Archives for 2009

Learning irregularly

26 March 2009 by Clark Leave a Comment

I’ve affiliated with the Learning Irregulars, (“committed to making the world a better place by accelerating innovation in organizational learning. We are open, inquisitive, non-profit, impatient, and feisty”) As our first public outing, we held a meeting this week.

The approach we’re taking for now is that we conduct activities, like meetings, webinars, and the like, asking interesting and important questions, making them public and collecting artifacts including pictures, reflections, etc. that we also make available. I like to think of it as ‘learning out loud’. We’re looking to create a dialog around how to accelerate (and improve) organizational learning.

I conducted the part of the meeting where we told stories, and I’ve written those up over at the site. There were some interesting themes that emerged about how we’re not facing up to the large problems that confront us, though there are some great ideas that we really need to take advantage of. Some great memes included ‘positive deviance’ and ‘questing disposition’.

I’ll quote here the takehome that I took from the meeting:

There was some consistency about needing to be more open and flatter, less hierarchical, that we could learn much from other areas in many ways …, and that we need to provide tools, models, ideas, and examples.

There should (fingers crossed) be an archive of the meeting, and we’ll be holding more. Stay tuned! I welcome your thoughts.

A positive direction

23 March 2009 by Clark 2 Comments

After having been on the board of a not-for-profit (NFP) for several years, essentially because they’re in education and weren’t using technology, we’re finally seeing some progress. An update call today with their internal IT strategy team had me finally feeling like we’d turned the corner.

It’s taken several steps, as just advocating wasn’t enough. While I had to educate some of the board, they were supportive enough, but it wasn’t enough to penetrate the leadership of the NFP. An outside initiative that would’ve made significant progress didn’t occur, but raised enough awareness that things got easier. Along the way, several initiatives were started, but lost focus and died.

The final step was the Board finally choosing to have, as one of it’s standing committees, an IT Committee. For obvious sins, I chair the Board’s IT committee, and raised the NFP’s awareness that the Board was serious. Finally, the Board’s IT committee asked the NFP to create an IT Strategy, and that catalyzed effective action. It took some work to get them to identify what an IT strategy should be (despite resources like TechSoup, though their original good document disappeared), but led to them hiring a key person, and things have really turned around.

A team of young folks along with the existing IT staff, savvy and scattered around the NFP have been selected to lead the initiative. They’re thinking strategically now, and today on the phone talked about the success one portal is having, about their three phase plan to redevelop the website and IT infrastructure, and their thinking about how to leverage technology more effectively.

I really felt that they’re finally pulling a) together and b) in the right direction. I can’t take credit for it happening, but I reckon I played a role in catalyzing the work and in coaching the direction, and it’s wonderful to see the outcomes. It’s been frustrating at times as it seems to have taken so long, but my learning is that these things take time when you don’t have direct control.

The nice thing is that the culture of the NFP is positive and supportive of learning, it’s just that they’ve been so successful with the old model that it’s hard to see a need to change. But change happens, and fortunately it’s happening here, now.

There’ll be some missteps, undoubtedly, and some waste of effort, but I do believe they’re on the right path. Now, to get the Board to start using IT more effectively…

Monday Broken ID Series: Process

22 March 2009 by Clark 5 Comments

Previous Series Post

This is the last formal post in a series of thoughts on some broken areas of ID that I’ve been posting for Mondays. The intention is to provide insight into many ways much of instructional design fails, and some pointers to avoid the problems. The point is not to say ‘bad designer’, but instead to point out how to do better design.

We’ve been talking about lots of ways instructional design can be wrong, but if that’s the case, the process we’re using must be broken too. If we’re seeing cookie-cutter instructional design, we must not be starting from the right point, and we must be going about it wrong.

Realize that the difference between really good instructional design, and ordinary or worse, is subtle. Way too often I’ve had the opportunity to view seemingly well-produced elearning that I’ve been able to dismantle systematically and thoroughly. The folks were trying to do a good job, and companies had paid good money and thought they got their money’s worth. But they really hadn’t.

It’d be easy to blame the problems on tight budgets and schedules, but that’s a cop-out. Good instructional design doesn’t come from big budgets or unlimited timeframes, it comes from knowing what you’re doing. And it’s not following the processes that are widely promoted and taught.

You know what I’m talking about – the A-word, that five letter epithet – ADDIE. Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. A good idea, with good steps, but with bad implementation. Let me take the radical extreme: we’re better off tossing out the whole thing rather than continue to allow the abominations committed under that banner.

OK, now what am I really talking about? I was given a chance to look at an organization’s documentation of their design process. It was full of taxonomies, and process, and all the ID elements. And it led to boring, bloated content. If you follow all the procedures, without a deep understanding of the underpinnings that make the elements work, and know what can be finessed based upon the audience, and add the emotional elements that instructional design largely leaves out (with the grateful exception of Keller’s ARCS model).

The problem is that more people are doing design than have sufficient background, as Cammy Bean’s survey noted. Not that you have to have a degree, but you do have to have the learning background to understand the elements behind the processes. Folks are asked to become elearning designers and yet haven’t really had the appropriate training.

Blind adherence to ADDIE will, I think, lead to more boring elearning than someone creative taking their best instincts about how to get people to learn. Again, Cathy Moore’s Action Mapping is a pretty good shortcut that I’ll suggest will lead to better outcomes than ADDIE.

Which isn’t to say that following ADDIE when you know what you’re doing, and have a concern for the emotional and aesthetic side (or a team with same), won’t yield a good result, it will. And, following ADDIE likely will yield something that’s pretty close to effective, but it’s so likely to be undermined by the lack of engagement, that there’s a severe worry.

And, worse, there’s little in their to ensure that the real need is met, asking the designer to go beyond what the SME and client tells you and ensure that the behavior change is really what’s needed. The Human Performance Improvement model actually does a better job at that, as far as I can tell.

It’s not hard to fix up the problem. Start by finding out what significant decision-making change will impact the organization or individual, and work backward from there, as the previous posts have indicated. I don’t mean to bash ADDIE, as it’s conceptually sound from a cognitive perspective, it just doesn’t extend far enough pragmatically in terms of focusing on the right thing, and it errs too much on the side of caution instead of focusing on the learner experience.It’s not clear to me that ADDIE will even advocate a job aid, when that’s all that’s needed (and I’m willing to be wrong).

Our goal is to make meaningful change, and that’s what we need to do. I hope this series will enable you to do more meaningful design. There may be more posts, but I’ve exhausted my initial thoughts, so we’ll see how it goes.

Cultural success

21 March 2009 by Clark Leave a Comment

I’ve been a wee bit busy this week, engaged on two different initiatives involved in improving what the organizations are doing. The interesting bit was that there were two widely different cultures, and yet each was successful. How could that be?

Normally, we look at the elements of successful learning cultures as providing safety and reward for contributing, acceptance of diversity, and other dimensions. It’s easy to imagine that this results in a relatively homogeneous outcome, which, while certainly desirable, might seem bland. However, the two juxtaposed experiences demonstrated that this is definitely not the case.

In one, there’s definitely a feeling of responsible progress, but it’s a very supportive environment, and while there’s gentle teasing, it’s a very warm and fuzzy place, self-described by the leader. This leader has some clear ideas, but is very collaborative in getting input in what goals to choose and more so in how to get there. It’s necessary in the community in which they play, but it works. People are clear about where they’re going, and feel supported in getting there in reasonable steps.

The other culture is similarly committed to quality, but the leader has a much different personality. Instead of warm and fuzzy, there’s much more attitude and edge. The comments are more pointed, but it’s even more self-directed than other directed, and is taken as well as given. It’s more lively, probably not quite as ‘safe’, but also probably a bit more fun. It’s probably more suited to the entrepreneurial nature of the organization than the previous more institutional approach.

Yet both are in continual processes of improvement; in both cases my role was to add the outside knowledge of learning and technology in their self-evaluation. It’s a pleasure to work with organizations that are serious about improvement, and eager to include the necessary input to get there.

My take-home is that there are lots of different ways organizations can be functional, as well as dysfunctional. It doesn’t take much more than commitment to move from the latter to the former, and the leader’s style can be different, as long as it’s consistent, appropriate, and successful. Definitely a nice thing to learn.

Meeting unreasonable needs

20 March 2009 by Clark 3 Comments

I was contacted yesterday by a relatively new ID person, who was in a tough spot. This person understood the principles of Tony Karrer’s “Before You Ask” post, as the situation was well laid out. Some help was asked for (clearly no expectation other than, perhaps, a thoughtful reply; the circumstances were quite clear).

The situation is that this person is the support for an LMS across multiple geographic locations. The ID was hired to do ‘training’ on the system, but access to SMEs is limited at beast, the uses in the different contexts were different enough that a course model isn’t a viable solution, yet this person wasn’t clear on what alternatives to take: “I am beginning to think that the position is flawed in its design.”

For what it’s worth, here’s what I replied (slightly modified for clarity and anonymity):

First, I’d offer a pointer to John Carroll’s minimalist instruction (via “The Nurnberg Funnel”). He taught a word processing system via a set of cards that trumped the instructionally designed manual by focusing on the learners’ existing knowledge and goals. It’d be one way to ‘teach photography’ instead of ‘the camera’.

Of course, I also recommend teaching ‘the model’, not the software *nor* the task. That is, what is the LMS’s underlying model, and how does it lead you to predict how to do x, y, and z. If you can teach the model, and through a couple of examples and practice get them to be able to infer how to do other tasks, you’ve minimized ‘training’ and maximized their long-term success. Your lack of access to SMEs means you have to become one, however, I reckon. Doing good ID does mean more responsibility on the designer in any case. Sorry.

On top of either approach (common tasks, or model-based learning) consider that your role is to put out some basic materials (don’t think training, think job aids), and then serve as a ‘consultant’. Have them come to you to ask how to do things, and either create FAQ’s or more job aids, depending on their need and your assessment of the value proposition in either. So don’t think your only solution is ‘training’.

Also consider gestating a ‘community’ to surround your wiki, and grow it into a self-help resource that people can get into to the level they can handle. Have discussion board where people can post questions. You’ll be busy at first, but if they find value, it can grow to be self-sustaining. People will often self-help, if it’s easy enough.

BTW, another organization had some success many years ago starting with a central office, bringing in and training local ‘champions’ who gradually moved the locus of responsibility back to their unit. Of course, they got buy-in to do so, but you might try to work with your early adopters and help them become the local resources.

Overall, don’t try to accomplish everything with ‘the course’, but look to the broader range of performance ecosystem components (if you’ve followed my blog, you know I’m talking job aids, ecommunity, etc) and balance your efforts appropriately.

The response was that this was, indeed, helpful. I feel for the person in the situation of having to do a particular role when the ‘received wisdom’ about how to do it is at odds with what really is useful, and is underresourced to boot. A too-frequent situation, and probably not decreasing, sigh. But taking the broader performance perspective is a useful framework I also found useful in another recent engagement, professional development for teachers. Don’t just worry about getting them the basics, and develop them as practitioners, even into experts, as well. Moreover, help them help themselves!

This is just the type of situation where taking a step back and looking at what is being done can yield ways to rethink, or even just fine-tune the approach. I typically find that it’s the case that there *are* such opportunities, and it’s an easy path to better outcomes. Of course, I also find that years of experience and a wealth of relevant frameworks makes that easier ;). What is your experience in adapting to circumstances and improving situations?

Do what you love, love what you do

16 March 2009 by Clark 6 Comments

For the Working/Learning blog carnival, the topic is, as always, “work at learning, learning at work”. Last time I participated (almost a year ago), I talked about how learning should be fun, so you shouldn’t be working at at, it really should be ‘hard fun’. I want to expand on that topic, as there are probably characteristics that make it fun or not.

Most people who have hobbies invest time and money in equipment, practice, learning, and more. If you love what you do, it’s as much avocation as vocation, learning about it should be fun. You’ll naturally be tapping into how to continue to learn.

For example, I love what I do, so I was thrilled to be able to follow the eLearning Guild‘s recent conference through Twitter (great as always, apparently); in particular Craig Wiggins, Eric Wilbanks, and heroically, John Zurovchak were really tracking the sessions they were in, bringing the content out and even bringing our queries in. Their passion showed through, and fanned mine.

Of course, if you don’t love what you do (you work to live, as they say), there’s a different situation. Ideally, at least you’re doing something you prefer, and you just need to tap into the elements you like as motivation. Frankly, while it should be incumbent on learning designers to help make it motivating, it’s also incumbent on the learner to take responsibility for learning too. We, as learning folks, can’t make anyone learn, we can only create conditions for learning.

We should, however, be sensitive, and help our learners tap into their inner motivation, take responsibility for learning, and develop their abilities to learn. If we do that, we’ve helped make it so you’re not working at learning, just learning and working.

Monday Broken ID Series: Seriation

15 March 2009 by Clark 3 Comments

Previous Series Post | Last Series Post

This is one in a series of thoughts on some broken areas of ID that I’ve been posting for Mondays. The intention is to provide insight into many ways much of instructional design fails, and some pointers to avoid the problems. The point is not to say ‘bad designer’, but instead to point out how to do better design.

Instructional design has established that the correct order of elements is introduction – concept – example – practice (and feedback) – summary. While that’s a good default, it doesn’t have to be that way, and there are times when it makes sense to provide other approaches or even self-navigation. What we shouldn’t see is the prevalent (click to advance ‘next’ button), with linear navigation forwards and back. Or, rather, we shouldn’t see that without some other support. And more.

mediaskillsnav When we did a course on speaking to the media (and without an LMS to handle the navigation, so no built-in ‘next button’), we had a scheme that both provided a good default, and allowed self-navigation. We had the elements of each of the 3 modules labeled from a learner perspective (e.g. Show Me, Let Me). And we had a nav bar in the upper left that let you choose where to go. At the bottom of the screen (we erred for scrolling rather than one page to minimize clicks and load times, this was over 10 years ago) were also some options of where to go next, with one indicated as the recommended choice. We graphically supported this with a dotted line leading the learner through the content and to the default choice (follow the bouncing ball).

Was there benefit from this? Anecdotaly, I heard (I’d returned to the US) that about half the users followed the bouncing ball, but the other half (presumably the self-capable learners) took the initiative for their own learning and used the nav bar to go where and when *they* wanted to. I note that UNext/Cardean had a similar nav structure at one time.

Now, you may have heard of case-, problem- or project-based learning. In this case, before you present the concept, you present either an example (a case-study) or a problem. These serve as the introduction, but are attuned to different ways of learning.

If you buy into some of the learning style models, they have cycles through different learning approaches, but recognize that different learners could prefer to start in different areas. That was the premise that drove at least part of the strategy behind the adaptive learning system project I led from 1999-2001. We had the system recommend a path, and alternatives, but it was based upon who they were as a learner.

It turns out that some learners could prefer an example first, that links concept to context, some prefer problems first, to get concrete about what the situation’s about, and some might prefer a more typical approach. We didn’t have all the answers at the time, but we had a good set of rules, and were going to extract better ones as we went along.

The point is, while a good default is a reasonable choice, having some alternative paths might be worth considering, and allowing learner navigation is almost essential. Allowing learners to test out is a good option as well. Don’t lock your learners into a linear experience, unless you’ve really designed it as an experience, focusing on the overall flow and testing and refining until your learners tell you it is an experience. And I do recommend that, it’s not as tough as it sounds. However, don’t take just the easy default, learners prefer and deserve choice. So consider some alternative pedagogies, consider the learner, and think outside the line.

elearning, strategically

12 March 2009 by Clark 3 Comments

While I’ve lots more to say, I put a short version of my vision of elearning strategy in Michael Allen’s 2009 e-Learning Annual. It’s about both getting the individual elements right, and establishing the connections between the elements to achieve synergy, not irrelevance (or worse).

This doesn’t include assessments, action plans, or more (I’m planning that for my pre-conference workshop on strategy at ASTD’s International Conference & Exposition), but it does lay out some of the reasoning and history behind the approach, the elements and some of the ways they go right (and wrong), and why they need to be tied together.

The whole book has a wonderful collection of articles. It includes authors like Jay Cross, Karl Kapp, Lance Dublin, Bob Mosher, Ruth Colvin Clark, Marc Prensky, Saul Carliner & Margaret Driscoll, just to mention the ones I’ve met. And important topics like Appreciative Inquiry, Performance Support, ROI, implementation, the value of research for design, virtual world design, and more. It’s a great collection, and recommended.

However, I did want to make my chapter available, and am happy to say that I’ve done so. You can download the article (PDF). I’d welcome your thoughts and feedback.

A wee bit o’ experience…

11 March 2009 by Clark 1 Comment

A personal reflection, read if you’d like a little insight into what I do, why and what I’ve done.

Reading an article in Game Developer about some of the Bay Area history of the video game industry has made me reflective. As an undergrad (back before there really were programs in instructional technology) I saw the link between computers and learning, and it’s been my life ever since. I designed my own major, and got to be part of a project where we used email to conduct classroom discussion, in 1978!

Having called all around the country to find a job doing computers and learning, I arrived in the Bay Area as a ‘wet behind the ears’ uni graduate to design and program ‘educational’ computer games. I liked it; I said my job was making computers sing and dance. I was responsible for FaceMaker, Creature Creator, and Spellicopter (among others) back in 81-82. (So, I’ve been designing ‘serious games’, though these were pretty un-serious, for getting close to 30 years!)

I watched the first Silicon Valley gold rush, as the success of the first few home computers and software had every snake oil salesman promising that they could do it too. The crash inevitably happened, and while some good companies managed to emerge out of the ashes, some were trashed as well. Still, it was an exciting time, with real innovation happening (and lots of it in games; in addition to the first ‘drag and drop’ showing up in Bill Budge’s Pinball Construction Set, I put windows into FaceMaker!).

I went back to grad school for a PhD in applied cog sci (with Don Norman), because I had questions about how best to design learning (and I’d always been an AI groupie :). I did a relatively straightforward thesis, not technical but focused on training meta-cognitive skills, a persistent (and, I argue, important) interest. I looked at all forms of learning; not just cognitive but behavioral, ID, constructivist, connectionist, social, even machine learning. I was also getting steeped in applying cognitive science to the design of systems, and of course hanging around the latest/coolest tech. On the side, I worked part-time at San Diego State University’s Center for Research on Mathematics and Science Education working with Kathy Fischer and her application SemNet.

My next stop was the University of Pittsburgh’s Learning Research & Development Center for a post-doctoral fellowship working on a project about mental models of science through manipulable systems, and on the side I designed a game that exercised my dissertation research on analogy (and published on it). This was around 1990, so I’d put a pretty good stake in the ground about computer games for deep thinking.

In 1991 I headed to the Antipodes, taking up a faculty position at UNSW in the School of Computer Science, teaching interface design, but quickly getting into learning technology again. I was asked, and I supervised a project designing a game to help kids (who grow up without parents) learn to live on their own. This was a very serious game (these kids can die because they don’t know how to be independent), around 1993. As soon as I found out about CGIs (the first ‘state’-maintaining technology) we ported it to the web (circa 1995), where you can still play it (the tech’s old, but the design’s still relevant).

I did a couple other game-related projects, but also experimented in several other areas. For one, as a result of looking at design processes, I supervised the development of a web-based performance support system for usability, as well as meta-cognitive training and some adaptive learning stuff.

I joined a government-sponsored initiative on online learning, determining how to run an internet university, but the initiative lost out to politics. I jumped to another, and got involved in developing an online course that was too far ahead of the market (this would be about 1996-1997). The design was lean, engaging, and challenging, I believe (I shared responsibility), and they’re looking at resurrecting it now, more than 10 years later! I returned to the US to lead an R&D project developing an intelligent learning system based on learning objects that adapted on learner characteristics (hence my strong opinions on learning styles), which we got up and running in 2001 before that gold rush went bust. Since then, I’ve been an independent consultant.

It’s been interesting watching the excitement around serious games. Starting with Prensky, and then Aldrich, Gee, and now a deluge, there’s been a growing awareness and interest; now there are multiple conferences on the topics, and new initiatives all the time. The folks in it now bring new sensibilities, and it’s nice to see that the potential is finally being realized. While I’ve not been in the thick of it, I’ve quietly continued to work, think, and write on the issue (thanks to clients, my book, and the eLearning Guild‘s research reports). Fortunately, I’ve kept from being pigeonholed, and have been allowed to explore and be active in other areas, like mobile, advanced design, performance support, content models, and strategy.

The nice thing about my background is that it generalizes to many relevant tasks: usability and user experience design and information design are just two, in addition to the work I cited, so I can play in many relevant places, and not only keep up with but also generate new ideas. My early technology experience and geeky curiosity keeps me up on the capabilities of the new tools, and allows me to quickly determine their fundamental learning capabilities. Working on real projects, meeting real needs, and ability to abstract to the larger picture has given me the ability to add value across a range of areas and needs. I find that I’m able to quickly come in and identify opportunities for improvement, pretty much without exception, at levels from products, through processes, to strategy. And I’m less liable to succumb to fads, perhaps because I’ve seen so many of them.

I’m incredibly lucky and grateful to be able to work in the field that is my passion, and still getting to work on cool and cutting edge projects, adding value. You’ll keep seeing me do so, and if you’ve an appetite for pushing the boundaries, give me a holler!

Whither the library?

10 March 2009 by Clark 3 Comments

I go to libraries, and check out books. I admit it, when there’s a lot I want to read, I’d rather read it on paper (at 1200 dpi) versus on the screen. And some recent debates have got me thinking about libraries in general, public and university. There’re some issues that are unresolved, but leave me curious.

As the editor on one for-profit journal (British Journal of Education Technology), and now on one ‘open access’ (Impact: Journal of Applied Research in Workplace E-learning), I’ve been thinking more about the role of the journal, and the library. There’s certainly been a lively discussion going on about the internet and the role of for-profit publishers.

The model for decades has been that books, magazine, journals, and newspapers had material that was submitted, reviewed, edited, and published by publishers, and available for a fee. Yes, there have been some free newspapers, paid for by advertising (e.g. San Diego’s weekly Reader was an eagerly sought resource while I was a student), but in general the costs of paper, publishing, distribution, and more meant that information had an associated overhead.

Libraries democratized access, by aggregating purchasing power. People could come in and find material on particular subjects, read popular books, and more recently, also other materials like albums, tapes, CDs, DVDs, etc. Public libraries provided places to read as well, and librarians were resources to find or ask about particular topics. University libraries purchased journals, copies of textbooks, and of course the obvious reference materials, while providing places to study.

Now, of course, the internet has thrown all that on it’s head. With some notable exceptions, people have the capability to put up information (e.g. this blog), to access information (Google becoming a verb), and the distribution is covered in the cost of internet access. Consequently, the publishers have struggled to come to grips with this. As have researchers and learners. On one side, those who say what’s on the internet isn’t vetted, while others say that the proprietary information is irrelevant and the wisdom of the crowds reigns supreme.

One of the consequences has been the call for open access publishing, essentially that articles are submitted, reviewed, and published online, with anyone being able to view the outcomes. This is a threat to publishers, who’ve argued strongly that their processes are time-tested. And universities (particularly for promotion and tenure) have been slow to accept online publication as an equivalent, due to the uncertainty of the rigor of the publication (clearly, it depends on the particular journal).

This isn’t restricted to journals, of course, textbooks are also under threat. And publishers are similarly scrambling. I’ve been advising publishers and working on projects to get them online, and more. The ‘and more’ part is because I’ve been trying to tell them it’s not “it’s not about the book, it’s about the content:, but instead “it’s not about the content, it’s about the experience”. Whether academic publishing will continue is an interesting issue. Publisher’s who’ve depended on this have serious issues. So do libraries.

Which brings me back to my library. It’s a vibrant place, by no means dying. While the book shelves are relatively quiet (though there are dedicated readers browsing the stacks), there are kids in the young book section, people grazing the videos and music, and a queue for access to the internet. They’re tightly couple with other library networks, and so when a book I wanted wasn’t in our library system, they got it on loan from another library system in the state. Easily! They also have ways to make recommendations, even in areas they don’t read in themselves.

How about university libraries? They’re the ones I was curious about, and where I had some thoughts. University libraries are more about research. Popular culture will be distributed across media, and public libraries can have a role as a media access center, but university libraries are situated on internet rich campuses, where the demand for other popular media probably isn’t as strong. Do they have a role?

I’ve argued before that the role of the university is shifting to developing 21st century skills (unfortunately in lieu of our public education systems). The library is well-placed to accommodate this need. They may not be the technology gurus, but they are (or can be) the information gurus. It’s a hub of information searching, evaluation, and sense-making. The librarians may need a mind-set change to not be about finding resources, but teaching their information science skills, but no one’s untouched (teachers need to move to being learning mentors, etc).

I considered, but didn’t title this post “Wither the library”, because I think libraries have a role. They may need to become shift their focus (and it occurs to me that we need to think about how they become more visual), but they still have a role.

« Previous Page