I’m a fan of Michael Allen’s, not only because he knows his stuff and he’s a very good person, but also because he has a knack for making things accessible. For example, his Guide to eLearning is as good a guide to designing elearning as you can get (that and Julie Dirksen’s Design for How People Learn, both appropriately in their second edition). So when I thought to criticize one of his models, I had to think really hard! And I’m still wrestling with it, but I also realize I’d gone down the same path! Obviously, it’s time to explore the issue.
One of Michael’s models is the CCAF model for making meaningful elearning. That’s:
- Context: that sets up the situation
- Challenge: that prompts the need for action
- Activity: that the learner takes, and
- Feedback: that comes from the situation.
There are nuances about this, but it nicely incorporates some of the best principles about designing effective (and engaging) practice. If you put people in a context and ask them to act, you’re minimizing the distance between the practice and the actual performance. Which is, of course, key to successful transfer. So this is a very handy shorthand, like Cathy Moore’s Action Mapping.
Now, in many ways, this is similar to my own activity-based design, which is more a curricular model than a pedagogical one, but it foregrounds activity instead of content. The goal is to have learners do something! And, of course, I’m thinking of creating a work product in many instances, or making meaningful decisions.
So what was I concerned about? Perhaps because I’d been thinking (and whinging) about ‘click to see more’ interactions, I want those activities to mean something! You could have an activity that’s just ‘matching’, or ‘identify the right word’ type of knowledge test. Those are activities, just not cognitively challenging ones. And of course Michael emphasizes this in his descriptions, but…there’s an opportunity for people to be slack.
I wondered about using ‘application’ instead of activity, focusing on the fact that people should be applying the knowledge to do something, not just doing any sort of activity. Do the semantics matter enough to be worth considering? Application-based design? Context-Challenge-Application-Feedback? Perhaps not, but I thought I’d think ‘out loud’ as usual. (Both to reiterate the point as well as to solicit your input.) So, what are your thoughts? Worth it? Or too much ‘splitting angel’s hairs on the head of a pin’ (metaphors mixed while you wait)?
You are right – in that some could come to believe that “any activity” is a good activity – which isn’t true.
Non-Authentic Activities are to be avoided IMO – unless one needs that because the content and presentation are just that boring – and then it’s really another issue altogether that won’t be solved by clicking here and there.
In my own approach to Lesson Mapping I include three types of “Instructional Activities” – named to convey and reinforce the need for “activity” versus passivity – for Information and Demonstration and Application – to be Designed and then Developed in a “backwards chain” manner – to keep the focus on authentic “Application” – driven by Learning Objectives driven by Performance Objectives.
Too many in the biz seem to start and end with a Content Analysis – and that leaves them with nothing better for the learner/Performer to do than to click here and there.
I always like the terms Roger Schank used for goal-based scenarios: goals and missions.Mission seems more motivating than application.
Also important in scenario design were roles. What real-world-inspired role does the student have, e.g., doctor, historian, engineer, auditor, … These serve two purposes. First, authenticity. Requiring roles to be part of the design forces the learning designer to think about who does what, really, with what skills and resources. Second: learner motivation. Who am I like when I’m doing this. Does this suggest an identity for me to pursue?
Guy, agreed, too often we see a content-focus, rather than an application one. And working backwards is key.
Chris, I like ‘mission’. Not sure all such assignments qualify, but dressing them up that way could make them more engaging. And you’re right that understanding your audience in terms of role is an important analysis topic and design issues.
Thanks for the feedback!