Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Deeper ID: Coming FRIDAY to a browser near you!

by Leave a Comment

The eLearning Guild runs a great set of Online Forums (standard disclaimers about my involvement). They’re offering one tomorrow and Friday on Creating Innovative Instructional Content – Advanced Theory and Application, and for mysterious reasons needed a pinch-hitter.   So, my involvement continues, and I’ll be on Friday at 10:15-11:30 Pacific Time, talking about Deeper Instructional Design.

This is a topic that I continually see a need for, sad to say.   As I just wrote for the blurb: “The evidence is clear; it‘s too easy to find eLearning with a rote knowledge focus, verbose writing, boring introductions, fact recitation, useless examples, meaningless practice, and a consequent rapid atrophy of the experience.   What we want is meaningful outcomes, and what we get is a painful experience to be avoided.”

What I’ll be doing is working through the various components of instructional design: intro, concept, example, practice, and summary   (which don’t have to be used in this order, but there’s only so much a person can cover in one presentation), and talking about the cognitive and motivational underpinnings that make these elements work.   For each, I’ve specific ways to improve.   It’s not necessarily new, but too few folks seem to know about it!   Yet the research points to greater learning outcomes.

I’ll be in good company; the line-up of speakers has some known names, and some important topics.   Problem-Based Learning is definitely noteworthy, as are the Semantic Web and Competencies & Roles, and I’m personally intrigued by Video Interactive Learning Objects. The other sessions promise similarly interesting ways to rethink design.   Karen Hyder coordinates the presentations, and she is great at making sure that presenters are comfortable and presenting effectively.   So, if you’re looking for greater depth and quality in your elearning, I recommend the forum.   A great conference from your own browser in two half-day sessions!   Hope to see you there.

Learning by doing

by 6 Comments

Well, this weekend was an interesting one.   On Saturday morning I not only resurrected my site, but got my Twitter experiment advanced by managing to insert a tweet feed into the blog sidebar. Of course, it formats strangely, and I haven’t been able to fix it yet.   I tried using the span command, but around the Javascript it didn’t seem to work.

Then it was changing the bathroom light fixtures.   Successfully, following on a recent toilet replacement exercise.   In between was an absolutely great block party our neighbors organized, with activities for the kids, food and drink for all.   Learnings from each exercise!

One of the things I tweaked to was that if we sit down and start using the right tool for the job, have patience and persistence, and be willing to stop and think, we can get more done that we thought, we just have to be brave (he stays, still in anxiety mode over making a deck on the slope in the backyard).   Of course, we’re benefited to the extent we see more standards in tools and equipment (I like that they’re standardizing on electrical hardware, which makes it pretty much plug-and-play, even if it took some creativity to end-run two different boxes in two different bathrooms, ahem).   Slowly but surely, the house is being transformed.

The second learning is on community.   By pulling together all the neighbors on our cul-de-sac, we’re building an awareness of each other, which supports us helping each other.   The usual suspects pitched in, and some new folks were invited to join.   It was a lovely evening though the breeze picked up to the point where people started heading out for sweaters before coming back.   I had to think: why can’t the whole world be getting together in their neighborhood and having a party?   Of course, it’s hard when they’re bullets flying by, bombs going off, etc.   Sigh.   Still, creating the right environment for getting together creates the right environment for sharing, and that’s where learning happens.

So, use the right tools, set the right context, and be willing to work and reflect and improve and continue on.   Hope you too had a good weekend!

Model madness

by 2 Comments

Well, if you happened to hit my blog between yesterday and today, you might’ve noticed some slight changes to the format.   Unintentional.   I’ve just started tweeting (using Twitter), and had seen how your tweets could appear in a window in your blog.   I wanted to do the same, but my blog template is old.   I wanted to look at another template so I clicked on it, and it installed the new theme, not just giving me information.   Which wiped out the header and some of the customization on my sidebar.

I pinged my ISP, who’s also a friend/colleague/mentor, and was my boss a couple of times.   Sky let me know that the themes are just different sub-directories that get swapped between, and if I just clicked on another theme I’d eventually get mine back.   Which worked, and it’s now back, but there’s a lesson in there.

First, I’m reasonably tech literate.   I programmed for a living (for Sky, actually) before I went back to grad school.   I’ve maintained a knowledge of what tech can do, though I no longer maintain fluency in any languages.   I’ve maintained, updated, and have customized my sites as well (this blog, my book site, and my company site).   However, my understanding is more conceptual these days; e.g. while I know what CSS is and why it’s good and you should use it, I’m pretty much at the crayon level with it.

However, the lesson is that having taught interface design (and studied with Don Norman) I know that the interface could be doing a better job of helping me build a conceptual model of how my blog site operates.   They recently changed the blog entry interface, and actually made it worse because the ‘tag’ interface is no longer on the screen initially, it’s hidden down below and you need to scroll to get to it (which means I forget sometimes).   But overall, I really don’t understand where and how they’re using files to compile this site.

Now, I also don’t know PHP (or javascript, or Python, or… the point being that there are so many different web technologies I can’t keep up with them all; it’s not how I add value to the endeavors I’m engaged in), but I’ve managed to muddle through adding things to the files like the Feedblitz signup (if you want to read via email, like I do).   The old interface made it really hard to find a file to edit that you hadn’t edited recently, and the new one’s better (some things get worse and others get better, but really things should steadily get better). I realize web interfaces are going to be weaker than application ones, but it doesn’t have to be this hard.   Of course, as far as I know it’s free, so I shouldn’t complain too much.

Still, one of the things we know is that if there is a conceptual model underlying how something’s implemented, making that conceptual model clear (or even available) will help people work with a system when they’re using it intermittently.   There’re no clues for me in WordPress.   Now, their working assumption for people who’ve installed their own copy is that they’re reasonably facile with PHP and probably more regularly generating code, so maybe I’m not one of their target users.   Still, there’s little to be lost, and a lot to be gained by making the underlying model clear.

I do recommend you read Don’s Design of Everyday Things book, which helps explain why mappings and models are powerful guides to action. Everyone who designs solutions for others should read it; it’s an easy and short read, and it will definitely change the way you look at the world.   In a positive way, and that’s a good thing, I reckon.   Oh, and do include conceptual models in your learning designs. It leads to much more persistent and flexible performance.

Ain’t it Tweet?

by 4 Comments

OK, so my colleague/mentor/friend Sky finally got me on Twitter.   If you don’t know twitter, it’s a microblog, where you post the equivalent of a SMS (text message), maximum 160 characters.   People I respect are into it, but I’d wondered the advantages.   Sky told me he was using TwitterFox which lets you put it in your Firefox browser.   So I installed it, and managed to get it running (tho’ I may still be mucking a few things up).   And finding out that people will ‘follow’ you in the hopes you’ll visit and see their ads, e.g. weightloss; there’s spam everywhere; something I’m doing wrong?

So far, I’ve been on it a few days (@Quinnovator), and find it easy to update what I’m doing, harder to use it as a reflective tool.   I’m also only following a couple of folks I know, as I haven’t found an easy way to find folks I know who might be tweeting.   So far, some interesting things are coming through and I’ve answered a couple of questions.

One of the few folks I am following, however, pointed me to this site, recommendations of how to use Twitter as a college student.   I like where someone looks to a technology and finds the learning affordances (what I try to do myself).   I’ve not the experience with Twitter, let alone the additional apps people are building (e.g. retweetme, a twitter reminder system), as yet, so it’s nice to see someone else doing it.

I’m not going to be SMSing my tweets (I’ve a limit on SMS messages, and like that I never come near the limit), but I will be giving it a spin through the browser interface.   Any recommendations?

Am I deluded?

by 2 Comments

As you should know, my book Engaging Learning: Designing e-Learning Simulation Games was published back in 2005.   I was just talking to them about some other possible projects, and the question arose about why it hadn’t been more successful.   I had my story, but I’d welcome your feedback.

I’m quite proud of the book, I have to say; I believe it accomplished what I intended it to, which was to lay out a principled framework about why games are effective for learning, and then give you a systematic process to go about designing them, along with some hints and tips.   It came out at a time when interest was peaking about using games to meet learning needs.   So, why didn’t it fly off the shelves?   My answer is severalfold:

  • It wasn’t marketed well.   My publisher basically sent a few copies to reviewers, and then did little.   I may have not been proactive enough in letting them know my speaking engagements, but I did do a lot of speaking and writing.   That may not have been leveraged sufficiently.
  • The unique contribution, that this book is about how to design learning games, wasn’t really communicated.   That is, while some books tell you about why it’s important, this was the only one that really gives you a design process.   (And still is, as far as I can tell.)
  • At the same time, lots of other books came out that were about games for learning, authors including Johnson, Gee, Shaffer, Aldrich, Koster, and more. They had a different proposition, but some were higher profile for a variety of reasons, and the sheer quantity created confusion.

Now, there are other possible reasons, including most obviously that the book isn’t any good.   I’ve received very nice comments from people who’ve read it, but one of the few Amazon reviews isn’t very nice (I noticed only recently).   So, I could be self-deluded.   Also, I’m not a great self-promoter (that is, while I’m convinced that I’m quite good at what I do, I’m not very active in going out and selling that idea to people).     I probably should’ve been more forward in getting those who told me they liked it to write Amazon reviews (please, feel free!).

I’d really welcome feedback on this, as I did try to make a unique and valuable contribution, and still expect that the book could have ‘legs’ if I can figure out where I might refocus some of my or my publisher’s efforts.   They did mention that they’ve reorganized their marketing department ;).   Comments?   Honest and constructive encouraged as well as supportive.

Mathematics or mathematician, reconsidered

by 5 Comments

“Don’t teach kids mathematics, teach them to be mathematicians.” (I believe it was Seymour Papert)

It was in the scoping phase of a new project where this came to mind, and I realized that, depending on your definition of ‘mathematician’, I don’t want them to be mathematicians either, but I want them to be mathematical problem solvers.   That is, I don’t necessarily want them to be able to create mathematical theories any more than I want them to be able to recite math formulas; I want them to be able to solve problems with mathematics.   And, as Jonassen tells us, the problems we give kids to solve in schools bear little resemblance to those they need to face in the real world.

My thoughts wandered further, however.   I wondered if we could create rubrics around what a good math problem-solver looks like, and have students evaluate each other and assist one another in becoming good problem-solvers.   Like Brown and Palincsar’s Reciprocal Teaching, they could take turns solving problems and looking at how they do it.

Of course, I want to generalize it, and find rubrics that define meaningful skills like searching, design, research, problem-solving, etc, even for adults (ala work literacy) that individual can use for self-evaluation, but also peer or guide evaluation (360; level 3, etc) and mentoring. Particularly for digital literacy.

What do you think; would you like a set of such metrics and a social support infrastructure to self-develop in the use of new technologies and skills for accomplishing your goals?

What do *you* want in a Serious Games Seminar?

by 4 Comments

Ok, so you know I’ll be co-leading the eLearning Guild’s Summer Seminar Series on Immersive Learning Simulations with Jeff Johannigman (hope to see you there!).   We’ll be getting seriously into planning soon, and it occurred to me to find out your thoughts on what should be there.

It’ll be based at least somewhat on my tried and true workshop, but it’ll have Jeff’s expertise in game design, and a broader focus including at least separating ILS from Virtual Worlds.   So, what should absolutely be in there? What would be nice to have? What should we skip?   I’d like to have your input to make it as good as it can be!   So, your thoughts?   (And thanks in advance!)

Expert vs designer: who wins?

by 4 Comments

We had quite the heated discussion today on a project I’m working on, and one of the emergent issues was whether ‘the expert’ dictates the objectives, or whether the developer could change them. I recognized that this is not only an issue in our process going forward (read: scalability), but it’s also a larger issue.

In this case, the design that was presented by the developer to the expert (this is a simplification, our team process is more complicated than this :) ) didn’t match the expert’s expectation. (This was an artifact of a bad choice of language at the beginning that confounded the issue.) However, the expert expected to present the objectives, and the game would be designed to achieve that objective. Which I would agree with, but with one caveat.

My caveat is two-fold. First, experts aren’t necessarily masters of learning. Second, they may not actually have access to the necessary objectives: expertise is ‘compiled’ and experts don’t necessarily know how they do what they do! (An outcome of cognitive science research, it’s something I talk about in my ‘deeper elearning’ talk and also my white paper on the topic, .pdf) In this case the experts will be instructors on the topic, so presumably they’re both aware of content and learning design, but we all know courses can be too much knowledge, not enough skill.

Now, as Sid Meier said, “a good game is a series of interesting decisions”, and my extension is that good learning practice is a series of important decisions. I claim that you can’t give me a learning objective I can’t make a game for, but I reserve the right to move the objective high enough (in a learning taxonomy sense). Similarly, I can see that an expert might bring in an objective that’s not appropriate for any number of reasons: too low a level, not something individuals would really have difficulty with, or not important in the coming years, and the developer might not recognize it as wrong from the point of view of domain expertise, but when mapping a game mechanic onto it would realize it’s wrong because it’s an uninteresting task (or they’re more closely tied to the audience, often being younger, more tech-savvy, etc).

So, I believe (and it’s been my experience) that there’s of necessity a dialog between the source of the domain knowledge, be it expert, professor, whatever, and the designer/developer/whatever. When it comes to objectives, once the expert understands the developer’s point, they do get the final say on the necessary task & skills, but they need to be open to the developer’s feedback and willing to work with them to produce a design that’s both effective and engaging. My book is all about why that’s a doable goal and how to, but in short the elements that make learning practice effective align perfectly with the elements that make an engaging interactive experience (and so say many authors, including Gee, Prensky, Aldrich, Johnson, Shaffer, the list goes on).

Similarly, the developer has to design the game experience around the objective, and while the expert may provide feedback about aesthetic preferences or information helping to establish the audience, at the end the developer has final say on the engagement. With good intentions all around, this will work (with bad intentions, it won’t work regardless :).

Which is, of course, where the team ended up, after an hour of raised voices and frustration. All’s well that ends well, I reckon. Are your experiences or expectations different?

Mobile in perspective

by 4 Comments

I’m not quite sure how the eLearning Guild is publishing the forthcoming articles from their research reports, but I believe it is as part of the Learning Solutions magazine, and that’s certainly the case with this first piece. Ellen Wagner, a member of the mobile research team, has a major article, with a small piece by me that’s an expansion of my earlier thoughts on mobile web. You have to be a least an associate member to download it, but associate membership is free. I’ll add that I believe the Guild is probably the best way to keep up to date on practical applications of technology for learning.

Ellen’s article is a thoughtful look at mobile learning, covering the industry trends. She points out that people are equipped with mobile devices: “the mobile workers aren’t waiting”. She says that the classic top-down doesn’t make sense, and figuring out how to make a mobile learning module does; that is, just do it. On the other hand, she also says that “to have a shot at broad adoption, mobile learning applications must be an integrated part of a larger organizational vision for building capacity”. These aren’t as incommensurate as they may seem, as those in the trenches should begin experimenting with mLearning just as they did with eLearning, and at the same time managers and executives should be looking to the broader eLearning strategy incorporating mobile (as I regularly suggest).

She points out the barriers that still exist, so that even when we’re seeing essentially ubiquitous computational and network capability, we’re seeing incompatibility across providers and platforms. There are still technology barriers to cross, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t start thinking ‘mobile’. The reasons are many, including the increasingly mobile workforce. And she acknowledges the emerging consensus that mobile learning is really about performance support. That may not be the limit, but it’s certainly the low-hanging fruit.

I highly recommend her article, as Ellen’s been deeply involved in the world of content delivery through her recent stint as the eLearning guru at Adobe, and has experience and knowledge that puts her at the forefront of thinking in this space. It’s an honor to have my little piece in the same document as hers. (NB: mine is also available separately as well, PDF).   Check it out!

Lead the Charge?

by 2 Comments

This month’s Learning Circuit’s Big Question of the Month is whether learning organizations should be leading the way in the use of Web 2.0 technologies. Or, to be more exact:

  • Should workplace learning professionals be leading the charge around these new work literacies?
  • Shouldn’t they be starting with themselves and helping to develop it throughout the organizations?
  • And then shouldn’t the learning organization become a driver for the organization?
  • And like in the world of libraries don’t we need to market ourselves in this capacity?

The short answer is yes, we (I’m assuming most of you are learning professionals) should be leading the way. It may seem like an odd locus for technology awareness, but it’s really about technology affordances for organizational effectiveness, not just new technology. That’s why it shouldn’t be IT, or operations, or engineering, because they’re focused on a task, not the meta-level look at how the task is being accomplished, can be improved, etc. And that’s the unique perspective that makes the learning organization the right instigator.

Learning folks have the perspective of looking at the performance needs of the organization, and are charged with helping people meet those needs, but that also gives the learning organization the opportunity to improve them. When it’s the product or servce, it’s the user experience group (that, ideally, gets in early in the design process), but internally, it’s the learning group.

Which means the learning organization can’t be just a training group, but that’s part of the strategic picture I’ve talked about elsewhere. The point being that to truly help an organization you have to move to a performance focus, moving people from novice, through practitioner, to expert, and giving them a coherent support environment. To do this, you need to know what’s available. And, consequently, the learning organization has to experiment with new technologies for it’s own internal workings to determine how and when to deploy them to organizational benefit.

To put it another way, if not the learning organization, then who? Of course, there’s the political perspective as well, demonstrating currency, but I’m more concerned about adding real value. Learning professionals need to know it, bring it to bear when it’s valuable (and skewer it when it’s not), and in general be seen not only knowing what’s what but also what’s hype.

Marketing is smart in general, but it’s not hype, it’s helping transition the perspective from a training group being an expendable cost-center to a learning capability that’s central to organizational effectiveness and performance. Which is where a learning organization should be, right?