I’ve been on a ‘transformation‘ kick. And it occurs to me to think that it may be more marketing than meaning. One aspect is that we need to be making transformation manifest to our learners.

The transformation I’m talking about is our learning experiences. That is, while we need to transform our practices and ourselves, here I’m talking about the outcomes of our design. I want the experience to be more than just mundane, I want it to be transformative.

And, I realize, learning  inherently is transformative. You’re coming away with new understandings, skills, and/or perspectives. If it’s effective, you’ve changed. That’s what learning is about! It does need to be effective, but if it is, you’re newly capable.

So it’s not about helping folks transform. That’s happening. Instead, it’s about helping people  realize that they’re transformed. Which is more about marketing, really.

What’s involved in making transformation manifest? To make it work it takes steps at the beginning and the end of the experience. At the beginning, it’s helping learners realize two things:

• That they do want to learn this
• That they don’t know it now

There are a variety of ways these can be done. We can make it humorously or dramatically clear why this is important. And we can let them actually try, or convince them that their knowledge isn’t up to the necessary level.

Ultimately, we need to make it clear that they now have a new ability. They may also need to have the confidence to try when the situation arises. Again, I’ll suggest two steps:

• They need to know that they now have a new capability
• Introduce them, directly or indirectly, to the community of folks who also have this ability

To demonstrate their new ability, they need to actually perform and succeed. And we should acknowledge, even celebrate, their new capability. We should be explicit, and even consider a ritual that signifies their accomplishment.  Badges could make sense here.

The point is that learners  are changing. If we’ve done our job right, they’re looking at the world in a somewhat different way. We should help them recognize that, for their sake and ours. They should know their new capability, and they should acknowledge, even respect, our contribution. I’m suggesting we should explicitly be making transformation manifest. What do you think?

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.

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!

In terms of the various ways in which we can support the gaps in our cognition, one of the terms is ‘templates’. And it’s worth discussing what a template is, and considering them at a variety of levels. I want to suggest we should have templates for good.

What is a template? Merriam-Webster defines it as “a gauge, pattern, or mold used as a guide to the form of a piece being made”. In terms of software and business, templates are forms with some of the elements already completed. Instead of starting from scratch, pieces are already done, and there are slots for various information.

Why use templates?  With them, it’s easier to do design. They make it easy to accomplish particular goals. They can make it easy to build particular types of outputs, and make them more systematic and consistent. For better or worse.

How does that change for learning? Here, a template tends to be a framework for particular interactions. For example, there are the tarted-up quiz show formats. With more depth, we can provide guides for learning, suggesting quality elements. We might have a place in our examples for the underlying thinking. Or we could  structure practice as decision making.

But we can have templates at higher levels, too. For instance, we can ask that the objective include elements of measurable evaluation, and carry that forward through the final practice design. We can go beyond that, and have structures to guide doing good curricula design.

If I have to choose, of course, I’ll go for substance over style. I’d rather your templates suggest good design than flashy but insubstantial experience. It’s time to be doing evidence-based learning instead of gaudy but rote experiences. If we’re going to have templates, let’s have templates for good.

Occasionally I try to look at the broader swings we see (in a variety of things). In learning technology, there’s been a gross pendulum swing, and maybe smaller ones. I think we’ve swung between craft and commercial approaches to design, and I’m hoping we’re on a return swing.

When we first started playing with learning technology, every approach was pretty much hand-crafted. We didn’t have specific tools for learning outcomes, and we had to apply generic tools like computer systems and the like. Early approaches like Plato were custom crafted, and the individual applications on top of that. And a small industry was built upon this basis to build solutions at scale, but the market never emerged. The whole solution was too costly, despite the power.

The PC revolution initially meant individuals or small teams built solutions. There did emerge authoring systems (e.g. Pilot) and even a meta-language for developing human-computer learning interactions. However, the usage was small. People handbuilt things like games (e.g. Robot Odyssey and SnooperTroops), though a few companies arose to do this systematically.

As technology changed, so to did the platforms. Video discs and Computer- and then Web-Based Training emerged. Companies emerged to do them at scale, but things were changing rather fast. Flash came about as a web-based lingua franca, where programs could run in most browsers with a plug in.  And, specifically for learning, Authorware became a powerful tool.

Still as things changed quickly, most solutions were driven by a real need, and hand-crafting was the norm.  But, of course, this changed.

With the horrors of 9/11, travel went from an increasingly affordable luxury to undesirable. The demand came for ‘elearning’, reducing costs from travel and overhead. With it came tools that made it easy to take content, add a quiz, and pop it up on a screen. A shift came from quality to quantity.

And this has continued in many guises. The difference, I  hope, is that the pendulum is swinging back.  The signs I see are an increase in interest in learning science. Several contributions may come from the Guild’s DemoFest, Julie Dirksen’s Design for How People Learn, Will Thalheimer’s Debunker Club, and the Serious eLearning Manifesto. We’re learning more about good design, and more people are picking up on it. We’re talking learning experience design, integrating learning science with engagement.

If you look at other industries like automobiles, we went from craft to commercial (c.f. assembly line manufacturing). While we’re unlikely to go back to fully crafted, owing to safety regulations, we’re seeing more options for establishing individual representation. And in furniture and clothing we’re seeing more craft.

The quality is important, and if we swing back to craft now, maybe when we swing back we’ll be commercial reflecting learning quality, not expediency. In some sense it doesn’t matter between craft and commercial, as long as it’s good. And hopefully that becomes a defining characteristic of our industry. Fingers crossed!