The program at the University of Wisconsin-Stout Online Professional Development’s Instructional Design program regularly asks someone to answer a series of questions from their students. I think these sorts of efforts are worthwhile to see a variety of different ideas, and consequently I agreed. Here’re the questions and my answers as presented to the students:

Learning Design Evangelist Clark Quinn Answers Questions
June 2010

1. Are there any critical gaps in knowledge that you frequently encounter in the ID industry?

Clark:

Several: The first is folks who only know the surface level of ID, not understanding the nuances of the components of learning (examples, concepts, etc), and consequently creating ineffective designs without even being aware. This is, of course, not the fault of those who’ve taken formal training, but many designers are transported from face-to-face training without adequate presentation.A related problem is the focus on the ‘event’ model, where learning is a massed event, which we know is one of the least effective mechanisms to lead to long-term retention.

Another gap is a focus on the course, without taking a step back and analyzing whether the performance gap is caused by attitude, motivation or other issues besides skills and knowledge. The Human Performance Technology approach (ala ISPI) is a necessary analysis before ADDIE, but it’s too infrequently seen.

The last is the lack of consideration of the emotional (read: affective and conative) side of instructional design. Most ID only focuses on the cognitive side, and despite the efforts of folks like John Keller, Michael Allen, and Cathy Moore, among others, we’re not seeing sufficient consideration of engagement.

2. In a world where technology changes daily, do you feel we place too much emphasis on the latest and greatest delivery method? Do you foresee a future where higher education is delivered primarily through distance learning?

Clark:

Yes, we do see ‘crushes’ on the latest technology, whereas we should be focusing on looking at the key affordances and matching technologies appropriately to need. I’m a strong proponent of the potential of new technologies to create new opportunities, but very much first focused on the learning outcomes we need to achieve. Which is why I have complicated feelings about the future of higher ed. In a time of increasing change, I think that the new role of higher education will increasingly be to develop the ability to learn. The domain will be a vehicle, but not the end goal. Which could be largely independent of place, but I liked the old role of new and independent mentorship beyond family and community, and always felt that there was a socializing role that university provides. I’m not quite sure how that could play out via technology mediation, but I do note the increasing role of social media.

3. Is there an elearning authoring tool you would endorse?

Clark:

Paper and pencil. Seriously. I wrote many years ago of a design heuristic, the double double P’s: postpone programming, and prefer paper. An associated mantra of mine is “if you get the design right, there are lots of ways to implement it; if you don’t get the design right, it doesn’t matter how you implement it”. Consequently, I prefer the cheapest forms of prototyping, and rapid cycles of iteration, and you can do a lot with post-it notes (e.g. the Pictive technique from interface design).

4. What impact, if any, do you think that the shortened attention span habits dictated by most social media will have on e-learning?

Clark:

I think that you should be very careful about media-manufactured trends. Our wetware hasn’t changed, just our tolerance of certain behaviors. We’ve always had short attention spans, it’s just that our schooling forced us to mask it. We’ve also been quite capable of multi-tasking (ask any single parent), but it does provide a detriment to performance in each task, or cause the task to take longer. (Other seriously misconstrued ideas include digital natives, learning styles, and generational differences).

I think we should look to learning that optimizes what’s known about how we learn (and see Daniel WIllingham for a very apt critique of brain-based learning), which includes smaller chunks over a longer period of time. That’s just one component of a more enlightened learning experience predicated on a longer-term relationship with a learner.

5. Is there current research that shows whether employers view fully online degrees programs any different than a traditional degree program? Do employers care that an applicant may have not attended any face to face classes while earning an advanced degree?

Clark:

Frankly, this is research I haven’t really tracked. I do know recent research shows that online is better than face-to-face, but most likely due to quality of design (instructors aren’t necessarily experts in learning design, sadly) than media.

6. What skills are critical to the survival of a new ID professional? What skills must be focused upon in the first three critical years of business?

Clark:

The skills that are necessary are much more pragmatic than conceptual. While I’d love to say “knowledge of learning theory”, and “enlightened design”, I think in the initial stages proper time/project management will probably pay off more immediately. Also, the ability to know what rules to break and when. That said, I think you absolutely need the domain knowledge, but street smarts are equally valuable.

However, the core one is the ability to learn effectively and efficiently. I argue that the best investment a business could make is not to take learning skills for granted but document them, assess them, and develop them. Personally, I’ll say the same: the best investment you can make is in your ability to learn continuously, eagerly, even joyously.

7. What areas of growth do you see in the ID market?

Clark:

With lots of caveats, because I’m involved in many:

Right now I’m seeing growth in the social learning space. Understanding and taking advantage of social learning is trendy, but offers the potential for real learning outcomes as well. Naturally, the only problem is separating the snake oil from the real value. My involvement in the Internet Time Alliance is indicative of my beliefs of the importance.

I think the whole ‘cloud’/web-based delivery area is seeing some interesting growth too, with everything from rich internet applications to collaborative authoring. The opportunities of web 3.0 and semantic technologies are still a ways off, but I think the time is right to start laying the foundations (caveat, I generally find I’m several years ahead of the market in predicting when the time is ripe).

An area that I’m seeing a small uptick in is engagement, fortunately, the use of games and scenarios. Having a book out on the topic makes it gratifying to see the growth finally taking off.

And mobile is finally taking off! Having just left the first biz-focused mobile learning conference, I was thrilled to see the amount of excitement and progress. (Snake oil disclaimer: I’ve been on the stump for years, and finally have a book coming out on the topic. :)

The Quinnstitute Press announces a new title: Women are Flora, Men are Fauna!

Exploiting a well-known distinction and applying it – with no reservations – to the gender split, this new book provides guidance for men and women looking for an easy answer to a complex question.   Uncluttered with boring research, this book offers simple slogans and fun ideas that will have you laughing while altering your relationships with men and women alike!

The premise is simplicity itself: women are plants, growing slowly but systematically, looking to be nurtured while sinking deep roots and taking control of their environment; men are animals, sustaining their needs in impulsive bursts. The evidence can be seen even in mankind’s earliest days of hunter/gatherer existence: men went out and hunted down prey, while women stayed close to home and harvested from the ground.

Today we see the same instincts play out in different ways, with different behavior even in the same context. Men jump between channels with the remote control, while women will settle down with a favorite show.   Men will play with the kids then leave them alone, while women will provide a persistent presence and awareness, continually nurturing.   Men will grab a bite while women will digest a meal. Men want to compete, while women cooperate.

This provides the keys to understanding behavior.   To succeed with women, you need to nurture them, take your time and letting them slowly bask in your attention.   What works with men is to tempt them with goals, and challenge them to get their best efforts in the chase. Women in the workplace need to be in positions where they can persist and slowly develop, men need to be given tasks that need quick responses and aggressive tendencies.   This guide will provide a basis for real decisions!

This new work will help you better understand the other gender, and give you tools to apply to your own relationships.   Further, this simple model will be extended to cover a broad variety of situations and topics. Written by an author who noticed the opportunity and realized that there was gain to be had from exploiting the idea as far as possible, this tome will serve as the basis for many new actions and create meaningful changes in your life.   Order today!   Movie rights are available, but that won’t last, so act now!

This is a parody, this is only a parody; if this were a real promotion there would be vibrant colored prose, appearances on Oprah, The View, Letterman, & Leno, and other signs of a real marketing budget.

I just had an article published on Rethinking elearning that’s another take on the point of my last post on designing for an uncertain world.   It’s in the well-edited Learning Solutions ezine published by the eLearning Guild.   Check it out!

Seeing all the top 10 lists, I thought I’d look at what the top 10 posts were for Learnlets (using Google Analytics), and I have to say that the responses were interesting, as some weren’t the ones I thought were most interesting. I suspect that they’re the ones that other people pointed to most for a variety of reasons (including me pointing people to the Broken ID series beginning). Here’s the list:

The ‘Least Assistance‘ Principle

Rethinking Learning Styles

Sims, Games, and Virtual Worlds

Learning Twitter Chat!

(New) Monday Broken ID Series: Objectives

Learning Styles, Brain-Based Learning, and Daniel Willingham

Learning Organization Dimensions

Predictions for 2009

The 7 c‘s of natural learning

Social Media Goals

I welcome your thoughts of what made these the most interesting posts of 2009.   And here’s hoping this new year is our best yet!

Wishing you and yours the best for the new year!

I pitched an idea that I’ve found exciting to the eLearning Guild, and they gave me the opportunity to present it at their DevLearn conference.   Owing to my own mistake, I thought I was doing something else, but I’m thrilled to find out that I’m getting to do this cutting edge content!

What’s driving the idea is the recognition that our old approach to learning is broken in so many ways.   There was an intriguing research project done for the Army that recognized that the standard classroom approach is about the worst thing you could do if you were trying to achieve successful learning!

In short, our learning goals are retention over time until it’s needed, and transfer to all appropriate situations.   Most learning events are based upon a learning event with a concentrated learning experience and assessment.   Of course, that learning atrophies relatively quickly, without reactivation.

So what do we have as opportunities?   Several things cognitive, and several things technological.

Cognitively, we recognize that learning is better when it is contextualized, is better when the learning is spaced, is better when we negotiate understanding, and better when we have the appropriate resources to hand.   We realize that most active cognition includes external representations, contextual cues, and shared responsibility.   Distributed cognition is a nice way to view the overall process.   The fact that spaced learning is more effective than massed practice is also relevant.   An approach that develops learners over a long period of time, a slow learning approach, makes sense.

Technologically, we have mobile technologies, social technologies, and semantic technologies.   We can deliver information when and where we need it, given both the ubiquity and power of the emerging devices, and their increasingly ability to be ‘always on’, and aware of their location.

When we put these together, we have new ways to match learning to real needs.   The goal is to contextualize learning, to space learning, and to provide performance support while we develop learners.   We can do this with the technologies we cite.

With semantic technologies we can deliver customized information to the learner.   We can ensure that it’s appropriate to the context, we can ensure it’s appropriate to the learner, and we can deliver to the appropriate device.   We can also connect learners with other learners and with the output of joint thinking.   With content models, we can ensure we have careful definition around the content and use rules to pull out the appropriate content.   With user models, we know what they know, what their role is, and what their task is.   Together, we can optimize learning delivery.

The point is, we can move beyond the old models of learning. We can provide performance support, and wrap learning material around it.   We can turn real-world experiences into learning experiences.   We can develop learners slowly over time systematically.   And this isn’t to preclude the ability to categorize and characterize real interpersonal interactions and build them into the learning experience as well.

Frankly, we’re at a new stage where our only limitations are our imagination.   It’s time to pull together our real understanding of learning and the ideal ways to support performers.   The technology we have is, essentially, indistinguishable from magic.   Now that we have magic, what should we do?

Corrie Bergeron (@skydadddy) pointed out that I hadn’t really accounted for the ability to create a persona, a representation of yourself via avatar that reflects how you’d like to be perceived.   Chuck Hamilton did have it in his list, and I thought it was implicit in the alternative to anonymity, but on reflection, I think it does deserve it’s own affordance, and implications for reputation.

Of course, you’ll have a persona regardless, if you’re present in the world, but the ability to customize one is the unique opportunity.

The question then becomes, how do you use this representation?   Caroline Avey (@aveyca) presented a wide variety of uses of virtual worlds that ACS is exploring, and some are really not things that require long term personas, but are instead ways for folks to come together independent of geography for introductions of new products or other events.   Similarly, other uses of virtual worlds may be better configured with other combinations of affordances.   Different environments have different implementation of the affordances, or the ability to limit the capability of some (ie not have customizable avatars or not support agency) to meet particular event needs.

Understanding your virtual world goals can help determine what affordances are critical, and support your design criteria (and tool choice). That’s my intention, at any rate.   I really appreciate feedback that helps me refine the models I develop, advocate, and use.   Thoughts and comments always welcome.

I come to check briefly on what’s happening, late on an evening, and find a flurry of discussion that prompts reflection. It’s been an ongoing debate, with notables like Ellen Wagner and Brent Schlenker weighing in.   In reading another post pointed to by Cammy Bean, I see a cogent discussion of how processes can be stifling or supportive.

I was reminded of a story told many years ago on a listserve, where both new and experienced (10 years) graduates of several ID programs were asked to design projects.   The projects by the new graduates were categorizable by school.   The projects by the experienced graduates were not, until the accompanying rationales were read.   This was never published, unfortunately, but even as an apocryphal story, it’s instructive.

The point being, that the processes we learn are scaffolds for performance.   ADDIE is a guide to help ensure hitting all the important points.   It’s no guarantee of a good design.   It takes understanding the nuances (see Broken ID), and some creativity.

Used appropriately, ADDIE reminds us to dot our i’s and cross our t’s.   We ensure an adequate analysis of need (cf HPT), appropriate attention to design and development, care about the implementation, and ensure evaluation.   Used inappropriately, we pay lip service to the stages, doing the same cookie-cutter process we butcher when we do bad ID.

So, to my point: ADDIE’s not broken, but the way it’s used is. It’s supposed to be used as a guide, which is fine.   However, it’s being used as a crutch, and that’s wrong.     The question is, do we impugn the approach because of it’s implementation, as a way to draw attention to the misuse, or only malign the misuse?   I’m not sure the latter’s sufficient, nor the former is fair.

So, I say let the debate rage. We need a resolution, but I fear that there aren’t sufficient resources concerted to a) bring together the necessary conceptual inputs, b) to support the debate, and c) to advocate any outcomes.   There are broader issues to be talking about, such as how a design process plays out when we consider not just novices, but practitioners and experts, including performance support and social/informal.   We’ve some breakdowns conceptually, and then pragmatically in implementation.

I’ll echo Brent’s call to bring the issue to DevLearn, and see where we get. At least, a lot of us will be there!

In trialing a mind-mapping tool on my iPhone, I started mapping the ‘performance ecosystem’ space. I carried it over to my desktop tool (not literally, the free version doesn’t seem to export), and started elaborating.   I got to this point, and think it’s not too bad a top-level cut, with the caveats that a) each of those nodes unpacks even further, let alone each leaf, and b) that I haven’t even tried to capture the cross links, e.g. between performance support and mobile, between mobile and content model, etc.

Here’s the same as an outline (ok, Stephen? :):

Learning Architecture
❑       Performance Support
▼❑       Job Aids
•       ❑       Information Design
▼❑       Portals
•       ❑       Information Architecture
▼❑       Interactives
•       ❑       EPSS
❑       Formal
▼❑       Delivery
•       ❑       F2F
•       ❑       Synch
•       ❑       Asynch
▼❑       Deeper ID
•       ❑       Emotional
•       ❑       Cognitive
❑       Social Learning
▼❑       Identify
•       ❑       Profile
▼❑       Chat
•       ❑       Microblog
•       ❑       IM
▼❑       Journal
•       ❑       Blog
▼❑       Discuss
•       ❑       Forums
▼❑       Collab
•       ❑       Wikis
❑       Integrated Architecture
▼❑       Content Model
•       ❑       Semantics
▼❑       Governance
•       ❑       Lifecycle
▼❑       Systems
•       ❑       KM
•       ❑       LMS
•       ❑       CMS
❑       Mobile
▼❑       Access
▼❑       Designed
▼❑       Contextualized
❑       Concepts
▼❑       Culture
•       ❑       Leadership
•       ❑       Processes & Policies
•       ❑       Supportive Environment
▼❑       Expertise
•       ❑       Levels
•       ❑       Development
▼❑       Meta-learning
•       ❑       Skills
•       ❑       Awareness

Definitely a ‘learning out loud’ work-in-progress.   Feedback welcome!