A defence of the “Next” button
The “Next” button doesn’t have many friends in the e-learning community. The humble yet shiny arrow is associated with boring page turners.
Hell-bent on avoiding the “Next” button, many instructional designers will delinearise the content by creating a course homepage with a raft of topics represented by funky icons. The learner is free to explore and discover the knowledge contained therein at their convenience and – more importantly – at their discretion.
While I broadly agree with the constructivist sentiment of this approach, I can’t help but think it’s a band-aid for a much deeper issue.
Let me explain by rewinding a little…
In my previous post Informal first, I articulated a mindset that prioritises informal learning over formal training. I argued in favour of providing all the necessary learning resources to the target audience in an open, structured format. I had in mind an Informal Learning Environment which would host the bulk of the content and enable peer-to-peer knowledge sharing.
This is constructivist design. It facilitates pull learning at the convenience and discretion of the learner, and moreover it supports on-the-job learning just in time. Its primary focus is not on training, but on performance support.
Having said that, I am the first to agree that sometimes training is necessary. This is where an online course can step in.
By design, an online course is meant to transmit knowledge to the learner. By design, it’s meant to be programmatic in nature. By design, it’s meant to be ruthlessly efficient.
In other words, it’s meant to be linear.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not suggesting that an online course should be stripped of all constructivist principle. On the contrary, I highly recommend that the learner be empowered to explore and discover the contents of the course as they wish, free of the yoke of forced navigation. However, it is important to note that such freedom is not mutually exclusive with linearity.
What I am suggesting is that the instructional designer who rails against the “Next” button is valiantly (but futilely?) trying to backfill a void in their organisation’s learning architecture. Because open, searchable, browsable, accessible content does not exist, he or she feels compelled to create it. But the LMS is not the place for it!
Open, searchable, browsable, accessible content should be available to the learner all the time on an open, searchable, browsable, accessible platform.
In contrast, an online course should scaffold the learning experience to achieve a pre-defined objective. It should not be played with for hours on end, and it certainly should not be used for ongoing reference.
So whenever you are consumed by the burning desire to deride the “Next” button, ask yourself whether you are assigning guilt by association.
Perhaps the true guilt lay closer to home?
Next!formal learning, instructional design, online courses
Tags: constructivism, corporate, e-learning, elearning, formal learning, informal first, informal learning, informal learning environment, instructional design, instructivism, JIT, learning architecture, learning model, linear, linearity, LMS, next button, online courses, organisational development, organizational development, OTJ, performance support, trainingYou can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.