In my last post, I asserted that we need evidence-based design for what we do. There are a number of sources for same. Of course, you could go do a Master’s or Ph.D. in cognition and learning, but there are shorter paths.
There are several good books out (and I believer that there is at least one more on the way) that summarize the implications of research design. Ruth Clark has been a co-author on a couple, eLearning and the Science of Instruction, and the subsequent Efficiency in Learning. Julie Dirksen’s Design for How People Learn is another good one. Michael Allen’s work on design is also recommended, e.g. Guide to eLearning.
Will Thalheimer, Ruth, and Julie regularly write and talk about these things in other forums than books. Go listen to them! I try as well, though often filtered through games, mobile, or elsewhere. There’re others, too.
A number of people run workshops on deeper design. I know I have one, and I’m sure others have them as well. Do try to make sure that it covers both cognitive and emotional elements, focusing on meaningful change.
There are gaps: there isn’t all the research we need, or at least not digested. The role of emotional engagement isn’t as well fleshed out as we’d like, and some of the research is frankly focused on studies too small to give practical guidelines (c.f. the consternation on serious game design that surrounded a recent post). Where we don’t have research, we have to make inferences from theoretical frameworks, but you should know those too. It’s better than going on ‘intuition’ or folk science.
Still, there’s no excuse to do un-engaging, over-written, and under-practiced learning. Better design doesn’t take longer (with the caveat that there’s some initial hiccup ’til we make the change). We have the knowledge, and the tools aren’t the barrier. Let’s do better, please!
I admit I can be dense at times. I had to read and re-read this post several times for my brain to get what my eyes were telling me: Evidence-based design and not evidence-based learning. I think I get in a rut sometimes: serving the same target population of learners with the usual (suspect) learning strategies.
Some years ago whilst working on a DoDEA project with UNLV I added research to my workflow; I slipped it in before the analysis phase. I’d go out to the library there and used the online one at Capella where I earned my MS Ed. I learned there’s a lot of cool ways to connect learners with the stuff they’re learning.
A challenge I have in my present role is connecting trainees with each other, particularly online. Security concerns constrain using social media; there are cultural things at work too. Doing research, even if it’s only skimming the literature for ideas helps me develop better experiences and communicate to the powers-that-be there are other ways to increase the efficacy of knowldge transfer.
Sometimes serendipity takes a hand in helping me steer a new course. I learned from @JaneBozarth about Positive Deviance. I’m in the process of researching how agencies like mine connect use social engagment methods and tools to connect learners so they can exchange perspectives and reflect. I think this is vital as it can broaden their ability to think critically.
Anyway, I think we owe it to the people we serve with our educational products to continually do research, focused and environmental, to enable them to have the best learning experience possible given the constraints we face.
Thoughtful and timely stuff: thank you.