How Much to Push?

Working as an Instructional Designer for most of my career, one of the most challenging aspects to this role is convincing the client about ID theory applicable to their content selections. I usually broadly look at the content as – Good to know, vital information, must know, and secondary information.

Here’s a scenario: After content study, I recommend a set of terminal goals and learning goals for the training as well as a broad classification of content that’s good to know, vital information, must know, and secondary information, thereafter, offering wide selections of treatment for these.

Goal Games:

Most often, the learning goals that are written using Blooms taxonomy are the first-hit. Clients do not like the objectives phrased by IDs typically starting with Bloom verbs. I don’t deny that some of it might not make sense to them.

Example: (ID-write)

At the end of this lesson, you will be able to:

Explain the causes of viral miscommunication on the Internet.

Client vetoes this and rewrites it to:

Understand the causes of …

IDs are taken aback at the verb used – “Understand” which is not measurable, quantifiable, or even assessable. For them, this doesn’t meet the Bloom basics.

The client Subject Matter Expert however, as an Instructor on this topic who has held multiple sessions believes this is correct. I have witnessed discussions between the client and ID which lead to arguments and then stalemate, and the ID modifies the goals reluctantly to meet the client’s tastes.

Consider the facts first. You are speaking to a person who is a Subject Matter Expert and not from an Instructional Design background.

Second, imagine a list of objectives that use the Bloom verbs, repeating themselves in the same set or the subsequent lessons with boring familiarity and often, not making much sense.

Lastly, evaluate the content, is the goal really explain the causes or is it just an introductory module where the learner will merely be introduced to the causes.

If you arrive at a conclusion that the objective should be what you wrote, then go ahead and explain your reasoning to the client. But, remember, you can only try and at the end of the day the owner of the content and the course is the client, and leave it to their discretion.

Treatment Toil:

IDs spend a lot of time choosing treatments for content and sharing it with the client. For example, a conceptual video on a topic, an interactive activity for another, or simple content screens with an image, animations, and so on.

Often, they see their selections to be marked incorrect and the SME changes it to different ones. You can evaluate their choices and advise them for or against it. You will find that some clients agree with your reasoning if you have valid research or samples to prove your point. You are the expert here and you should not forget that.

Therefore, when you choose a certain treatment, make sure that you have samples, examples of efficacy, and good reasons to back your decision. Be open to consider their reasons and suggestions and work with them to arrive at the best treatment. You can push here as it is your expertise, but you should also be open to know the reasoning behind the client’s choices.

Duration Discussions:

Subject Matter Experts love their content and will almost always push for more seat time than is advisable. There are other SMEs who know the value of learner fatigue and can recommend correct seat time durations.

It is best if you evaluate the content yourself and recommend the seat time and adjust it for any element that the SME thinks needs more time. But, do not forget about learner fatigue and accommodate everything that the SME says. Push for decent learner seat times.

Review Rows:

When you create a proof of concept of your offering, observe critically what the client is correcting. If you feel that the focus is on correcting content per se, note this and communicate to the client that if the content is not correct or final, it should be looked into first before you create the rest of the course.

If the client is commenting more about the visualization, make sure that future storyboards or scripts have elaborate visualization included to avoid these changes.

If the SME is re-writing the script for language or phrasing, watch what they are correcting and try to emulate this in the future scripts. Better yet, request the SME to write the base script and work from it.

Push for limited changes on the final product and push for corrections that can be done at the first stage itself than on the build or final offering.

Now, the crux, how much can I push?

Instructional Designers have an expertise to share with their learning partners. Often, the partners may or may not know about your branch of expertise. If you can explain and convince, nothing like it. But the truth is the learning partners know their content and audience and may need a good reason to adapt your way of thinking. So, approach with logic and patience.

Don’t push to the extent that the client begins to feel stifled with your branch of expertise and is not able to visualize the learning product that they want. Aggressive quotes, explanations, pushy discussions will turn them away. Find a middle path and work together to create the best product that the client wants, and you will be proud of.