Learning modules or Hollywood movies?

At the Instructional Designers Forum, MSN, there was this interesting comment on customers demanding their instructional modules (CBTs/WBTs) to be fancy and with graphic gimmicks. I have personally experienced this with my clients in Singapore. I particularly remember my interactions with an naval officer, who was my onsite SME from the client end. My team was to develop a CBT on how a generator works. Well, the entire course was on some circuit diagrams and troubleshooting parts of the device.

The best instructional strategy that one can think of could be to provide simulated circuit diagrams that track the flow of charge to each relay and how the relays respond. Instead, the SME was focussed on how snazzy the interface should look like and how to add some animated 3D buttons.

I had a tough time explaining to him that adding animation everywhere and making them dance on the screen would only distract a learner. We had to convene a meeting with the top officials and explain in their presence the instructional values that we are adding to the course in doing away with those 'Matrix' like gimmicks from the course.

There, my knowledge on learning theories came handy when I could easily map our design strategies to Gagne's and Blooms. I had mapped each feature we were to provide in the CBTs to Gagne and relate every aspect of the assessment to Bloom's levels. Any good instructional material need not be graphic intensive, but definitely structured and carry instructional values.

A sound knowledge of the learning theories is a must for anyone who interracts with the clients. Educating the clients on instructional strategies goes a long way in convincing the clients on what is right.