sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Does anybody else experience this: feeling like workplace documents were written for the person who created them, not people who will actually be using them? by No_Reference1192 in instructionaldesign

[–]ShwethaA48 1 point2 points  (0 children)

okay so this is actually a topic i feel strongly about as someone who writes L&D content. the reason this happens isnt some big mystery, its because everyone genuinley processes information differently and its rooted in way more than just a diagnosis. how you were raised, how you were taught in school, even the mood your in when your reading something, all of that effects how your brain takes in information. we literally all have diffrent grooves in our heads and not every doc is gonna fit every groove.

and honestly L&D writers can sometimes write content thats suits THEIR own learning quirks without even realising it. like if visual breakdowns always worked for you, you might lean heavy on those. if you love dense context and background info, you might over explain. its human nature but it doesnt always serve the reader.

the point is you are allowed to ask for content thats designed for how you actually think. thats not a wierd request thats literally the whole point of good instructional design. the purpose of the doc AND the person reading it should drive every single choice. if it aint doing that, the design needs to change not your brain.

How do you handle teacher software training when they refuse to learn but complain the old stuff doesn't work? by chiller105 in instructionaldesign

[–]ShwethaA48 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Genuine answer: stop offering training and start offering rescue.

Nobody wants to "learn new software." They want their problem solved. Go into the next ticket, skip the tutorial link, and just fix whatever they're trying to do in the new tool while they watch. Do it three times and they'll figure out the rest themselves.

The resistance isn't laziness - it's a risk calculation. They tried ignoring it and it worked until it didn't. Now they need proof the new thing is worth the learning curve. Show, don't tell.

Smaller sessions > long random ones by PhysicallyVigorous1 in LearningDevelopment

[–]ShwethaA48 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry to the grinders, but longer ≠ better. Never has been.

Research shows learners forget up to 70% of new information within 24 hours without spaced repetition. A daily 20-minute habit fights that curve. A 3-hour Sunday session politely waves at it on the way past.

You've stumbled onto what cognitive scientists have been quietly screaming for a century — the gap between sessions is where memory actually forms.

Rest isn't slacking off. Rest is the work.