So I’m at a client site, and talking about their client. I worked hard with my client to develop a document detailing the enhanced learning design we wanted to implement on the behalf of the secondary client, well justified in cognitive science, detailed about use of media, specifying lean and punchy prose, etc., all the stuff everyone from Michael Allen to myself suggests is necessary to make traditional instructional design work for elearning. Which the secondary client agreed to and signed off on.

So, of course, this time I hear a story about how this secondary client took some draft content, ripped out the instructionally designed prose, and dumped in a bunch of technical material; not written for reading on the screen, using too much jargon, and so on. Of course, my client pointed out that this material violated the design guidelines, was inappropriate, etc. And the secondary client agreed but insisted it had to be kept in.

There’s a lot of bad instructional design out there, but not all of it is due to bad design, some of it is due to reasons that are political, social, organizational, and who knows what else. Some times, even when you try your best, you just can’t win…

Last summer (at the eLearning Guild’s ID conference), I heard Will Thalheimer talk about two different types of learning objectives. One is the familiar, Mager-style objectives we, as designers, use to guide the development of learning. The other, Will opined, is the objective you present for the learner. He articulated a thought that seemed obvious to me, but fortunately he’s got the data to back it up.

I say fortunately because it’s apparently not obvious to everyone that the objectives in the elearnign experience should be written for the learner! I continue to see objectives that as a learner, would immediately make my eyes glaze over and essentially diminish if not completely eradicate any benefit of the subsequent experience.

So, please, take a look at the objectives, rewrite them so that the learner ‘gets’ why they should care, and make sure you use language appropriate to the learner, not to the marketer or whoever else mires these in ‘bizbuzz’.

I think I’ve gotten infected. I’ve always been a fan of the constructivist philosophy (and I’m taking a broad interpretation here, meaning learners actively engaged in guided activities to faciliate developing their own understanding), but more in theory than practice. I’d felt that in the constraints of higher education and industry, where timing is critical, overt constructivism was a luxury for K12.

Last fall, Bobbi Kamil (of Cable in the Classroom fame) suggested to me to, effectively, ‘have faith’, and I recalled that while I’d struggled with the uncertainty my learners had in my project-based assignments (way back when I was teaching at UNSW), at the end they seemed to ‘get it’ better than I’d expected given their struggles.

It was reinforced during my recent attendance at NASAGA’s annual conference last fall, which despite the name (Simulation and Gaming Association) really focuses (at least at the conference) on creating lively learning interactions. Again, at Training 2006, I listened to Meier, one of the gurus of ‘accelerated learning’, and it was all about active learning (ignoring other elements I’d heard of including music, ritual, etc).

And now I’m beginning to thinking differently when I design learning. It’s part and parcel of my approach to game design, but getting mapped out to face to face interactions also (probably the reverse of most folks). As with game design, I suspect it’s a ‘habit of mind’. I’m interested in seeing what effect it has on my own forthcoming workshops!

On principle I want to push it since just as we find it easy to drop down to knowledge presentation in so much of what we do (I’ve just been reviewing some elearning), we also tend to present rather than support discovery. I’ll encourage you to do the same, and let me know what barriers you perceive.

Jay Cross has written a screed that resonates strongly with me. In it, he makes the case for investing in improving learner’s learning and/or thinking abilities, not just their task-related skill-sets.

We’ve argued this before, as part of our meta-learning interest, but it remains cogent (and all too ignored). The point being, and particularly for knowledge workers, that skills about self-learning, about reflecting and problem-solving, are the key in moving forward. Tony O’Driscoll’s pointed out how as you gain more expertise the value of received wisdom diminishes and you’re in a state of continual knowledge development and negotiation of shared understanding.

Well, what if you don’t know how to reflect well? Or to capture the understandings you’ve developed, or how to communicate, or how to negotiate understanding? If you don’t have the necessary skills, your effectiveness is hampered, yet no one’s talking about investing in the effectiveness of the background skills. And if you think that you can just hire people with these skills, or trust them to develop on their own, the evidence is that you’re sadly mistaken.

I’ve been working on how we might use technology to develop these skills as a layer on top of our learning systems, but I think a necessary additional step is explicit acknowledgement of the need, and more concerted efforts on developing these skills. So what are we waiting for?

After the recent (and excellent) ITFORUM discussion, Stewart Kelly had a message that included this:

One of my professors once worked at an exclusive private school. She told us that the students in this school were not taught how to become cogs in the machine, rather they were taught the metacognitive and leadership skills they would need to “rule” over the rest of society.

I don’t want to make this sound like a conspiracy theory, but I would submit that our students would be best served by developing these types of skill sets too.

I couldn’t agree more. I took my ‘wisdom’ interest, as part of a presentation I gave to the eMerging eLearning conference, and wondered what a curriculum for the future would be. It included meta-cogntiive & leadership skills, in addition to systems-thinking & modelling, research & design, ethics & values, etc.

To the question of who needs leadership skills, someone once replied “everyone”, which is going to be increasingly true going forward. With the accelerating rate of change, prognoticators saying we’ll be a ‘free-agent nation’, and the changing nature of work having us working more on a project basis, what will be necessary will be our skills to adapt, to learn, to work with others, and take different roles to achieve success. It’ll be about attitude and approach as much as pure knowledge.

And right now, that’s not coming from the schools, because the educational establishment hasn’t yet figured out how to test this new curricula (among other things:). How are we going to get change fast enough to save our current generation?