Is structure important?: Testing the limits of instructional design

After Thiagi's workshop in Vancouver, I proposed a thought experiment. One of the tasks of the training department is to train our new, inexperienced salespeople. So, what would happen if we didn't "train" our participants, but asked them to construct the learning on their own?

The students would be given an agenda at the beginning of the workshop. This includes pre-scheduled session dates (such as the distance learning sessions or scheduled expert assistance) and a list of graded deliverables including tests.

All current resources would be available:

• Computers connected to our intranet


• Current facilitator guides


• Current facilitator PowerPoints


• Facilitator available to respond to questions and requests


• Product information


• Top student deliverables from previous classes with the grade noted.


• All online and CD based demos, etc.


• Distance learning schedule


• Resource books


• Other expert assistance available

At the beginning of each day, students would receive a practice test with 10 questions from each content area. An answer key would be available upon request. The students could work separately or together to learn the material on the test and answer the test questions.

At the end of each day, the students would individually complete a graded on-line practice test with 10 unique questions from each content area for that day. The score would be part of their feedback, but would not be recorded in any way. The students would be educated that their scores would not be a part of their evaluation.

At the end of each of the two weeks, the students would take a cumulative exam testing each content area addressed that week. The week one and the week two tests plus the graded deliverables would constitute their final grade. A serious number of points would be deducted if their work appeared to be a close copy of the sample deliverables. If the students do not pass the class with an 85 percent or better score, they would not become salespeople with the company. They would be informed of this standard at the beginning of the training workshop.

The feedback I received on this thought-experiment was that students, given two weeks to learn the material in this way, would spend all their time complaining about learning the material this way and so would learn nothing.

This provides a very down-to-earth critique of forcing the students to provide all of their own structure. I think that this posited reaction is due to a perceived violation of an unspoken contract between learner and teacher. The teacher is "hired" to provide information in digestible chunks for the students. If the students could learn the material independently, then they shouldn't have to come together for a training workshop. There is also the heuristic: The training was hard, thus I learned a lot. Forcing a learning experience on students that are not culturally ready would be counter-productive.

On the other hand, knowledge doesn't come from the mouth of the facilitator. It comes from the mouth of the student. By this I mean that the best lecture in the world is a waste of air, unless the participant is able to remember and apply the knowledge and skills they were supposed to learn. If they can do this, then it really doesn't matter how they learned it.

The thought-experiment points out that, though the student needs to own the material, foisting complete responsibility for the learning process on an unreceptive audience is not the answer. On the other hand, it asks me to evaluate whether each module or lesson needs to be as structured as it is today. Are there areas where the student might be engaged by increased responsibility?