In my current role I have been bequeathed a lot of defined and codified learning design processes. I don’t necessarily get to use some of it that often as a lot of it is to do with new work and we, like a lot of people, are still continuously improving the huge efforts made during the pandemic pivot. So this means reviewing a lot stuff and focusing on those tools and processes.
It’s more paperwork than I am used to for two reasons:
Firstly, coming from an HE environment previously that never quite allowed us to get to codified learning design processes I have always adopted quite freeform or teacher lead processes. What I would have given for the crutch of a carpe diem, ABC or even ADDIE process. Yet at times this was even expressly discouraged.
Secondly, digital learning roles can sometimes collapse loads of different roles into one. From project manager/lead through to designer or developer. For this role the project management strength prior to my arrival meant we have a lusciously plotted out process and supporting paperwork.
Yet my reflections are similar for both the processes attached to new developments and the review processes. As amazing as it is to have a process and documentation they are not neutral tools. Documents and processes are made by humans and focus on lots of institutional priorities above and beyond project success or interesting pedagogy. It isn’t until you try and use these tools that you notice what ‘is’ and ‘isn’t’ supported / encouraged by the bureaucracy.
Mercifully in my two processes for reviewing and creating e-Learning there are gaps. For example, the new project development is relatively neutral / none-prescriptive on how to design or support design of a learning experience. There are tools to support design elements but compared to the paperwork in ABC the paperwork supports the process of getting a product to market not really what that product is pedagogically. Which is actually really handy for a knowledgeable designer to go on a case by case basis.
Similarly for our review paperwork. This paperwork sets out the process of the review. Not what needs to be reviewed and for what. Which in this instance allows flex for different types of learning experience. Again a good bit of flex. Yet it also has the dis-benefit of not disciplining newer standards onto older resources. This is the kind of thing you want to be prescriptive for legislation and tools change as do individual learning object risk profiles.
Anyway the story I wanted to outline above is this… paperwork isn’t neutral. Not much of it is evidence based because why would you develop that evidence base. Some flex and area for interpretation is great and some is problematic. So as much as you monitor outcomes of processes don’t forget to review and continuously improve to process and tools themselves.
The Educologist 