In the past couple of days, I’ve come across two different initiatives to improve education. And certainly our education system can stand improvement. However, each one had the same major flaw, and leaves open an opportunity for improvement not to occur. Over a number of engagements I’ve developed the basis of what I think is a necessary foundation for a viable education platform. It’s time to toss it out and see what you all think.

So, one initiative had a proposal of 10 different areas they wanted people to contribute in. This included AI, and personalization, and ‘out of class’ credit, and more. Which is all good, make no mistake! However, nowhere was there the option of ‘a deeper pedagogy’. And that’s a problem. It’s all too easy to chase after the latest shiny object. It makes us feel like we’re both doing something constructive and keeping up with developments. (Not to mention how much fun it is to play with the latest things.) However, gilding bad design is still bad design! We need to make sure the foundation is strong before we go further.

The other initiative has three ways to contribute: lifelong learning, a marketplace, and emerging technology. And, again, the big gap is talking about the pedagogy to begin with.  With a marketplace, you might get some Darwinian selection process, but why not put it out there from the get-go? Otherwise, it’s just cool tinkering around a broken core.

So here’s where I pitch my 3 part story. Note that curriculum is broken too (I’m channeling Roger Schank: ‘Only two things wrong with education, what we teach and how we teach it’), and yet I’m not addressing that. Well, only a second layer of curriculum (see below ;). I think the choice of the first level curriculum is a big issue, but that changes depending on level, goals, etc. Here I’m talking about a platform for delivering the necessary elements of a supportable approach:

1. The first element is a killer learning experience. What do I mean here? I mean an application-based learning approach. Even for so-called theory classes (e.g. typical higher ed), you  do something with this. And the experience is based upon minimal content, appropriate challenge, intrinsic motivation, and more. My claim: this is doable, even when you want to auto-mark as much as possible. Of course, there are still people in the loop.
2. Which leads to the second element, we as the provider are a partner in your success. It’s not ‘sink or swim’, but instead we’re tracking your progress, intervening when it looks like you’re struggling, and accessible at your time and place. We’re also providing the necessary resources to succeed. And we’re not interested in a curve, we’re competency-based and want everyone to get where they can be.  We’re also making sure you’re getting what you need.
3. And that’s the third element, we  develop you. That is, we’re not just developing your knowledge of the field, we’re also developing key success skills. That means we’re giving you chances to practice those skills as well,  and tracking them and developing them as well. This includes things like communication, collaboration, design research, and more. So-called 21C skills.

I suggest that with such an approach, and the right curriculum, you’re providing a full suite of what education  should  be about. And, I suggest, we can do this now, affordably. Technology is part of the picture, learning science is part of the picture, and the commitment to do the right thing is part of the picture. Also, I think this is viable at all levels. K12, higher ed, and workplace.

And, I’ll suggest, anything less really isn’t defensible. We have the know-how, we have the tools, all we need is the will. Yet, despite some notable steps in the right direction, we’re really not there. It’s time to put a stake in the ground. Who’s up for it?

While there are people who claim to be leaders in elearning (and some are), there is another whole group who flies under the radar. These are the people who labor quietly in the background on initiatives that will benefit all of us. I’m thinking in particular of those who work to advance our standards. And they’re really heroes for what they’ve done and are doing.

The initial learning technology standards came out from the AICC.  They wanted a way to share important learning around flight, an area with a big safety burden.  Thus, they were able to come together despite competition.

Several other initiatives include IEEE (which is pretty much  the US based effort on electric and electronic technology standards to the international stage), and the IMS efforts from academia.  They were both working on content/management interoperability, when the US government put it’s foot down. The Department of Defense’s ADL initiative decided upon  a  version, to move things forward, and thus was born SCORM.

Standards are good. When standards are well-written, they support a basis upon which innovation can flourish.  Despite early hiccups, and still some issues, the ability for content written to the standards to run on any compliant platform, and vice versa, has enabled advancements. Well, except for those who were leveraging proprietary standards.  As a better example, look how the WWW standard on top of the internet standards has enabled things like, well, this blog!

Ok, so it’s not all roses.  There are representatives who, despite good intentions, also have vested interests in things going in particular directions. Their motivations might be their employers, research, or other agendas.  But the process, the mechanisms that allow for decision making, usually end up working. And if not, there’s always the ADL to wield the ‘800 lb gorilla’ argument.

Other initiatives include xAPI, sponsored by ADL to address gaps in SCORM. This standard enables tracking and analytics  beyond the course. It’s no panacea, but it’s a systematic way to accomplish a very useful goal. Ongoing is the ICICLE work on establishing principles for ‘learning engineering’, and IBSTPI  for training, performance, and instruction.  Similarly, societies such as ATD and LPI try to create standards for necessary skills (their lists are appendices in the Revolution book).

And it’s hard work!  Trying to collect, synthesize, analyze, and fill in gaps to create a viable approach requires much effort both intellectual  and social!  These people labor away for long hours, on top of their other commitments in many cases.  And in many cases their organizations support their involvement, for good as well as selfish reasons such as being first to be able to leverage the outputs.

These people are working to our benefit. It’s worth being aware, recognizing, and appreciating the work they do.  I certainly think of them as heroes, and I hope you will do so as well.

Over the years, I’ve looked at a lot of learning technology.  And I see a dispiriting trend. There seems to be little learning science of late.  What I see are marketing driven decisions, even when there are claims to science!  And I think this is a problem.

First, I generally resist the ‘let me show you our product and give us your opinion’. That’s free consulting, and a very rude ask!  (Though I’m contemplating it but all they’ll get for free is the number of comments in each category I’ve noted. ;)  Still  I  will investigate things of my volition at times.  I end up seeing a lot of technology by checking it out when someone talks about it, or wandering expo halls.  And what I see concerns me.

For one, there are too many tools that have suites of features that are oriented towards ‘information dump and knowledge test’.  Which we know isn’t going to lead to meaningful learning.  Yet when I try to push them to the next level of engagement (cognitive and emotional), they’re uninterested.  The response: “this is what our customers say they want”.  Which, of course, isn’t what they need.

It gets worse when supposedly more advanced tools are proselytized. I recently sampled one system promoting their advanced memory model.  And the free-to-air course  on learning science was broken!  It failed on a couple of dimensions beyond drilling rote memory about one thing. That’s not a good example to be showing.  Yet people who don’t know better might be enthused.

For a quick test, check to see if there’s anyone who understands learning on the executive team of a vendor. You’ll see all the business roles filled.  Some might have advisory boards composed of learning folks, but it’s not clear what role they play.

And I get it.  Unfortunately, as an industry, we’re not informed consumers. I see continual conceptually fuzzy promotion of ideas, and even societies offering white papers on the latest buzzwords.  It’s business, and with business folks in charge (and shareholders to assuage), they’ll do what people want.  Yet this isn’t the professionalism we need.

Ok, so this rant doesn’t taint all companies, but it’s too true for many or most. It’s all too easy to look at the typical offerings and point out the fundamental flaws in what they’re doing, if you know how we learn. And you should.

So, I’ll continue on my crusade for us as an industry to lift our game. I hereby offer to assist any learning technology that wants to put it’s money where it’s mouth is to help them understand learning science, build it into their products, and help them promote the benefits. And I likewise offer any organization  using learning technology to help them lift their game and be better consumers.  I’ve done both before, and am ready to assist others. Because our learners need us to represent their true interests.