment-527 How CarTalk can save your e-Learning « The Usable Learning Blog Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:10:12 +0000 http://gminks.edublogs.org/?p=329#comment-527 [...] the risk of indulging in SME-bashing (not my intention – I’m exactly the same way in my areas of expertise), I would agree [...] [...] the risk of indulging in SME-bashing (not my intention – I’m exactly the same way in my areas of expertise), I would agree [...]

]]> By: Steve http://gminks.edublogs.org/2009/09/29/329/comment-page-1/#comment-512 Steve Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:14:41 +0000 http://gminks.edublogs.org/?p=329#comment-512 Grrr... Feedback on this app. If you neglect to enter the anti-spam word the app doesn't retain the entry. Here's a less elegant stab at my lost post: I think this comment doesn't accurately reflect reality: 'I don’t think good ID is easy. But I think its easier than configuring HBAs on a UNIX host, zoning a Fibre Channel Switch, and running commands on a storage array so data can flow from an application to a disk.' One isn't easier than the other. It's not an apples to apples comparison. That's making the judgement that anyone can be a good ID and anyone can be a good tech. Simply not so. Affinities matter and you gotta be built that way (background, interests, world-view) to be good at either one. The comment implies that a complexity comparison can be made and this is a poor assumption in my opinion. Good ID isn't easy for everyone. Tech configuration IS easy for those that have experience and affinity for it. Tech configuration is IMPOSSIBLE for those that don't. I would wager that good ID is ALSO impossible for many of those that have great technical capability. Not a fair comparison. Grrr… Feedback on this app. If you neglect to enter the anti-spam word the app doesn’t retain the entry.

Here’s a less elegant stab at my lost post:

I think this comment doesn’t accurately reflect reality:

‘I don’t think good ID is easy. But I think its easier than configuring HBAs on a UNIX host, zoning a Fibre Channel Switch, and running commands on a storage array so data can flow from an application to a disk.’

One isn’t easier than the other. It’s not an apples to apples comparison. That’s making the judgement that anyone can be a good ID and anyone can be a good tech. Simply not so. Affinities matter and you gotta be built that way (background, interests, world-view) to be good at either one.

The comment implies that a complexity comparison can be made and this is a poor assumption in my opinion. Good ID isn’t easy for everyone. Tech configuration IS easy for those that have experience and affinity for it. Tech configuration is IMPOSSIBLE for those that don’t. I would wager that good ID is ALSO impossible for many of those that have great technical capability.

Not a fair comparison.

]]> By: Steve http://gminks.edublogs.org/2009/09/29/329/comment-page-1/#comment-511 Steve Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:00:58 +0000 http://gminks.edublogs.org/?p=329#comment-511 In my experience, the experience and relationship between the ID and SME is all in how it's framed. I've worked as an SME with difficult ID's and have worked as an ID with difficult SME's. There's value on both sides in the provision of perspective and the validation of strategy that ensures focus and relevance. It's not an either / or proposition. I would like to say, however, that it would be as difficult to make an SME into an ID as it would be to make an ID into an SME. The opportunities vary, the focus is different. There is value (completely necessary value) in having focused perspectives and not having everything reside in one body for the sake of balance. If we train SME's to be ID's we also need to establish outside validation to help the SME's develop as ID's and prevent tunnel vision (I do it as an SME sometimes too) that ends up contributing what the SME thinks others need to know based on what the SME knows - and not what the performer actually needs to know to do, be, or believe in order to PERFORM. For the record, I love SME's in any form. I've learned how to work with practically any type of SME. I also love good ID's. I have different feelings for bad ID's. In my experience, the experience and relationship between the ID and SME is all in how it’s framed. I’ve worked as an SME with difficult ID’s and have worked as an ID with difficult SME’s.

There’s value on both sides in the provision of perspective and the validation of strategy that ensures focus and relevance.

It’s not an either / or proposition. I would like to say, however, that it would be as difficult to make an SME into an ID as it would be to make an ID into an SME. The opportunities vary, the focus is different.

There is value (completely necessary value) in having focused perspectives and not having everything reside in one body for the sake of balance.

If we train SME’s to be ID’s we also need to establish outside validation to help the SME’s develop as ID’s and prevent tunnel vision (I do it as an SME sometimes too) that ends up contributing what the SME thinks others need to know based on what the SME knows – and not what the performer actually needs to know to do, be, or believe in order to PERFORM.

For the record, I love SME’s in any form. I’ve learned how to work with practically any type of SME. I also love good ID’s. I have different feelings for bad ID’s.

]]> By: amandallen http://gminks.edublogs.org/2009/09/29/329/comment-page-1/#comment-510 amandallen Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:51:36 +0000 http://gminks.edublogs.org/?p=329#comment-510 I agree in a way. I think everyone, and anyone, should be educated about the instructional design process (whether it be ADDIE or something else). Maybe not to the MS level like us, but at least know the basics. I certainly respect SMEs because even though I sometimes claim to, I don't know everything about everything. But I think some of the friction comes from SMEs not understanding the ID process. They need to know why we're asking all those "silly" questions. I agree in a way. I think everyone, and anyone, should be educated about the instructional design process (whether it be ADDIE or something else). Maybe not to the MS level like us, but at least know the basics.

I certainly respect SMEs because even though I sometimes claim to, I don’t know everything about everything. But I think some of the friction comes from SMEs not understanding the ID process. They need to know why we’re asking all those “silly” questions.

]]> By: Ellen Wagner http://gminks.edublogs.org/2009/09/29/329/comment-page-1/#comment-509 Ellen Wagner Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:15:09 +0000 http://gminks.edublogs.org/?p=329#comment-509 Gina, I think you really nailed this one. For better or worse, it kinda sorta sounded like everyone forgot that working with SMEs is a job requirement in enterprise learning. With all due respect to IDs, the practice is designed to help transfer knowledge/competencies/attitudes. Gotta get the info to transfer from somewhere, and more often than it it comes from SMEs. Anyone who gets frustrated by working with SMEs really needs to reconsider their choice of profession. My .02 Gina, I think you really nailed this one. For better or worse, it kinda sorta sounded like everyone forgot that working with SMEs is a job requirement in enterprise learning.

With all due respect to IDs, the practice is designed to help transfer knowledge/competencies/attitudes. Gotta get the info to transfer from somewhere, and more often than it it comes from SMEs. Anyone who gets frustrated by working with SMEs really needs to reconsider their choice of profession.

My .02

]]> By: gminks http://gminks.edublogs.org/2009/09/29/329/comment-page-1/#comment-508 gminks Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:21:44 +0000 http://gminks.edublogs.org/?p=329#comment-508 @Clark Quinn, I don't think good ID is easy. But I think its easier than configuring HBAs on a UNIX host, zoning a Fibre Channel Switch, and running commands on a storage array so data can flow from an application to a disk. Information flow for ID, or information flow with 1s and 0s.....what's the difference? Just a different set of concepts. @Clark Quinn, I don’t think good ID is easy. But I think its easier than configuring HBAs on a UNIX host, zoning a Fibre Channel Switch, and running commands on a storage array so data can flow from an application to a disk. Information flow for ID, or information flow with 1s and 0s…..what’s the difference? Just a different set of concepts.

]]> By: Clark Quinn http://gminks.edublogs.org/2009/09/29/329/comment-page-1/#comment-507 Clark Quinn Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:10:02 +0000 http://gminks.edublogs.org/?p=329#comment-507 Gina, I'd like to re-characterize the feelings about SMEs. It's not that we don't respect their knowledge, it's that it can be difficult to work with them for several reasons. Ignoring the fact that some can be difficult, because that's true of anyone, they often resent the time spent being a SME. Second, they can't have good access to what they're doing as a SME, because their expert performance is compiled, and when an ID does what they're supposed to in digging deep, it can be difficult. On the other hand, SMEs can be a wonderful source of insight into the motivational side of the task, finding out what makes this particular information interesting. I do want to quibble with the thought that being a good ID is easy. It's clear from all the bad learning design out there that it's not easy. You sort of say both that anyone can do it, and it's not easy. It's not obvious to me that there isn't some art in ID that makes it beyond just 'anyone can do it', but as you admit you had to get a Master's, which makes me think that NOT anyone can do it. I think that what you saw was some upwelling of frustration with SMEs that's not really a lack of respect for their expertise. It's just that it's nice to vent with like-minded folks. Gina, I’d like to re-characterize the feelings about SMEs. It’s not that we don’t respect their knowledge, it’s that it can be difficult to work with them for several reasons. Ignoring the fact that some can be difficult, because that’s true of anyone, they often resent the time spent being a SME. Second, they can’t have good access to what they’re doing as a SME, because their expert performance is compiled, and when an ID does what they’re supposed to in digging deep, it can be difficult. On the other hand, SMEs can be a wonderful source of insight into the motivational side of the task, finding out what makes this particular information interesting.

I do want to quibble with the thought that being a good ID is easy. It’s clear from all the bad learning design out there that it’s not easy. You sort of say both that anyone can do it, and it’s not easy. It’s not obvious to me that there isn’t some art in ID that makes it beyond just ‘anyone can do it’, but as you admit you had to get a Master’s, which makes me think that NOT anyone can do it.

I think that what you saw was some upwelling of frustration with SMEs that’s not really a lack of respect for their expertise. It’s just that it’s nice to vent with like-minded folks.

]]> By: Sue Taylor http://gminks.edublogs.org/2009/09/29/329/comment-page-1/#comment-506 Sue Taylor Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:05:20 +0000 http://gminks.edublogs.org/?p=329#comment-506 If ANYONE can perform ID then shouldn’t all online instructors who have been taught the basic principles be able to effectively put them into use when they create their own online courses? ID is a skill. It isn’t just about knowing how to run the ADDIE process. It is about presenting information in a way that everyone wants to learn and can understand. Maybe that is a skill that can be taught but it isn’t a skill you can force into action. The person creating the training/course has to believe in the process or it comes out looking like crap and doesn't teach anyone anything. If ANYONE can perform ID then shouldn’t all online instructors who have been taught the basic principles be able to effectively put them into use when they create their own online courses? ID is a skill. It isn’t just about knowing how to run the ADDIE process. It is about presenting information in a way that everyone wants to learn and can understand. Maybe that is a skill that can be taught but it isn’t a skill you can force into action. The person creating the training/course has to believe in the process or it comes out looking like crap and doesn’t teach anyone anything.

]]> By: gminks http://gminks.edublogs.org/2009/09/29/329/comment-page-1/#comment-505 gminks Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:39:01 +0000 http://gminks.edublogs.org/?p=329#comment-505 @Archana Narayan, I am not saying to do away with the instructional design process. I am saying train some SMEs to take on that ID role. @Archana Narayan, I am not saying to do away with the instructional design process. I am saying train some SMEs to take on that ID role.

]]> By: Archana Narayan http://gminks.edublogs.org/2009/09/29/329/comment-page-1/#comment-504 Archana Narayan Wed, 30 Sep 2009 03:58:58 +0000 http://gminks.edublogs.org/?p=329#comment-504 Hi Gina, I am not sure what was said during lnchat, but you seem mighty upset with IDs. Your post seems to say do away with IDs because they have little respect for SMEs. I do not think this is foundation enough to reach such a conclusion. I am sure the IDs have experiences of their own because of which they feel the way they feel. Having said that, I have respect for SMEs and do feel that they play a very crucial role. But if both the SMEs and IDs are egoistic and more worried about throwing their weight around, the product is bound to suffer. Finally, I do not agree that you can do away with IDs. Being an ID involves a lot more than what you have listed here. It is about identifying the needs of the learner, identifying solutions that will help solve a problem (it may not be training related at all), deciding the instructional design approach and the medium of delivery, understanding the learner's reality, working closely with the SME to understand the content and relevance of it to the learner, testing the product to check its learnability, and so on. ID is not just about designing a few slides. Regards, Archana Hi Gina,

I am not sure what was said during lnchat, but you seem mighty upset with IDs. Your post seems to say do away with IDs because they have little respect for SMEs. I do not think this is foundation enough to reach such a conclusion. I am sure the IDs have experiences of their own because of which they feel the way they feel.

Having said that, I have respect for SMEs and do feel that they play a very crucial role. But if both the SMEs and IDs are egoistic and more worried about throwing their weight around, the product is bound to suffer.

Finally, I do not agree that you can do away with IDs. Being an ID involves a lot more than what you have listed here. It is about identifying the needs of the learner, identifying solutions that will help solve a problem (it may not be training related at all), deciding the instructional design approach and the medium of delivery, understanding the learner’s reality, working closely with the SME to understand the content and relevance of it to the learner, testing the product to check its learnability, and so on. ID is not just about designing a few slides.

Regards,
Archana

]]>