Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

To-Learn Lists?

by 4 Comments

The Learning Circuit’s Blog Big Question of the Month is about To-Learn lists: whether they make sense, how to implement them, etc.   Interesting question.   On the face of it, it seems useful: identifying and focusing on explicit and specific learning goals.   In practice, do they make sense? Do they even exist?

i would suggest that they do exist, and that every time a manager and employee agree on a development plan, there’s at least an implicit To-Learn list.   Obviously, a competency path in an LMS is similarly a formal TL list. And we have an implicit one when we sign up for a course, whether online or face-to-face, buy a book on a topic, or access an online tutorial, FAQ, help page, etc.

I do think that being explicit about learning is valuable, hence my focus on meta-learning, and having clear goals is a way to make them happen.   On the other hand, I think many of our learning goals are small and immediate (like my desire to figure out how to fix the CSS on my website and this blog).   Would it make sense to capture them in the context and generalize them to be thought of at other times?   Probably, and consequently another way we could use our mobile tools to make us more effective (I regularly capture ToDos in my mobile devices, which is why the iPhone is still making me crazy!). And there have been times I’ve put things to look up into my ToDo (though these days I often just look them up in the moment).

So, I think they’re a great idea, maybe not separate from ToDos in general, but worth thinking of as a sub-category, and worth taking the effort to make explicit.   Little bits of learning over the long haul: slow learning!

Killer Game App?

by 5 Comments

Martine asked on the Serious Games list what the killer app was for ‘serious games’ list, and it prompted some thinking.

As I‘ve suggested before, Pine and Gilmore say that after the product and services economy is the ‘experience’ economy, that we’re in now, where we pay for experiences.   A good example is Apple, which makes buying and owning Apple products more than a product/service, but an experience (think also: themed restaurants/travel, amusement parks, etc).

They argue that the next phase is the ‘transformation’ economy, where experiences will transform us.   Read: learning.   I’ll suggest serious games is a component of that transformation experience, and the principles underlying ‘engaging learning’ (engaginglearning.com), designing learning games, are the principles for designing those transformative experiences.

However, it occurs to me that the killer app may just well be a game-based high-stakes assessment.   Why?   Assessment is important, and tough to do well.   Simulation is the closest thing to real performance, and consequently should provide the highest fidelity assessment.   You have to perform to succeed (read: win the game).

A number of years ago I was leading an R&D project building an intelligently adaptive learning system, using learner characteristics.   We started with a profiling instrument to develop the basis for adaptation, but intended to build a game-based environment to assess learner’s ‘styles’ (c.f. my rant on learning styles) as the basis for adaptation.   I think this idea could be extended for many important skills.

There’s no reason, for instance, that SimuLearn’s Virtual Leader couldn’t be a leadership assessment as well as a learning environment (if you buy their leadership model).   In fact, any assessment use would naturally (ala problem-based learning) serve as the basis for a learning experience as well.

So, my take on the killer app for games (besides games already being the killer app for elearning :), is high-stakes assessment.   This is a test: what do you think?

Facebook Apprenticeship

by 1 Comment

Jay Cross has an interesting post about using Facebook in the organization, and makes a connectionCognitive Apprenticeship I hadn’t seen (and wish I had :).   He’s citing another post on FaceBook and the Enterprise, where JP Rangaswami posits that Facebook can be used to allow individuals to track what their bosses are doing, as role models.   Jay connects this to Cognitive Apprenticeship (my favorite model of learning), where the boss is modeling his thinking processes, and the employee can use that model as a guide to performance.   Modeled performance is one of the components.

This is a great idea, making individuals thought processes visible for others to see, though whether it has to be the boss specifically, or others employees worth tracking (the more experienced practitioner, the expert in a particular area of interest) is an open question.   Likewise, the employee’s actions might be made visible as a basis for coaching/mentoring.

I’m not sure Facebook is the right tool, but a combination of tools might make sense and Facebook’s APIs might make it possible.   As I commented on Jay’s blog:

I‘m reminded of an interview I heard (wish I knew where; time for Evernote?) where this guy talked about how he kept his team on track: his del.ico.us tags, using basecamp, IM, etc left a trail of what he was paying attention to, where everyone was at, letting them work in tight synchrony.

That sort of open process can be quick, informative, and how Web 2.0 might really transform the ways people work, making personal learning a process of looking in the window of other’s working, and vice versa.   Of course, there are other issues, like privacy, and having a culture where sharing is the basis for improvement, not chastisement.

This actually might fit in with Tony Karrer’s post over at the Learning Circuit’s blog about to-learn lists: could we couple learning goals with semantic web to track relevant actions/posts/tags/etc to auto-support to-learn lists?   And this may be one of the answers to Brent Schlenker’s question about what is eLearning 2.0.

JP’s message recalls how his employees actually wanted to see not how he handled the incoming mail, but how he responded; his outgoing mail.   Very interesting.   Somewhere between seeing what someone’s paying attention to, and seeing how they actually communicate, is a very interesting opportunity.   Blogs provide some insight, tweets another.   So do del.ico.us tags (which I don’t use yet, and perhaps should). You can follow the people blazing the paths, at least. I’m happy following blogs and tweets so far, and learning from it.   Are many of you doing that?   And finding it valuable?

Chromed Comics

by Leave a Comment

The web is an interesting place, and Google is an interesting player.   They’re just announcing their new browser, Chrome, which uses the same WebKit engine as Safari (as opposed to Firefox’s Gecko engine).   The challenge is to Microsoft’s Internet Explorer (which is raising new anti-trust issues with the announcement that once you install it, you may not be able to remove it), but at the same time it’s also challenging Apple and Mozilla (owners of Safari and Firefox, respectively) with whom they’ve had a pretty good relationship.   Of course, Google’s Android OS for mobile phones also challenges Apple’s Mac OS X for the iPhone.   The point being that there are times when it’s hard to decide who’s doing what to who!

Which isn’t to say that Chrome isn’t a compelling vision, and the way they chose to reveal this vision is with a comic!   They got Scott McCloud (author of the must-read Understanding Comics) to write/draw it, and he clearly had access to folks who understood the underpinning ideas and manages to communicate them.     Granted, it helps if you understand the differences between threads and processes, but it really does help illuminate the underlying ideas.

Two lessons:

1. you’ve got to stay on top of the changes in the web space: the arguments for the new technical implementation may not be important to you (they are, but it’s about performance and if you’re not a mega-surfer yet you won’t really notice), but Google’s weight behind it is important from a market perspective.

2. Comics are an underused communication tool with great power.   We’re looking at them for a project we’re working on, fortunately the client’s enthused.   Start considering how you might employ them.

Informal budget ratio <> 80/20?

by 1 Comment

Donald Clark raises an issue on his blog about confounding informal with Web 2.0, and the point I found interesting is his query about the 80/20 in/formal learning metrics.   He queries the statistics, and the issue of supporting informal.   I took it (and no blame to him if I misconstrue) to be an issue of should we match our budgets to that ration.   I commented:

Interesting point, and right in many respects. The point of the 80/20 (or 75/25) is to help people realize that they’re not supporting the 80, rather than to totally match the investment. The formal learning probably takes more resources, over time, as there’s more development required. However, how much have we invested in the informal? Typically, bugger all. My take, at least, is that there needs to be some up-front investment in the informal, but then it (should) become self-perpetuating (with the usual maintenance/upgrade/review costs).

The way I see it, as you broaden your responsibility from just training to support performance, eCommunity, mobile, etc (eCommunity being the social component of web 2.0, and a major component of informal), you need to systematically support informal.   Most of the time, it’s providing resources and an infrastructure for informal learning to flourish (the culture is the hardest part).   It’s not as resource-intensive as the process of getting learners from novice to practitioner (except the initial investment in infrastructure and boot-stratpping).

So, to me, it’s about considering informal, making a systematic plan for supporting, it, and launching it, while continuing to develop the necessary formal support for learning.   The latter will change as we develop capable learners (assuming you’re putting meta-learning in, and you should be), but there will be a role for each, but that doesn’t mean that the support requirements are a one-to-one match.   At least, that’s how I see it.   What say you?

Pre-tests = learner abuse*

by 12 Comments

I thought I’d gone off about pre-tests here before, but apparently not (at least I can’t find it).   So let me do it now.   Pre-tests are learner-abusive. Period.   *OK, with one (rare) caveat…

First, let’s agree that quizzes are usually not an enjoyable experience.   Except when the outcome doesn’t matter, and provides valuable information (e.g. the ‘Cozmo quiz’ where you learn things about yourself).   However, when you don’t know the answers (by definition, or you wouldn’t need it), it’s just a tedious process in most cases.

There are two major arguments for pre-tests, which I’ll argue against.   One is that it helps the learner understand what’s coming, serving as an advance organizer, activating relevant knowledge. Yes, it will do that.   However, there are much less cruel ways to do it, such as dramatically or humorously exaggerating the consequences of not having the knowledge, drilling down from the larger context, etc.   Doing it through a random quiz, particularly when you’re not already expected to know the information, just leads to frustration and/or boredom.

The other reason used to justify pre-tests is to show the delta from before and after the learning experience.   This is also wrong, since you shouldn’t even be developing the learning unless you already know they don’t know the material.   Consequently, the only thing you should need to demonstrate is that they know can achieve your objectives. And beyond, that it leads to improved performance and better outcomes.

The only qualification to this is when the pre-assessment is used to allow the student to test-out. That is, by passing a pre-assessment, they can skip material they already know.   Even then, it might be a preference, rather than required.

So, please, don’t abuse your learners, and don’t give pre-tests unless it allows the learner to test-out of the learning (and only if they want to).

Performance Support & Performance Ecosystem

by 3 Comments

Jay Cross has an eloquent post talking about the history of Performance Support, ending of course calling for considering the learnscape. Tony Karrer comments on it in his own post looking at performance support and learning technology.

Interestingly, what Jay doesn’t really cover in his history is that Gloria came up with Performance Support to cover up bad interface design.   The systems were monolithic and essentially impermeable to change, so she wrapped a solution around it.   The interaction design field was a little put out about the whole performance support system notion, saying it was really just good interface design. And there’s still too little of that, sad to say (I used to teach interaction design, and it’s a component of the performance ecosystem solution).

What Jay points out, however, is that the learning designer needs to take responsibility for more than just courses, and it’s ok if information is the solution (“‘Information is not instruction.’ …if information gets the job done, it doesn‘t matter whether it‘s instruction”).

However, Jay starts lumping all of the web 2.0 tools into performance support, which is where Tony gets curious.   He thinks some of the tools fall more into the knowledge management category, but admits he may be getting definitional.   He is in agreement about the need to look at the larger picture and consider all these tools as playing a role in meeting ePerformance, a term he and I agree upon.

Jay cites Marc Rosenberg, and Marc certainly has been calling for us to include knowledge management, performance support, and eCommunity as part of our tools to go beyond eLearning.   Which is where we’re all in agreement.   Good reading, good thoughts, good work.

Distributed Learning

by 3 Comments

Distributed learning is an idea that I think offers an untapped potential, what with the new technologies we have.   I’m not talking here about distance learning, but instead a combination of slow learning with ubiquitous learning.   The idea is to combine learning on the go and on-demand with a long term relationship, personalized awareness, and mixed media.   Think of it as cloud computing for your learning goals.

There are strong reasons for spreading learning over time (Will Thalheimer‘s got a whole white paper on it) –   think drip irrigation.   We can use technology to do this in a contextually relevant way; not just random elements, but wrapped around the events in our life.   With some knowledge of our schedule, and our learning goals, a system could pop out little relevant bits of learning to develop us over time.

Imagine that you’ve learning goals about communication, and about coaching.   Assume, for the moment, an imaginary curriculum that places ‘authenticity’ after ‘understanding the other’s point’, and that you’ve completed the latter.   Then, before a business meeting with a potential new contact, you might get a message to “‘say what you mean, mean what you say, without being mean‘, after you ensure you’ve heard them”   that comes in right before the meeting.   After the meeting you might be connected to a coach/mentor, to see how it went.

Later that same day, you’ve got a review meeting with one of your reports, and as your coaching curriculum’s next topic is “focus on behavior, not person”, you get not only a relevant message beforehand, but a customized job aid to take with you (filled out with the individual’s last details and your particular area to work on), and a self-evaluation form afterward.

Which is not to say you don’t also have the opportunity to request particular information beforehand, so there might be a custom ‘pull’ portal available to you with things you’re likely to need (in addition to the general search tools you already have).   A smart system might recognize that it’s been too long since some knowledge has been applied, and choose to send you some challenge to keep the knowledge active, at least until it’s part of your internalized repertoire.

Why is this of interest?   It’s about developing people over time, in the ways they want (an individual should could choose their goals, though there could be ones also negotiated with an employer).   It’s about taking advantage of your life’s occurences, not removing oneself from it to learn.   It’s being contextualized sensitive to not only where you are, but ‘when’ you are.   It’s about being opportunistic, effective, and efficient, rather than intrusive, effortful, and minimally effective.   Which is not to say that there might not be more concerted chunks, particularly at the beginning, or at major inflection points, but it’s the optimal blend – an information model, not an industrial model.

We’ve got the capability (Clarke’s “any truly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”), but we need the will and the resources.   Anyone game?

Stories and Tools

by 2 Comments

BJSchone‘s tweet pointed me to Jay’s business assessment of web 2.0 tools, which somehow I’d missed.   A great little chart.   What got me going was his final entry, on stories.   He says:

memorable, natural way to spread values and goals; more sophisticated than text, oral tradition reinforces meaning

It started me thinking about the research (e.g. Schank, way back when) about our ‘scripts‘ (Schank’s equivalent to Minsky‘s Frames, and Rumelhart‘s Schemas, several co-emergent conceptualizations for thinking from cognitive science).   There’s been lots of recent interest in stories for business and organizations (e.g. Steven Denning), and there are sound reasons to do so.

The point that strikes me about why stories are such a compelling, memorable way to communicate is that our brains are hardwired to process them, they naturally contextualize the message, and (when well-done), help communicate both the solution and the underlying concept.   They can communicate messages about values, as Jay points out, as well as methods.   And they tap into human universals, as this article from Scientific American points out (sent to me after I’d written first draft of this; serendipity).

Which is why I’m a fan of stories in elearning.   They can be used up-front for what I call a motivating example, not a reference example but instead a visceral demonstration of why this knowledge is important.   And, of course, they can be used for reference examples where they link concept to context.   There are some nuances about how to do this that I talk about in my talks about Deeper eLearning (coming to DevLearn) and in my article on the 7 Step Program to better elearning (PDF).   Basically, worked steps, cognitive annotation, and backtracking & repair.   Solid research to back it up.

Of course, podcasts are a great way to use stories.   They are naturally an audio medium.   Then, you can augment stories with images, ala a narrated slideshow, or video. I remember we used to attend a series of travel movies at Carnegie Library in Pittsburgh; the filmmakers themselves would narrate the film live, and it was a very professional, entertaining, and enlightening experience. So vidcasts would also be useful.

And, as I’ve stated before, I think that comics/manga are a great and underexplored way to communicate, as they are stories, with the same ability to exaggerate.   They can take more time to produce but are more visceral (because they add visuals).   They also globalize easily (though may have trouble with accessibility?).   I can’t resist pointing again to Dan Pink’s new manga because it’s both good career advice and a good example!   I’d bet they’d work well on an iPhone, too.   Hmm…

So, look at the tool guide, think stories, and media.   Now, if we could only find a reliable and affordable way to get comics/manga done.

Top 10 Tools

by Leave a Comment

Jane Hart’s Top Tools list is a great resource, and she reminded me that my list might need updating.   Fortunately, Jay blogged about his list, which reminded me (some mail didn’t make the transition to the new environment, hence the need for a new list, as well as updating).   My list has some changes:

3. Firefox – my Web tool for searching, browsing, surfing: with the new engine, it’s fast, and has great plugins
4. Twitter – I’m using TwitterFox on Firefox, and Twittelator on my iPhone.   A whole new world…
5. Google – their search engine, their maps, their website tracking,…
7. iTunes – how I connect my iPhone to my Mac, download mobile apps, and more.
8. Mail – part of my move to centralize on Mac apps (iCal, Address Book) to accommodate iPhone; I use email a lot (e.g. RSS feeds from Feedblitz), but Mail’s missing some things I liked in Entourage

You’ll see a few changes precipitated by the iPhone (and some ways of rearranging).   Interestingly my top 10 mobile tools list was just pointed to, and I realize it’s out of date too!   I’m still playing with the iPhone, but the tools I use are:

Mail – email on the go

Twittelator – twittering about

Google Maps – location, location, location

Safari – mobile web browsing at it’s best (which still is only so-so :)

Contacts – who’s who?

Photos – easily loaded all my diagrams and portfolio pictures

I’m anticipating using Flashlight (literally), EccoNote (voice memo), AIM (one IM tool, maybe to get around SMS charges), UrbanSpoon (fun way to find restaurants, tho’ not yet here in WC/East Bay SF), Yelp (reviewed places), SplashID (all those passwords, protected), and FaceBook.

I’m cheap, so I’m mostly downloading free apps.   Recommendations?