Archives for November 2007

It’s been a mad week (not going to change for a couple of weeks, yikes), what with presentations and breakfast bytes and events and…   It was a great conference (people are even raving about the food)!   Some quick thoughts while I spend time with family before my upcoming 1.5 weeks away:

There was a consistent theme in the keynotes, ones I naturally resonate with: creativity, change, and innovation.   Sir Ken Robinson opened with a witty conversation on creativity and how we all need to cultivate it.   It’s one of the elements in my notion of what a future curriculum needs to include. Paul Saffo talked about the changes that are occurring (and really suggested elearning is poised to be a real factor).   Finally,   Frans Johannsen talked about generating innovation from diversity.

Mobile is where games were 2 years ago, just at the top of the hill and gaining momentum for that downhill roll.   The pre-conference symposium was great fun, listening to David Metcalf, Judy Brown, and Ellen Wagner showing great examples, talking about great principles, etc (and Steve Wexler and Brent Schenkler in there for the research).   The audience really pitched in asking tough questions, coming up with great ideas, and really getting into it.   While I underestimated the timing on my mobile design exercise, it’s one I think I can refine and have great fun with in the future.

Games are really steaming along.   People are getting that learning has to have engagement, contextualization, be focused on meaningful change, etc.   My session on the emotional side of elearning went well, the Immersive Learning Simulation challenge organized by Mark Oehlert was a hoot, with great stuff by Brent Smith and Anne Derryberry.   The goal was to design a game to help convicts survive on the streets and not return to prison.   It was really interesting to see how what we presented all mutually reinforced.   It’d be a great team!   More will be happening on this, such as Clive Shepherd taking a shot at it on Monday supposedly.   When I get a moment, I’ll post my thoughts and approach.   We’re hoping others will take a shot and start a discussion. Not necessarily on the particular topic, but using that as a way to catalyze discussion about how to design and implement serious games, er, ILS.

My session on elearning tools went really well, I thought, generating discussion about what purposes the tools serve.   This despite the fact that the handouts were missing some graphics (grr), which I didn’t know about ’til afterward.   People were so into it that they asked if there were a way to continue.   I”ll be talking to the Guild about doing that.

There was a blogger’s bash Wed night, and Jay Cross invited some Knowledge Management bloggers from the KM World conference going on down the block.   Had a very interesting conversation with Dave Snowden who has some rather revolutionary ideas that resonate, but I’ve got to digest them a bit more.   Short version: all our categorization is useless, live in the moment ad hoc.

There may be more, but I’ve off to kid’s soccer tournaments, etc.

The eLearning Guild has just announced some changes to their benefits. If you’re not a member, it’s definitely time to consider it. Associate membership is free, and now you get access to all the articles they’ve written in their Learning Solutions journal. Regular membership and above costs, but has additional benefits.

The one I’m most thrilled with is that with any level of paid membership, you will have access to the research reports! They’ve been very good at getting top people (excluding yours truly, which must be an accident :) to write articles on the topics of the research report, and now they’ll be available to all members. I have to say that what I’ve read in the two reports I’ve been part of, Mobile Learning and Immersive Learning Simulations, from people like Jeff Johannigman, Clark Aldrich, David Metcalf, and Judy Brown, is top stuff.

They argue that they’re getting this good stuff out to thousands instead of just hundreds, and I certainly can be happy about that. If it leads to better elearning, we all win. They run great conferences (I’m at DevLearn as I write), have great benefits, and are a good group of people. Check it out!

When living ‘down under’, I became an Aussie citizen (as well as keeping my US citizenship) at least partly so I could vote; I feel you can’t complain if you haven’t been part of the process (and being a member of the board of the Center for Civic Education has only reinforced my civic responsibility). There are several aspects of their system that are superior to the US system, I feel, and given that Australia has just called an election, it was worth reflecting on.

First of all, the Australian election will be held on 24 November, but this date wasn’t announced until 14 October. That means only 6 weeks of campaigning! (Aside from the ever-present party combat.) Compare that to the campaigning the US has already put up with for months, and that will still go another year. Australia has to call an election within 3 years of the previous one, roughly, but then it’s only 6 weeks until the election is held. There are undoubtedly advantages to the fixed terms of the US elections, but prolonged campaigning isn’t one of them.

Second, Australia has a true popular vote. The US Electoral College approach has not reflected the popular vote in several notorious instances. While the College may have been necessary at the time the country was established, it’s no longer relevant. I realize how difficult it is to change, as those states who benefit have little interest in losing it, but it undermines the true democracy of the US system. And attacking it piece-meal, as they’re proposing here in California, is only a political ploy, not a true reform, in my opinion.

The real brilliance in the Australian system, however, is “preferential voting“. In this system, you rank each candidate in order of preference. If your first choice is eliminated, your second choice then receives your vote. This continues, taking candidates off the bottom, until one candidate receives a majority. There are two benefits to this: one is that you never need a runoff, and the other is that you can’t ‘throw your vote away’.

Of course, in one election I recall there were around 80 candidates, which is time-consuming to rank (I, of course, did it, just to learn). However, there is a workaround. Each candidate will have an associated list of preferences, so if you only want to indicate your first choice, you can go with their recommendations if they should fall off the list. I figure at least 80% of the people probably do this.

Overall, there are some clear wins. The time (and money) spent on campaigning is reduced, there’s a true popular vote, no run-offs are needed, and you can truly vote your conscience. As a side effect, this has led to a viable multi-party system. Which would be nice, given that I reckon I’m further from either of the US parties than they are from each other ;).

So, how about some electoral reform?