Search Results for: design

Learning Experience Design (LXD), I argue, is the elegant integration of learning science with engagement. All well and good, of course, but how do you introduce it? Specifically, how do we engage people already actively designing? There are a number of ways to cut it. You could talk about the cognitive underpinnings, the implications for the elements of learning, or via the changes in the design process. I do the latter two, with a focus on the engagement side (which I feel is underdeveloped), in my latest book, “Make It Meaningful“. However, what if you’re trying to do both? Here’s a case to visit LXD by design.

It seems pretty safe to say that most people will resist totally throwing out their entire design process. There’s lots of investment. Further, most design processes have a useful basic structure. This suggests looking for the smallest tweaks that will yield the biggest impacts. We’re looking to incorporate the effectiveness of learning science with the emotional appropriateness of engagement. What does this require?

The first change is in the analysis. LXD simply  can’t work without performance objectives. If you’re just trying to make people aware, you’re not really on a transformative journey. You want to be focusing on equipping people so that they’re (meaningfully) changed through the process. You also need some new information: why this is necessary  for the learners, and why experts find it interesting enough to study. There’s more, but this is key.

Then, your design process differs. You are being creative,  given that you’re not just directly practicing. You’re also tuning to get the experience optimized. So, you need to build in some brainstorming, and iteration. In pragmatic ways, of course.

Implementation is also more iterative. You’ll be investing slowly, to allow pivots and to keep the overall costs contained. Postponing programming and preferring paper are components of this.

Even your evaluation is different. You are testing, now, not only effectiveness, but also the experience. Which you may have been doing (*cough* smile sheets *cough*), but you need to test both sequentially, not just one  or the other.

All along, there are small changes that will help integrate learning science elegantly with engagement. Making those critical changes will likely take a bit longer, at least at first. On the other hand, you should be getting real outcomes  and more engaged learners. Which, ultimately, is what we should be doing.

I’ll be covering this in a workshop for the Learning Guild in two half-day sessions prior to their LXD conference at the beginning of August. (Also doing a session during the conf on emotion.) I hope you’ll find LXD by Design to be a practical and useful, even  transformative, experience.

I‘ve addressed ethics elsewhere, but I‘m looking at it a different way now. I’m thinking from the perspective of situated cognition, and recognizing that there are certain things we can do. For better or worse. Further, these choices have ramifications beyond the initial impact. I think we need to be aware of the possibilities, and then consider the meta-ethics of learning design.

My particular concern sparks from the notion of how we are contextually sensitive. To make this concrete, think of the research by Beth Loftus. I”ll characterize a whole suite of research with a simply paraphrased experiment. So, she had folks watch a video of an accident. Then, she prompted recall of the amount of damage they witnessed. For one, she just asked them. For another group, the recall was prompted by “Besides the broken glass,…”. The latter group recalled worse damage. And. There. Was. No. Broken. Glass!  

The point here is that context can influence our thinking and memory. Which is what I see worry about with videos. They can take a statement as if it‘s fact, and then continue on with that as received wisdom. It‘s a classic cognitive approach, making a statement as if it‘s assumed.The bad part is that there‘s a narrative flow, and it‘s hard to stop and reflect. Versus, say, reading.  

On the other hand, of course, we can build in reflection time. Sure, learners can use the pause button, but there are times they may not. For instance, if the learner is following confirmation bias, that is looking at things that align with what you believe.  

We have the option to use coercive techniques for good, of course. However, we can also choose to use legitimate presentation techniques. I believe we should. Part of the development of metacognition is to see the pedagogy being used and internalizing it. If our pedagogy is visible (as it should be), it needs to be scrutable if we want our learners to adopt appropriate skills.  

Our designs, and our meta-designs, need to be ethically designed, both to effectively achieve our ends, and to develop our learners. We need to support the meta-ethics of learning design, as well as the ethics themselves.  

I stumbled across the Elements of UX diagram again, and happened to wonder if it would map to LXD. Here’s my stab:

And the text, as usual.

---

In a justifiably well-known image (PDF), Jesse James Garrett (JJG) detailed the elements of (web) user experience. I‘ve been involved in the parallel development of UX and ID (and cross-fertilized them), so I wondered what the LXD version would be. So, of course, I took a stab at levels of LXD design.

To start with, JJG‘s diagram works from the bottom up. The five levels, in order, are:

1. The original objectives and user needs.
2. That leads to content requirements and/or functional specifications.  
3. The next level is an information architecture or interface design that is structured to meet those needs.  
4. Those semantic structures are then rendered as an information design with navigation or interface design.
5. The top level is the visual design, what the user actually sees or experiences.

This systematic breakdown has been well recognized as a useful development framework. The development from need to semantics to implementation syntax suggests a logical development flow. As an aside, no one‘s claiming we should develop in a linear manner, and there tends to be more up and down action in actual practice. Drilling down and then working from the bottom up as well is a well-known cycle of design!  

The learning equivalent, then, should similarly have a structured flow. We want to go from our needs, through various levels of representation, until we reach the learner experience.  

Given that we should be driven not by the goals for the interface but learner needs, I‘ll suggest we start with the performance objectives.   Then, in parallel with user needs, I‘ll stipulate that the other top-level definition comes from the user characteristics. These match the initial level stipulated.  

At the next level, I‘ll suggest that the performance objectives drive assessment specifications, and the other decision at this level is for the pedagogical approach. We need to know what learners need to able to do, and how we‘ll get them there.

As an intermediate representation equivalent to UX‘s information architecture or interface design, I suggest from the assessment we determine the necessary practice activities required, and these are coupled with the necessary content requirements: models and examples, as well as the introduction and closing. Here we‘re still at what‘s required, not how it manifests.  

The next level is where we start getting concrete. We need to pick an overall theme or look and feel, and the flow of the experience. We‘ll also, of course, need to make a consistent interface to support navigation and taking action. We know what we need to have, but we haven‘t actually rendered it yet.  

Finally, we must render the necessary media. This will be the videos, audios, text, diagrams, images, and more that comprise the experience. This includes the actions to be taken and the associated consequences of each choice.  

That‘s the equivalent structure I‘m suggesting are the different levels of LXD design. Of course, this is a thought exercise, and so I may well have made some interpretations you could disagree with. For instance, I may have slavishly followed JJG’s levels too closely. Let me know! Also, it‘s not clear whether this is a useful representation, so far it‘s sort of a ‘because it‘s there‘ effort ;). You can let me know your thoughts on that, too!  

Here’s a story about where performance support would’ve made a task much easier.

And, as always, the text.

---

The other day, I had a classic need for performance support. Of course, it didn‘t exist. So here‘s a cognitive story about when and where a job aid would help.

Our Bosch dishwasher stopped near the beginning of the cycle, and displayed an icon of a water tap. The goal was to get the dishwasher running again. What with the layer of undrained water, we figured there was some sort of problem with the drain, clogged or the pump broken. M‘lady had cleaned the drain, but the icon persisted. What now? Of course we could call a service person, but trying to be handy and frugal (and safe), we wanted to find out if it was something I could deal with. So, off to the manual.

Well, in this case, since I didn‘t know where the manual was, I went online. I accessed the site and downloaded the manual. Only to find no guide to what the icons mean. What?!? This violates what we know about our brains, in this case that our memory is limited. The support section of the site did list the error codes, but numerically, not by icon.  So, I had an indication I couldn’t map to a problem, let alone a  solution.  

This is a real flaw! If you‘re gonna use icons, provide a guide!  Don’t assume they’re interpretable. (This had happened once before with this same appliance, with an impenetrable icon and no clue.) As a result, I had to call the service line. That wait took awhile (with more people staying home, they‘re using their dishwashers more, and the appliances are therefore breaking down more). Once, the call dropped. The second time I had to stop because I had an upcoming call. The third time, however, I got through.

And a perfectly nice person listened, asked some questions, and then instructed me through a process. After hitting cancel (which automatically tries to drain everything and reset to zero) by simultaneously pressing two buttons linked by a line on the control panel, I heard noises in the sink like it was draining. After a minute, I was told to go ahead and open it up (yep, drained), turn it off and on, and then try running the cleaning cycle again. And, voila, it worked! (Yay!)

So, what‘s wrong with this picture? First of all, there should be a clear explanation of what the icon means, as indicated above. Second, it should be clearly tied to a process to address the problem, including intermediate steps.This is so common, I am quite boggled that the great engineers that made our (very good) dishwasher aren‘t complemented with a great technical communications team who write up a useful manual to support. It. Is. Just. Silly!

Note: this isn‘t a learning experience. It‘s just fine that I don‘t recall what the last time‘s icon was or what it meant, and maybe what this icon meant and what I should do. It should be infrequent enough that it‘d be unreasonable for me to have to recall. Instead, I should be able to look it up. Put information in the world!  In the long term, this should save them buckets of money because most people could self help. Clearly, they‘ve gone to numeric codes, but they could‘ve just added in the associated icons, or given a mapping from icon to numeric code. Something to help folks who have the pics.  

This is just bad design, and it‘s so obvious how to ameliorate it. People will self-help many times, but only if they can!   Just as you shouldn‘t be creating a training course when a job aid will do, you can save a help call when a job aid can address most of the problems. Use performance support when it makes sense, and doing so comes from understanding how we actually think, work, and learn. When you do, you can design solutions that meet real needs. And that‘s what we want to do, no?

If I’m going to rail against myths in learning, it makes sense to be clear about what learning design without  myths looks like. Let me lay out a little of what mythless learning design is, or should be.

Learning with myths manifests in many ways. Redundant development to accommodate learning styles, or generations. Shortened to be appropriate for millennials or the attention span of a goldfish. Using video and images for everything because we process images 60K faster. Quiz show templates for knowledge test questions because they’re more engaging. And all of these would be wrong.

Instead, mythless design starts with focusing on  performance. That is, there’re clear learning outcomes that will change what people do that will affect the success of the organization. It’s not about knowledge itself, but only in service of achieving better ability to make decisions.

Then, it’s about designing meaningful practice in making those decisions. It’s not about testing knowledge, but ability to apply that knowledge to choose between alternative courses of action. It can be mini-scenarios (better multiple choice), branching, or sims, but it’s about ‘do’, not  know.

We reinforce practice with content that guides performance and provides feedback. It does use multiple media, because we use the right media for the message. Yes, we look to engage multiple senses, but for comprehending and encoding information. And variety. We use visuals to tap into our powerful visual processing system, not because they have any particular metric improvement. We also use audio when appropriate. And while text is visual, we use it as appropriate too. To address learning outcomes, not learner preferences.

Mythless learning design may use small amounts of content, but because minimalism keeps cognitive load in check, not because our attention span has changed. We need appropriate chunking, as our working memory is limited, so we want to make things as small as possible, but no smaller!

We design meaningful active practice not because any generation needs it, but because it’s better aligned with how our brains learn at pretty much any age. There are developmental differences in working memory capacity and experience base, but  everyone benefits from doing things, not passively consuming content.

There are good bases for design. Ones that lead to real outcomes. Starting from a performance focus, and reflecting what’s been demonstrated in learning science research, and tested and refined. Evidence guiding design, not myths.

There are also bad bases for design. Dale’s Cone, shiny object syndrome, the list goes on. Gilded bad design is still bad design. Get the core right. Let’s practice good, mythless learning design. Please.