Archives for December 2019

Upcoming TK2020’s new approach

24 December 2019 by Clark Leave a Comment

Amongst the conferences I go to (frequently the eLearning Guild events, others as invited or doing something) is ATD’s Techknowledge. And I’ll be there again this coming year (get 10% with this code: 30TK2020). And while I think both offerings are of interest, one is more problematic. So I’m asking your help in dealing with the upcoming TK2020’s new approach.

It’s in San Jose, which is always nice since it means I don’t have to get on a plane. (I don’t object, but I’d prefer to train or drive.). It’s at the beginning of February (5-7), which can be a quiet time. Also, Downtown San Jose has some really nice dining options (e.g. the mega food court at San Pedro Square Market). And the weather’s unlikely to be icy or snowy. Maybe some rain, but tolerable temperatures. So it’s convenient all around.

One session I’m doing is a traditional one hour presentation. This is one I trialed on my local chapter, and I enjoyed it and it seemed they did too. It’s about how learning science suggests changes to curriculum and pedagogy. (Officially it’s “Transforming Learning: A Learning Science-Based Curriculum and Pedagogy.”) It’s very LXD, and I think there are some interesting and challenging observations in it. In particular, I’ll be bringing in the Free Energy principle and it’s implications about why learning can and should be transformative. And more.

The other session is something new in format. They’re being adventurous, and kudos to them. They’re creating a suite of stages doing a variety of different themes (in their words):

In the Build area, you‘ll engage in hands-on learning and experimentation with the latest learning technologies.
The Disrupt area will feature ten hyper-focused facilitator-led conversations about industry issues.
At the Spark area you’ll find your next big idea through mini-sessions and discussions on emerging trends.
At the Connect area, you‘ll participate in structured topic or industry-focused networking with your peers.
The Advance area will allow you to hone your skills in specific areas by participating in accelerated, mini-sessions and discussions.
At the Explore area you‘ll examine case studies of named organizations for new ideas and inspiration. Play sparks creativity, and what you do here will ignite your potential.

My session is in the Disrupt area, and not surprisingly the topic is myths. Well, the official title is “Professionalism in Practice: Resisting Hype, Myths, Superstitions, and Misconceptions.” The issue is what to do!

I have 30 minutes. And I can see several things to do. The question is, which one is most appealing/interesting, and effective? So I’m hoping you’ll help determine what I should be doing for the upcoming TK2020’s new approach.

Some options:

Make it just a Question and Answer session. I could open it up to whatever people would like to hear about myths and how to be prepared to withstand them.

Another option would be to do it as a slightly game show event; I did this with Jay Cross one time. I’d pick nine topics, put them up on the screen in a 3 x 3 grid, and address them in the order people choose.

In the spirit of the description, I’m not going to just give a presentation, but “hyper-focused” means what? Maybe wrap a format around several top myths? (How many can I do in 30 minutes?) Asking attendees “what makes this appealing”? Then a brief explanation of why it’s wrong. Then “what might you do instead?” And, finally “how can you prevent this?”

Or, focusing on the ‘resist’, I could crowd-source ideas around a general model of resistance. Asking, in some order: “Where do myths come from?” “Who can you trust?” “What’s good evidence?” “How would you do it yourself?” “What’s a practical process we can use?”

Or something else?

Obviously, I’m not short of ideas, but converging is challenging, I can see pluses and minuses on each. So, I thought I’d ask you all what you think about how I should adapt to the upcoming TK2020’s new approach. Feedback not just welcome, but eagerly solicited!

So, c’mon, give me a gift here! (Obligatory season imprecation; or of course an interesting project for your organization ;). And happy holidays to you and yours, and all the best for the coming year.

Content systems not content packages

17 December 2019 by Clark 1 Comment

In a conversation last week (ok, an engagement), the topic of content systems came up. Now this is something I’ve argued for before, in several ways. For one, separate content from how it’s delivered. And, pull content together by rules, not hardwired. And it’s also about the right level of granularity. It’s time to revisit the message, because I thought it was too early, but I think the time is fast coming when we can look at this.

This is in opposition to the notion of pre-packaged content. MOOCs showed that folks want to drill in to what they need. Yet we still pull everything together and launch it as a final total solution. We are moving to smaller chunks (all for the better; even if it is burdened with a misleading label). But there’s more.

The first point is about content models. That we should start designing our content into smaller chunks. My heuristic is the smallest thing you’d give one person or another. My more general principle is that resolves to breaking content down by it’s learning role: a concept model is different than an example is different than a practice.

This approach emerged from an initiative on an adaptive learning system I led. It now has played out as a mechanism to support several initiatives delivering content appropriately. For one, it was supporting different business products from the same content repository. For another it was about delivering the right thing at the right time.

Which leads to the second point, about being able to pick and deliver the right thing for the context. This includes adaptive systems for learning, but also context-based performance support. With a model of the learner, the context, and the content, you can write rules that put these together to optimally identify the right thing to push.

You can go further. Think of two different representatives from the same company visiting a client. A sales person and a field engineer are going to want different things in the same location. So you can add a model of ‘role’ (though that can also be tied to the learner model).

There’s more, of course. To do this well requires content strategy, engineering, and management. Someone put it this way: strategy is what you want to deliver, engineering is how, and management is overseeing the content lifecycle.

Ultimately, it’s about moving from hardwired content to flexible delivery. And that’s possible and desirable. Moreover, it’s the future. As we see the movement from LMS to LXP, we realize that it’s about delivering just what’s needed when useful. Recognizing that LXPs are portals, not about creating experiences, we see the need for federated search.

There’s more: semantics means we can identify what things are (and are not), so we can respond to queries. With chatbot interfaces, we can make it easier to automate the search and offering to deliver the right thing to the right person at the right time.

The future is here; we see it in web interfaces all over the place. Why aren’t we seeing it yet in learning? There are strong cognitive reasons (performance support, workflow learning, self-directed and self-regulated learning). And the technology is no longer the limitation. So let’s get on it. It’s time to think content systems, not content packages.

How do you drive yourself?

12 December 2019 by Clark 1 Comment

How do I drive myself? I was asked that in a coaching session. The question is asking how I keep learning. There are multiple answers, which I’ve probably talked about before, but I’ll reflect here. I think it’s important to regularly ask: “how do you drive yourself?”

As it’s the end of the year, my conversant was looking at professional development. It’s the time to ask for next year’s opportunities, and the individual was breaking out of our usual conversation to talk about this topic. And so he asked me what I did.

And my first response, which I’ve practiced consciously at least since grad school, is that I accept challenges. That is, I take on tasks that stretch me. (It might be that ‘sucker’ tattoo on my forehead, but note that my philanthropic bandwidth is pretty stretched. ;). This is professionally and personally.

That is, I look to find challenges that I think are within my reach, but not already my grasp. Or, to put it another way, in my Zone of Proximal Development. Accepting assignments or engagements where, with effort, I can succeed, but it’s not guaranteed.

Which means, of course, that there’s risk as well. Occasionally, I do screw up. Which I really really hate to do. Which is a driver for me to push out of my comfort zone and succeed. Or, at least, learn the lesson.

There’s more, of course. One thing I did started with my first Palm Pilot (the Palm III, the accompanying case is still my toiletry bag!). I had to justify to myself the expense, so I made sure that I really used it to success. This was part of the driver of the thinking that showed up in Designing mLearning, how to complement cognition. IA instead of AI, so to speak.

I also live the mantra “stay curious, my friends”. I’m still all too easily distracted by a new idea, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Well, as long as it’s balanced with executing against the challenges.

That’s how I drive myself. So, how do you drive yourself?

Unpacking some nuances

3 December 2019 by Clark Leave a Comment

In my book Engaging Learning, I had a suite of elements for both effective education practice and engaging experiences. Of course, the point was that they perfectly aligned. However, I’m unpacking a couple of them, and I thought it’d be helpful to ensure that I am clear about them, and so that you are too. So I’m unpacking some nuances in two different groups of elements.

For one, I talk about contextualized, anchored, and relevant. These three are related, but each plays a different role, and it’s important to be concerned about each separately.

Contextualized isn’t difficult. Research (e.g. Jonassen’s work) has shown that we perform better working from problems that are concrete rather than abstract. (Which is why those abstract problems kids are assigned in schools are so wrong!). We work better with concrete problems with facilitation to support abstraction and transfer. Otherwise we get ‘inert knowledge’, knowledge that we can pass a test on, but will never even activate in a relevant problem situation.

Anchored, here, means that it’s a real use of the knowledge. Instead of using problems about fractions of a crayon, for instance, it might be about serving food (pies, pizza). Similarly, engineering equations about curves could be used for a roller coaster instead of a abstract pattern. The activity using the knowledge should be the way it’d be used in the world.

That’s related to, but different from, being relevant. Not relevant to the learning, but to the learner. That is, the problem they’re solving is one that the learner cares about. So, for maritime enthusiasts, we might use geometry to figure out sail angles to the wind. While for gamers, we might use it to calculate graphics.

The second dichotomy is about active versus exploratory. They’re related, but each has an independent component.

For exploratory, I’m talking about learners having choices. That is, there are alternate choices of action. They can choose one or the other. The alternatives to the right answer, by the way, isn’t obvious or silly, but instead represents reliable ways learners get it wrong.

For active, I mean they must commit. It’s not enough to roll over the options and see the feedback, they have to choose one, and then see if it was right or not. And give consequences of their choices before feedback!

Unpacking some nuances helps, I hope, to ensure you address each separately, and consequently appropriately. Here’s to nuanced design!