When you look at the full design process, I admit to a bias. Using Analysis-Design-Development-Implementation-Evaluation, ADDIE, (though I prefer more iterative models: SAM, LLAMA, …), I focus early. There are two reasons why, but I really should address them.  So let’s talk beyond ‘design’ and why my bias might exist. (It pays to be a bit reflective, or defensive?, from time to time.)

I do believe that it’s important to get the first parts right. I’ve quipped before that if you get the design right, there are lots of ways to implement it. To do that, you need to get the analysis and design right. So I focus there. And, to be sure, there’s enough detail there to suit (or befuddle) most. Also, lots of ways we go wrong, so there’s suitable room for improvement. It’s easy, and useful, to focus there.

Another reason is that implementation, as implied in the quip, can vary. If you have the resources, need, and motivation, you can build simulation-driven experiences, maybe even VR. There are different ways to do this, depending. And those ways change over time. For instance, a reliable tool was Authorware, and then Flash, and now we can build pretty fancy experiences in most authoring tools. It’s a craft thing, not a design thing.

Implementation does matter. How you roll things out is an issue. As Jay Cross & Lance Dublin made clear in Implementing eLearning, you need to treat interventions as organizational change. That includes vision, and incentives, and communication, and support, and… And there’s a lot to be learned there. Julie Dirksen addresses much in her new book Talk to the Elephant about how things might go awry, and how you can avoid the perils.

Finally, there’s evaluation. Here, our colleague Will Thalheimer leads the way, with his Learning Transfer Evaluation Model (LTEM). His book, Performance Focused Learner Surveys comes closest to presenting the whole model. Too often, we basically do what’s been asked, and don’t ask more than smile sheets at best. When, to be professional, we should have metrics that we’re shooting to achieve, and then test and tune until we achieve them.

Of course, there’re also my predilections. I find analysis and design, particularly the latter, to be most intellectually interesting. Perhaps it’s my fascination with cognition, which looks at both the product and process of design. My particular interest is in doing two things: elegantly integrating cognitive and ‘emotional‘ elements, and doing so in the best ways possible that push the boundaries but not the constraints under which we endeavor. I want to change the system in the long term, but I recognize that’s not likely to happen without small changes first.

So, while I do look beyond design, that’s my more common focus. I think it’s the area where we’re liable to get the best traction. Ok, so I do say that measurement is probably our biggest lever for change, but we’ll achieve the biggest impact by making the smallest changes that improve our outcomes the most. Of course, we have to be measuring so that we know the impact!

Overall, we do need the whole picture. I do address it all, but with a bias. There are others who look at the whole process. The aforementioned Julie, for one. Her former boss and one of our great role-models, Michael Allen, for another. Jane Bozarth channels research that goes up and down the chain. And, of course, folks who look at parts. Mirjam Neelen & Paul Kirschner, Connie Malamed, Patti Shank, they all consider the whole, but tend to have areas of focus, with considerable overlap. Then we go beyond, to performance support and social, and look to people like Mark Britz, Marc Rosenberg, Jay Cross, Guy Wallace, Nigel Paine, Harold Jarche, Charles Jennings, and more.

All to the good, we benefit from different perspectives. It’s hard to get your mind around it all, but if you start small, with your area, it’s easy to begin to see connections, and work out a path. Get your design right, but go beyond design as well to get that right (or make sure it’s being done right to not undermine the design ;). So say I, what say you?

One of my favorite things to do is to help people apply the cognitive and learning sciences (under realistic constraints). That can be to their practices, processes, or products, via consulting, workshops, writing, and more. One thing I’ve done over the past few years is doing this for a particular entity. I was found via a workshop, and ended up coming on as an advisor. They’re now about ready to go live, and it’s time for me to tell you what they’re doing, why, and how. So here’s an application of applied learning science.

It starts with a problem, as many good solutions do. The issue is that, in L&D, too often they’re delivering live sessions to address a particular situation. Whether someone’s said “we need a course on this”, or there’s been a deep analysis, at some point they’ve pulled people together. It could be a day, several days in a row, or even spaced out every other week, every month, what have you. And, we know, that by and large, this isn’t going to lead to change!

Research on learning tells us, quite strongly, that to achieve a persistent new ability to ‘do’, we need to strengthen the learning over time. New information gets forgotten after only a day or two, according to the forgetting curve! So, we need to reactivate the learning. That can be reconceptualization, recontextualization, or reapplication. It can also be reflection, and even planning, and evaluation.

However, it’s been tough to do this reactivation. It typically requires finagling, and faces objections; not just the learners, but also the stakeholders! Such interventions need to be small but effective. That’s what this solution does. Other approaches have been tried, and some other solutions do exist, but this one has a couple of advantages. For one, a clear focus. It’s not doing other things, except reactivating learning.

Ok, one other thing, it’s also collecting data. Too often,  there’s no way to know if it learning’s effective. Even if there’s intent, it’s hard to get approval. So, this solution not only reactivates learning as mentioned, it tracks the responses. In practical ways.

What’s been my role? That’s the other thing; we’re applying this in ways that reflect what learning science tells us. Ok, we have to make some inferences, that we’re testing, but we’re starting from good principles. So, I’m advising on the spacing of the learning and the content of the reactivation. We call those prompts, that ask learners to respond. These prompts then gather into small chunks called LIFTs (Learning Interventions Fueling Transformation). (Everyone’s gotta have an acronym, after all, and this plays along with the company name, Elevator 9 ;).  The sequence of LIFTs makes a learning journey.

What’s important is how many we need, and how frequently we deliver them. It’s dependent on some factors, so we’re asking about those too: frequency of application, complexity, importance, and prior experience. Hopefully, in clear and useful ways.  They’re actively  looking for companies that are keen to help us refine this, too (in return for the usual considerations ;).

The end result is a product that easily supplements your live events. Your learners get reactivations, and you get data. Importantly, you get better outcomes from your interventions. This capability is possible, the goal is just to make it easy to do. Moreover, with a solution that not only embodies but shares the underlying learning science, improving you as it does your learners. Win-Win! I generally don’t tout solutions, but this one has actively put learning science (tempered by reality, to be sure) at the forefront. Applied learning science, and technology, the way it ought to be done. It’s been an honor to work with them!

A number of years ago now, I analyzed the corporate market for a particular approach. Not normally something I do (not a tool/market analyst), but at the time it made sense. My recommendation, at the end of the day, was the market wasn’t ready for the product. I am inclined to think that the answer would be different today. Maybe we are getting smarter?

First, why me? A couple of reasons. For one, I’m independent. You (should) know that you’ll get an unbiased (expert) opinion. Second, this product was something quite closely related to things I do know about, that is, learning experiences that are educationally sound. Third, the asker was not only a well-known proponent of quality learning, but knew I was also a fan of the work. So, while I’m not an analyst, few same would’ve really understood the product’s value proposition, and I do know the tools market at a useful level. I knew there was nothing else on the market like it, and the things that were closest I also knew (from my authoring simulation games work, as in my first book, and the research reports for the Learning Guild).

The product itself allowed you to author deep learning experiences. That is, where you immerse yourself in authentic tasks, with expert support and feedback. Learning tasks that align with performance tasks are the best practice environments, and in this case were augmented with resources available at the point of need. The main problem was that they required an understanding of deep learning to be able to successfully author. In many cases, the company ended up doing the design despite offering workshops about the underlying principles. Similarly, the industrial-strength branching simulation tools I knew then struggled to survive.

And that was my reason, then, to suggest that the market wasn’t ready. I didn’t think enough corporate trainers, let alone the managers and funding decision-makers, would get the value proposition. There still are many who are ‘accidental’ instructional designers, and more so then. The question, then, is whether such a tool could now succeed. And I’m more positive now.

I think we are seeing greater interest in learning science. The big societies have put it on their roadmaps, and our own little LDA learning science conference was well received. Similarly, we’re seeing more books on learning science (including my own), and more attention to same.  I think more folks are looking for tools that make it easy to do the right thing. Yes, we’re also confronting the AI hype, but I think after the backlash we’ll start thinking again about good, not just cheap and fast. I not only hope, but I think there’s evidence we are getting smarter and more focused on quality. Fingers crossed!