Do instructional designers need to know about what they are designing?

I remember many years ago being told of the important difference between process and content. It was applied in that context to managers, the inference being that management is a process that can be applied to any domain. In other words, if you�re a good manager, then you can do a good job wherever you�re asked to apply your skills, whether that�s a school, a hospital, a retail chain or an engineering company. I was always sceptical, but I got the idea.

In the thirty years since I left full-time employment, I have worked with dozens, perhaps even hundreds of organisations in every sector imaginable. In the course of the various projects I have undertaken, I have developed expertise in some of the narrowest slices of working life imaginable; so obscure, in fact, that only rarely has this knowledge assisted me in answering questions on University Challenge. Even though I typically started these projects as a novice in terms of the particular knowledge domain, most were a success and the clients seemed happy.

Having said that, from time to time I have had the luxury of developing learning materials relating to my own specialities in workplace learning. These are the projects I have most enjoyed and which, in my opinion, delivered the best results. So, what works best: designing with your own content expertise, or concentrating on the process, without necessarily having content expertise?

Arguments for designing with content expertise: 

• It saves a lot of time and effort: extracting information from subject experts is hard work and requires skill and persistence.
• You have greater credibility with the client: in the awards judging I participated in recently, I encountered several organisations that concentrate on a single vertical industry (such as oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, healthcare or finance) or a single horizontal slice (such as marketing or sales). These organisations employed designers who were subject experts. They appeared to be doing a really good job.
• You have heuristic knowledge: you know how things work; you have the anecdotes and the stories that bring learning materials to life.
• You are more interested in what you�re doing: because you are teaching what you know and care about.

And here are the arguments against:

• Your knowledge may not be current: if you�re not still working in the field, you can easily become out of touch with the latest developments.
• You may suffer from the curse of knowledge: as a subject expert, you can fall into the trap of believing everything that you know is important and interesting to your learners.
• You may be blinkered when it comes to teaching methods: there�s a risk that you�ll stick to same old formula, regardless of what�s now possible.
• You may be better at content than process: this is the problem with just about all technical training - you are asked to become a trainer because you know about the subject matter, but you never quite developed the same expertise in adult learning.

It looks like, whichever way you go, there are potential problems that need to be addressed. As for me, I�m undecided.

Share this

Classic