The world famous scientist Albert Einstein once said, “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex…. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.”
Leonardo da Vinci said, “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”
Yet when training courses are designed and laid out, it amazes me how much emphasis is put on doing something – e.g., putting in tons of graphics (for instructor-led presentations or putting all kinds of functionalities in Elearning course)…well, just because we can.
Certainly, in today’s world, amazing technology is in the hands of common everyday people (GoPro video cameras, smart phones and their built in cameras, video/audio editing apps, and the like). And most of it is really pretty cool stuff. I mean, don’t get me wrong; I’m not anti-technology. It really is cool to be able to take a GoPro camera bought at Best Buy on a dive in a shark cage off the coast of Brazil and upload the video you shot of the sharks that swam by to YouTube that evening.
But, when it comes to learning courses, oftentimes there’s a lot of wisdom in the phrase “Less is more.”
However, often people decide to convert current fully-functional courseware into the latest, greatest software just…because it’s available and would seem to be the most sophisticated thing to do. Really? Was there something wrong with the current platform – like it didn’t work? Can it be updated? Otherwise, maybe it should be left alone under the advice of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Case in point; I was at a large symposium recently in Washington, DC. A young lady from a university that shall remain nameless made a big deal when she got up to present how she knew we all must’ve been tired of seeing PowerPoint presentations and that she’d went out and found some new software platform to host her presentation that was going to blow us away.
Maybe it would. But she never got that far because the software wouldn’t launch. Maybe it was the wireless connection there (which admittedly left a lot to be desired), maybe it was her computer or maybe it was who knows what? But, it wouldn’t work. And she and her presentation content slowly disintegrated on stage – painfully, for us in the audience. So, you know it had to be utter agony for her.
What’s the point here? The point is, progress is nice and “doing something different” has its place in keeping audiences engaged. But, one has to go into these things carefully. What works in the office on a T-1 cable or something may not work at all out in the field working on a wireless network.
And, while I’m on a roll here, how much flash and zing does one need to make the point and keep the audience engaged? My advice is keep it simple – do only that amount of animation, etc. Doing so will keep it simple and dependable.
Right about now some of the PowerPoint abusers and techies are probably fuming at their screens as they read this. PowerPoint abusers think that they the speaker are there to support the visual aids rather than the other way around. I’m sure you’ve seen these folks in action with presentations from the podium that have all kinds of images flying round each slide literally bombarding the audience with so many graphics and often images so captivating the audience stops listening to the presenter. Instead of listening, they’re studying a graphic either captivated by the beauty of the image or…wondering what the hell is that a picture of?”
Our techie friends who seem to think that only robust technology and functionalities can accomplish anything – especially in elearning – really struggle with the “less is more” philosophy. If the audience analysis, needs analysis, available time and allocated project budget show that a change to a more recent, robust and/or complex technology solution is the way to go, then by all means do it.
But, my point here is that if it doesn’t, then don’t go that way. Elearning audiences really can be reached and taught effectively – with sophistication and elegance, I would purport - by a less robust approach. In furtherance of the point I offer this example of pure instructional design brilliance:
No comments:
Post a Comment