Last year I was working with an expert in their field (Sorry for being vague, but I don’t want to identify anyone!) to build a new course. And they only had one idea on how to structure the topics. There was a sequence that they followed. One topic came after another because… well, because that was the order of those topics. There was an introductory topic and then something that explained some concepts, then something about how that was used, and an explanation of a slightly different aspect…
There was a lot of theory up front – because learners need the theory first. That’s
like a red rag to a bull, for me. They were really open when I shared my misgivings, and as we talked over the options, it was clear that they just hadn’t thought about the different options for ordering activities in a learning programme. And why should they? That’s not their job, after all.
When I think about unhelpful habits in learning design, my go-to assumption is that the problem stems from school and college.
For most of us, that’s the model for learning things. It’s the way that we learned what we know. And we can do things! So it must have worked.
It’s logical – but misguided.
Learning at school and college are fundamentally different from learning for your work.
One is about preparing you in general for a whole range of situations and jobs; the other is about doing a single defined thing well. One is providing a conceptual underpinning for a whole range of fields and areas to explore; the other is applying a specific skill. Education can be just for its own sake – to uplift the soul and see new horizons. Reviewing Budget vs Actuals reports correctly is rarely as enlightening – but it can make a big practical difference to your life if you’re struggling to do it.
I’m no education expert and I don’t know whether the way it’s done is the best way. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But we can put that to one side.
When it comes to learning for your job, there are many more options than starting from a simple theoretical basis and building up.
You don’t need theory first, normally.
It might be OK occasionally, but you want to try other options first. Lots of trainers and experts assume that there is a basic set of concepts that need to be taught before you can get learners working on real tasks. This is the way that things are taught in school and college. And so, there are lots of training courses where the instinct is to sit everyone down at the start and explain theories. This is boring. And you often just don’t need it.
You’ve got other options for ordering things.
- Sequential/Chronological – start with the step you do first (e.g. cover thinking about a project goal before you cover scheduling project activities)
- Logical/conceptual – this concept underlies the next one. Learners won’t be able to understand later concepts without this one first. This is the basis of a lot of formal education. Challenge your assumptions about whether you really need this way of doing things.
- Simplicity – the first concept is easiest and the next is more difficult, and so on. This is similar, but not identical to the “logical” order. The concepts or skills might not be directly related, and you just start with whatever’s easiest. In fact, you can even do this where they are related. If you’re looking at sample sizes, you can start by showing how to calculate a sample size with an online calculator, and then get into more details about how it works.
- Most enjoyable – start with a task that isn’t too boring, and mix up less-fun activities with those that give people more of a lift. Remember that this is subjective, and getting good at something important is enjoyable, even if that task isn’t “fun” per se.
- Importance – start with the most important task (or most common mistake) to make sure it gets its due, and then work backwards (perhaps mixing it up a little as you go).
- Random – Often fine! Lots of people are (unsurprisingly) a bit nervous about this approach. There are practical reasons why you can’t cover everything in the order you’d like, so you have to shake them up anyway. And it just doesn’t make that much difference.
That last one reveals another reason why we’re so attached to that “logical” sequence.
If you can learn things in any old order, experts worry that this means their carefully acquired expertise is not valued.
Their expertise was (in theory) constructed layer upon layer, and now we’re just going to jump around from topic to topic. They’re worried that we’re saying that there’s no need for a theoretical foundation – so their job is simple and less valuable.
The reality is experts don’t get their expertise through a carefully structured sequence of learning. Most real experts do have a foundation, but a lot of what makes them an expert is built up through different experiences. They have one experience and then come up with their own way of solving the problems they encounter. Or they happen upon a different theory or approach that they integrate into their work. If it wasn’t like that, university degree programmes would produce experts – but we don’t think that having a degree is what it means to be an expert. Real-life has a lot of bouncing around from topic to topic, skill to skill, kind of at random.
And we’re rarely training people to be experts.
Most of the people that complete a course should be at a level to use the skills covered (if they can’t, it’s wise to consider them as not having passed the course). But they’re not going to be experts. We might hope they become experts someday. But that will need practice and learning from their real experiences. The skills should give them a grounding that if they keep developing, will lead to them becoming experts. We’re getting people to be able to use a skill well in a real world situation, not to become masters. And that means that we often don’t need the same logical, concept driven approach.
None of these ways of ordering things is “best”.
Each has its uses. The most important thing is to know there are options. Many people don’t know that you can do things differently.
How do you choose which order to do things in?
Some is practical. Let’s say you have three hours one week and three hours the next. If Task One takes one hour, Task Two takes two and Task Three takes three hours, you can’t make Two, Three, One the order! All training has these practical, schedule related trade-offs. Even online, leaners need some predictability of their level of effort week to week, which means scheduling constraints.
Another practical consideration would be whether you’re assessing them in some way. If they will complete a piece of work that shows they have the skills they need, then it makes sense for that activity to be near the end of the course.
Some is content determined. Where concepts really do build on one another, then you have to do one before the other. It’s not wise to cover budget forecasting before you’ve done budgeting. Often, you have more flexibility with this than you might think. You can probably do writing a clear sentence after you cover report structure. Or you could do it before. The fact that one is more fundamental doesn’t mean that what comes after is dependent on it. It’s the dependency that’s critical.
Some is down to group dynamics and motivation. You probably don’t want long, repetitive tasks all bunched together. Mixing them up with something a bit lighter or with more interaction can keep people engaged. “Buzzy” training courses often don’t give the impacts that you need – but people do need to be awake and paying attention! And they need to actually do it, rather than get fed up and give up. Making it relevant to their actual work will make even repetitive tasks interesting.
The guiding principle should be which order will make the biggest difference to solving your problem or reaching your goals.
I love starting with the most important skill for them to practice, or the critical step in a process that creates the biggest bottlenecks. Don’t save those for last! It’s good to let people see how well they can handle that. It gives them a reference point that they can use for the rest of their learning. And by putting it front and centre, you can highlight how important it is.
What are your next steps?
- Look at a course you’ve taken recently and see how much it really followed a strict logical sequence – there’s more departure from this than you’d think
- Try a different approach to ordering your course activities. Especially try putting the biggest problem first.
- Look at a course or event you plan to run, and then mix up the tasks or sessions randomly. Then think about whether it would work OK in reality. You don’t have to use it, but it can help you stop doing things by habit.
