1. Learning objectives are associated with memorization and building of skills.
2. The problem with having learning objectives is that we treat content as independent units of activity or knowledge. Like a checklist that needs to be done and completed.
3. Microlearning is about helping workers access quick, easy to apply, and useful solutions and answers when they need them.
4. Microlearning does not have learning objectives. Rather, it is supposed to be triggered by the need of the worker which is about their content and objective that drives them to look for an answer.
I'm having cognitive dissonance here. I understand that the trigger for the learner to consume MicroLearning is a need of the worker... but if MicroLearning has no objective, how can it (the need) be targeted? The learner, once being triggered, would then search for a MicroLearning object that fills their knowledge/skill gap. Without an objective, though, how would that object be scoped?
I think I might understand the disconnect. When I think of the value of learning objectives, I think about how we use them as design requirements. What I think I'm hearing you say is that there's no need to include them in the learning object itself (for the learner to read). Am I understanding correctly?
Side note, I am also not a fan of lower cognition objectives, I much prefer them to be performance-based.
Side note, I am also not a fan of lower cognition objectives, I much prefer them to be performance-based.