Quinnovating

Learning Experience Design in Action

8 October 2010 by Clark 4 Comments

I was working with one of my clients/partners on an opportunity to develop classroom learning on a tablet. The first push is to get something to show teachers and trial in a classroom. It’s not yet going to be socially enabled, nor particularly mobile, nor yet augmented with resources; the point now is to demonstrate capability to develop compelling interactives (pretty much regardless of whether it’s a tablet or not).

As context, they’d sent me some storyboards that I’d responded to with some comments. They actually started from a good point, but there were nuances that needed to be teased out. Their questions led me to think through some principles that underpinned my recommendations. In the course of their questions, I talked about these perspectives:

Start with visceral experience: I want to ground the learning in their world. I want to start with phenomena that they understand, and have them do a little free exploration followed by some focused tasks, but at a qualitative, experiential level. Drill down from the bigger picture in the world, to intermediate issues, to why this in particular is important, and have them actively explore the relationships.

Connect conceptual to formal: after the learner has an experiential basis, then link it to formal representations. Help the learners connect their actions to the tools used to structure our understanding. At the end of the day, at least in this domain, we want them to be able to use the formal representations to solve problems that their capabilities can’t solve with their bodies (e.g. applying forces in microjoules or gigajoules). As a guide, the point is not to teach science, say, but instead to teach them to be scientists, using tools to solve problems. Finally, they should be taking measurements, transforming to manipulable representations, transforming the representations to a solution, and then applying that back to the world.

Focus on action, not content: rather than require learners to view this video or that document, make them available. Ideally, the only required elements would be the series of activities, and the information resources surround the activities as options. The challenge of the activities, and quality of the content, would ideally drive the learner to the resources, but there might be required quick overviews that point to deeper resources, and individuals who struggle might be pointed to the content.

Launch with a meaningful context: I suggested an overall task that would ultimately need to be performed, using a recognized problem as the motivation for learning this content, though there are other ways. However, you do want to harness learners hearts as well as their brains in the endeavor. In this case it was about saving people’s lives that motivated going through the course to be prepared to come back and provide the knowledge of what force to apply, in what direction.

And in one I didn’t convey, but is implicit in the learning situation but could and should be implicit in the development of the learning experience:

Scaffold the learning process: don’t assume that the learner is equipped for learning this way, provide support. Pedagogical support can be through an agent, and there has to be feedback involved both addressing the content and the process. If only requiring the activities, the evaluation, inadequate performance might trigger a requirement to view content, for example. A pedagogical avatar could be useful.

All of this is based upon a research base in learning theory, even the emotional side. There could be more involved, as I had ides for options in being social, and actually being mobile, which are currently beyond the scope of their engagement, but the point is to start with a visceral and active base upon which to drive motivation for content, formalisms, and ultimate mastery.

A request for help

5 October 2010 by Clark 1 Comment

I regularly review what I offer and do, trying to ensure an alignment between what the market needs and what I can offer, as is incumbent upon a consultant. It’s all part of life in the age of perpetual beta. Now, I think I have a pretty good idea of what I can do, and what the market needs, but there is the potential for some ‘blind spots’.

Ordinarily, I make my best stab and move on, but after working with my ITA colleagues and refining my understanding of the value of crowd-sourcing, I recognize that my perceptions may not be aligned with market perceptions about what I do or what is needed. So, I’m putting out a request, and asking that you contribute. Obviously, I’m hoping that if you’ve been reading this blog and/or know me, you will have some feel for what I (can) offer.

I’m asking that whether through comments on this blog post, by twitter (@quinnovator), or email or phone, you provide input on any or all of the following questions for me (as Quinnovation):

What services does and should Quinnovation (that is, me) offer?
What is, or should be, Quinnovation’s unique market position or value proposition?
What problems does or can Quinnovation solve as well or better than anyone?
Who is or should be Quinnovation’s target market?

Yes, ultimately it’s my responsibility, but it’s worthwhile to get your input. Also, please feel free to be brutally honest; I’d rather have insight than inaccurate gentleness. I welcome your feedback. Thanks in advance, and eager to see what shows up!

Quip: Quality

4 October 2010 by Clark 5 Comments

I had the (dubious) pleasure of picking up an award for a client at an eLearning awards ceremony a number of years back. There’s been some apt criticism of the whole awards industry thing overall, but it did give me a chance to see what was passing as award-winning content. And I was dismayed. One memorable example had traditional HR policy drill-and-kill tarted up into a ‘country fair’ theme. It was, frankly, quite well produced and visually attractive. And complete dreck, instructionally. Yet, it had won an award!

My client typically fights the good fight when they can (hey, they use me ;), but sometimes they can’t convince the client or know not to bother. In another instance, I actually took on the design for a project, and at the end the client’s manager asked what was so special. After I walked him through it, he was singing the hallelujah chorus, but there’s an important point here. I’ve heard this tale from many of my colleagues as well, and it indicates a problem.

Quality design is hard to distinguish from well-produced but under-designed content.

To the layperson, or even perhaps the ordinary instructional designer, the nuances of good content aren’t obvious. If the learning objective is focused on knowledge, it’s because that’s what the SME told us was important. So what if the emotional engagement is extrinsic, not intrinsic, it’s still engaging, right? We cover the content, show an example, and then ensure they know it. That’s what we do.

SO not. Frankly, if you don’t really understand the underlying important elements that constitute the components of learning, if you can’t distinguish good from ordinary, you’re wasting your time and money. If that were the only consequence,well, shame on the buyer. But if there’s a Great eLearning Garbage Patch, it gets harder to pitch quality. If you don’t care that it ‘sticks’ and leads to meaningful behavior change in the workplace, you shouldn’t even start. If you do care, then you have to do more.

Hey, low production values aren’t what make the learning occur, it’s just to minimize barriers (“ooh, this is so ugly”). Learning is really a probability game (you can’t make a learner learn), and every element you under-design knocks something like 10-50% off the likelihood it’ll lead to change. Several of those combined and you’ve dropped your odds to darn near zero (ending up working only for those who’ll figure it out no matter what you do to them).

And the problem is, your client, your audience, doesn’t know. So you can lose out to someone who shows flashy content but knows bugger all about learning. You see it everywhere.

So, we have to do more. We have to educate our clients, partners, and the audience. It’s not easy, but if we don’t, we’ll continue to be awash in garbage content. We’ll be wasting time and money, and our effort will be unappreciated.

If you’re a designer, get on top of it, and get good at explaining it. If you’re a customer, ask them to explain how their content actually achieves learning outcomes. Or get some independent evaluation. There are still vulnerabilities, but it’s a push in the right direction. We need more better learning!

Social Media for Trainers (by Jane Bozarth)

1 October 2010 by Clark 1 Comment

Jane Bozarth’s Social Media for Trainers is a wonderfully handy, and important, book. It succinctly introduces why you would want to think about social media to augment training, introduces several of the major social media tools that represent categorical differences, and, for each, focuses on practical explanations about the tools, pluses and minuses, and classic ways to use them before, during, and after learning events.

As a disclaimer, let me note that not only am I mentioned in the book, but I also reviewed the manuscript for the publisher, so understand that I’m not completely unbiased. On the other hand, I can point to principle about why this book is so needed.

As I mentioned before, the key to deep learning is processing the information in a variety of ways, and social interaction around the content is a valuable form of processing. Consequently, social media can have a valuable role in training and learning. However, trainers are not always familiar or comfortable with social media, nor understand how they could practically be used.

This book provides just the concise information needed. The media are presented simply with examples and steps, the examples are clear and relevant, and appropriate disclaimers are made about the changing nature of the technology.

The nicest part, for me, is the last chapter where Jane reconnects the message back into the larger picture: of learning, of work, and of organizations. For one, she talks a bit about how social relates to learning, an important conception. And she makes the necessary link between augmenting formal learning and the informal learning power of social networks.

The last, in particular, is enabled by mobile. Jane does address mobile, as the social tools mentioned have mobile mechanisms. The mobile dimension extends the reach of the opportunities, and the learning experience, as well as opening up the possibilities of bridging the gap between informal and formal.

While I could make small tweaks (put the processing up front, mention personal reflection via blogs), overall this book is a ‘must own’ for trainer & instructional designers, and managers of same. This book complements Marcia Conner & Tony Bingham’s The New Social Learning, and our The Working Smarter Fieldbook, serving as the hands on guide to frontline use of social media.

Levels of learning experience design

28 September 2010 by Clark Leave a Comment

If you want to achieve meaningful outcomes in the space of the important work, you need to ensure that the process is optimized. This means that you want to streamline formal learning, maximize the utility of resources, and facilitate optimal interaction. This is the realm of learning experience design.

Learning experience design can, and should, operate at several levels. For one, you want individual learning experiences to be optimal. You want a minimalist approach that combines effective cognitive design with engaging emotional design. You want the formal resources to be designed to mesh with the task and provide effective information design. And you want the social learning tools to be organized around the way the team coheres.

Here we are talking deeper instructional design, information mapping, and aligned social media.

At the next level, you want your learning development processes to make it easy to do good learning design: you want your tools and templates to scaffold proper outcomes (and preclude bad design), and you want your oversight to be based upon sound principles.

Here we are on about design processes and teams, as well as tools. We can be talking about content models and delivery architectures as well.

At a higher level, you want your components of learning to complement one another, so courses are designed in synchrony with your resources and networks, and vice versa, and you want your IT infrastructure to be based upon structures that maintain security, reliability, and maintainability with flexibility so as not to preclude new directions.

Here we are talking content frameworks and hosting architectures, semantics, and organizational alignment and culture.

Unfortunately, most organizations in my experience, are using flawed models at the first level, are embryonic at the second, and are oblivious of the top. Yet, the competitive advantage will increasingly come from just such an optimized structure, as working *smarter* will increasingly be the only sustainable edge. So, are you ready to move ahead?

Learning malpractice

27 September 2010 by Clark 8 Comments

Richard Nantel tweeted about Chris Dede talking about Educational Malpractice. Unfortunately, while it does accurately characterize the education space, it is not inappropriate to apply to the workplace as well. I would extend that to Training Malpractice, but I want to take it further. Because organizations are committing crimes at more than just the training level.

Let’s start with formal learning, or training. Remember, our goals are retention over time until the learning is needed, and transfer to all appropriate situations, not just ones that are seen in the learning experience. Now, realize that one of the worst things you can do to lead to long term retention is to try to have all the learning condensed into one session.. Consequently, the ‘massed practice’ of the learning *event* is a broken model! Similarly, the ‘knowledge test’ as a form of assessment has essentially no transfer value to meaningful practice. Yet these are the trusted hallmarks of corporate learning.

But wait, there’s more! Beyond courses, there are performance support resources. Are they organized by need, so that each performer has a unique portal? Well, no. (“Portals? Yeah, we’ve got hundreds of them!”). Every unit has it’s own place to put things for others, and the poor worker has to search high and low to find resources. No wonder they give up. Worse, courses are designed in lieu of any cognizance of the resources.

And while informal learning, as facilitated by search and social networks, may not be actively discouraged, the lack of any cohesive effort to coordinate the network, let alone aligning with resources and formal learning, characterizes the average workplace. Sharing may not be valued or even punished!

The levels above this (systems, strategies) are even more broken. How, when companies supposedly believe that “employees are our most important asset”, can this wholesale malfeasance continue? Please, help right this wrong. If you need help, ask, but don’t continue these mistakes. For your company and your own self-respect.

Shifting perspectives

23 September 2010 by Clark 5 Comments

In the Internet Time Alliance chat, yesterday, we were discussing the apparently difficultly some are seeming to have with the necessary mind shifts to comprehend the benefits of social media for organizational learning. It seems to me that there are 3 roles and each has an associated shift.

‘Management’

The old thinking was that the thinking is done from the top and percolates down. Whatever skills are needed are brought in or identified and the learning unit develops it. There’s a direct relationship between the specific skills and the impact on the business.

The new thinking is that the goals are identified and made clear and then the employees are empowered to achieve the goals in the ways that seem best. They can provide input into the goals, and adapt the skillsets as needed.

The is important because of speed, productivity, and outcomes. First, the world is moving faster, and there is no longer time to plan, prepare and execute. It has also been demonstrated that employees are more productive when they’ve bought into the plan and have responsibility. It’s also the case that bringing more brains ‘online’ to help achieve goals ultimately makes better decisions.

The necessary components are that workers need a context where they can contribute safely and are empowered to work.

The Learning Unit

The old thinking was that the learning unit was about ‘training’. That the learning unit responded to identified skill needs, created training, delivered it, and then measured whether employees thought it was worthwhile. The focus was on courses.

The new thinking is that the learning unit is about ensuring that the necessary complement of skills and resources are available. That the responsibility is not just for formal learning, but performance support, and social interchange. That the role is facilitation, not delivery.

This is important because the workforce needs to be focused on the task, with the tools to hand, but the nature of the important work is changing. It’s no longer about doing something known, but about dealing with the unknown. Really, any time you’re problem-solving, research, design, creating new products and services, by definition you don’t have the answer and the skills necessary are meta-skills: how to problem-solve, get information, trial solutions, evaluate the outcomes. It’s about working together as well as independently.

The necessary components are to define and track the new skills, to provide an infrastructure where learners can take responsibility, and to track outcomes and look for opportunities to improve the environment, whether the performer skills, the tools, or the resources. Yes, there are still courses, but they’re only one component of a bigger picture, and they take a format that is conducive to these new skills: they’re active and exploratory.

The workforce

The old thinking was that they did what they were told, until they could do it without being told. The strategic thinking was done elsewhere, and they took a defined role.

The new thinking is that workers are told what the goals are, and have to figure out how to accomplish it, but not just alone. It’s a collaborative effort where there are resources and tools, and we contribute to the outcome while reviewing the work for opportunities to improve. Workers contribute at both the execution and the innovation level. They have to take responsibility.

This is important because, as stated above, what with automation, the work that really matters is shifting, and organizations that try to continue to sequester the important thinking to small sections of the organization will lose out to those that can muster larger brain trusts to the work.

The necessary components are leadership, culture, and infrastructure. Workers have to comprehend the goals, believe in the culture, and have the tools – individual and collective – to accomplish the goals.

Hopefully, the contrasts are clear, as are the opportunities. It’s the shift from hierarchy to wirearchy. What am I missing?

Augmenting Learning

21 September 2010 by Clark 2 Comments

In looking for a title for my forthcoming book on mobile learning, Aaron Silvers took one of the key principles, augmenting performance, and, combining it with a neat complement to my previous book, Engaging Learning, came up with Augmenting Learning. I liked it very much, as it elegantly captured several meanings I’m keen on, and I like the principle of having a title that works in a couple of ways.

Unfortunately, the publisher didn’t like it. Worse, the eminent Allison Rossett thought augmenting wasn’t a good word. C’est la vie.

So, what is the title? Well, to hit the marketing goals of being clear to the audience, yet keeping with something I can live with (you do not want to know what other suggestions were floated), we’ve ended up with

Designing mLearning: Tapping Into the Mobile Revolution for Organizational Performance

I like the part before the colon, and the publishers like the part afterward. At least the shorthand title will be Designing mLearning, which I can definitely get behind. And I am excited about the book; I think there are a lot of useful ways to think about mLearning in it (in my completely objective and totally unbiased opinion ;).

Just briefly, however, I want to go into why I thought Augmenting Learning would be a good title. First, it captures the notion that mLearning is not about providing a full learning experience, it’s about supporting a full learning experience: with additional resources, access to learning resources (calendar, content, etc), and a stretched out learning experience. That is, complementing whatever formal learning resources you bring to bear with mobile-accessible components.

Moreover, it’s about augmenting formal learning with informal learning. Performance support, personal, and social learning are all ways in which mobile delivers unique advantages. Whichever of the 4 C’s of mobile learning you bring to bear, you are increasing the ability to perform, both in the moment and overall. Of course, slow learning is a goal I’d be supportive of as well.

Regardless, all the above fall under the rubric ‘designing mlearning’ as well as ‘augmenting learning’, and it passes the sniff test with people more concerned with commercial viability than conceptual elegance. And, if I really do want to have an impact, I have to care about the former as well as the latter. The book does accomplish the goal of providing pragmatic advice, but in a way commensurate with the goal of providing conceptual clarity, and I can live with that.

Small addition to ‘right tech for schools’

17 September 2010 by Clark 1 Comment

The discussion on ITFORUM this week has been deeply about mobile learning (if you’re into mlearning, it’s worth checking in!). Based upon this week’s guest’s question about experience with devices, I opined in ways that should be familiar:

Coming out with a book on mobile learning (mostly organizationally focused), and with kids of my own, I’ve naturally thought about what I think the role of mobile devices could/should be in schools:

I like what Elliot Soloway said many years ago, that a laptop was the wrong form factor for a kid. He used PDAs, but it was more for content creation than consumption. I actually think we want separate devices; a PDA form-factor for field work, and a tablet for in-class content creation. I think a PDA sized device for data capture (audio and video for instance) is more plausible than a tablet, and vice versa for serious content consumption and creation.

I think Kindle’s and Nooks are great text consumption devices, but I’m thinking we want more even in the consumption mode: audio, videos, and animation for instance, but I really think the real opportunity is interactivity, and a monochrome screen just isn’t going to cut it. Yes, the dedicated readers are better for reading, but I want a more general purpose device: simulations/games, for example.

Then there’s content creation. I want kids writing, diagramming, drawing, editing video and audio, and more. That more would be actual model building. I think that makes sense for a device bigger than a PDA, e.g. tablet-sized.

And I think the touchscreen approach is right for for much of what I’d like kids to do. Works for me, too ;). (Ok, a keyboard’s good for text entry, so maybe that’s ‘available’).

Those are conceptual arguments, here’s my pragmatic situation. I never bought an e-reader; I’ve liked print just fine. I did not intend to get an iPad; I’m ‘frugal’ (read: cheap), and I don’t spend money typically until I understand the full value proposition. However, between the announcement of the iPad and it’s actual availability, I realized that it had significant roles separate from my iPhone (which I already had). And those were content creation, not consumption (tho’ I’ve now taken advantage of those, too). I haven’t traveled with a laptop since I got my iPad, and am seriously glad I spent the money.

[Slight alteration] I’ve also blogged about how not allowing cross-platform development tools (read: Scratch, perhaps a HyperCard or clone) really is a bad move on Apple’s part for the education community. Their recent loosening of the rules gives some hope, but the lack of ability to import code is still a problem. Maybe HTML 5 will give us a browser-delivery environment.

It’s not that new, but still I think puts a slightly different spin on the situation than my last post. I welcome any thoughts you have!

« Previous Page