Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Missed this…

by Leave a Comment

Maybe I was in the woods last summer when this came out, or maybe it passed under the radar?   On July 16 of   last year, the House of Representatives (on a voice vote, no record) passed House Resolution 487:

Recognizing the contribution of modeling and simulation technology to the security and prosperity of the United States, and recognizing modeling and simulation as a National Critical Technology.

Wow, what I do is critical!   And here I thought I was just having fun and doing good…   I found out about this when it was cited in an RFP we (partner organization and I) were responding to.   Not quite sure what this means, practically.   I can be somewhat naive of governmental subterfuge (while cynical of the whole thing), but item 7 caught my eye:

(7) encourages the development and implementation of ways to protect intellectual property of modeling and simulation enterprises.

So, maybe this is a way to give some legal ammunition to an organization that’s fighting to wall-off certain approaches?   If so, hopefully prior art will prevail (c.f. Blackboard).

At least it did prod a governmental organization to prioritize simulations (read: scenarios, better yet: tuned into games).   If we can get organizations, governmental and not, to think harder about deep practice (when needed, and this instance is a case of resistance and complex new procedures), we’re increasing the likelihood of effective outcomes. Which is what I really care about.

Hard to cross a chasm with baby steps

by Leave a Comment

As I indicated, I’m experimenting with Twitter (@Quinnovator).   I’m following a number of people who point to interesting things or make interesting observations.   The benefits I’m finding with Twitter, I note, are random interesting thoughts that juxtapose with my own thinking, in addition to quick answers to questions.   It reminds me of Dave Owens’ long ago system DYK, that randomly gave you some unix tidbits.   It seemed to work, as many times it was irrelevant but every once in a while it was just the right thing.   Same concept as the later ‘tool tips’ you could get on starting up PowerPoint.

This particular reflection was triggered by George Siemens tweeting a response to his presentation: “we’re taking small steps” problem is, small steps=falling behind. need that big leap :).   Mark Oehlert responded with the title of this post.   And it triggered the thought that I’ve heard Jay Cross articulate, that evolution isn’t going to keep pace with the rapid rate of change. (And yes, I’m name dropping, because you too can follow thought leaders through blogs and twitter!)

On the other hand, change is hard, big change exponentially so.   What’s an organization to do?   Yet change is coming faster. One of the ways we’ve thought to address this is an opportunity we’re offering through the Cafe’, getting some high-value external input on major issues in a lightweight way, a jumpstart to out-of-the-box thinking.

What I’ve been assisting organizations to do, and this is definitely a good thing, is to start with setting a long term vision (e.g. performance ecosystem), and making organization-specific short, medium, and long term plans to get there.   However, I’m thinking that, in parallel, what’s needed is doing some ‘out of the box’ exercises where some more disruptive stuff is trialed.   Maybe a ‘tiger team‘ for communication & innovation (and yes, I’m aware of the abuse of the phrase, but in lieu of another quick way to communicate the concept…).

The point is that you can’t just daydream crossing the chasm, and you can’t rethink in increments.   Sometimes you’ve got to take a major rethink, and put it in place and learn from it.   The best advice I recall on this is that you’ve got to have some experiments going on.   A few well-thought out gambles that you’re willing to have fail.   However, it’s not random mutation, but also not intelligent design; rather a hybrid.   Taking a calculated risk.

Like trying out new technologies: the current experimental space is social networking for me, as well as the iPhone.     But you’ve got to keep pushing your personal boundaries to have the awareness for pushing the organizational ones.   So take risks and experiment yourself, and get your organization doing the same.

Game Development Tools

by 7 Comments

The last topics in our 2 day game design workshop for the Guild (great group of attendees, great experience) were evaluation, production, and organizational issues.   On the production issue, the perennial topic of tools came up.   In thinking about it, I realized that we needed a map, so I started coming up with one (a diagram, of course :) ).   I ran it past Jeff (Johannigman, my co-conspirator on the workshop) in our taxi to the airport, to his general approval.

gametoolspace

The two dimensions are complexity of the scenario (only covering branching and model-driven), and the power (e.g. complexity) of the tool.   It’s a pretty linear map, and realize that small distances aren’t significant (so the clusters are roughly equivalent).

The impossible dream is that tool that everyone wants that makes it easy to develop model-driven interactions.   Sorry, I’m convinced it can’t exist, because to be flexible enough to cover all the different models that we’d want to represent, it’s got to be so general as to be essentially just a programming language.   QED (Quinn Ephemeral Decision).

This is a first stab, so feedback welcome.   If desired, I can create it in Gliffy and we can collaboratively develop it (though my first effort with that was underwhelming in participation…).   Thoughts?

eLearning 2.0

by 2 Comments

During the 1st day of Mark and Brent’s Collaboration summer seminar, they got folks active: starting blogs, wikis, webtops, etc.   They’re doing a great job:

c2sss

Naturally, in addition to the tactical questions (“how do I move this tab”?), the conceptual questions started: when do you use a blog versus a wiki, how do you make sense of all the options out there.

Now, as part of my performance ecosystem, I think blogs are a personal reflection or a history (as I told an attendee, it would be great for capturing a ‘war story’), whereas wikis are for collaboration to create a unified view of something (e.g. the way to tune a network).   I don’t think blogs support a rich discussion and aren’t that collaborative.   Also, one of the problems I see is that we often forget old tools in the excitement of new tools: discussion boards are a great way to have an ongoing conversation; you don’t need some new tool for this. Yet wikis are really good for capturing the output of a collaboration.

Also recently I’ve been having conversations with folks about integrating tools to meet larger needs.   Ning is a tool that provides ways for individuals to have profiles, to have forums, to list events, etc.   Increasingly, LMSs also have these capabilities.

The interesting thing is the great spate of tools out there: Google, Central Desktop, Zoho, Wetpaint, PBWiki, an ever growing list. There are suites of web meeting apps, web-based productivity tools, etc. How do you make sense of it? I think there’s another ‘bubble’ with these, and eventually a bunch will fail and out of the ashes a few will persist.   The good thing, I think, is that by getting your hands dirty with a variety of these, you’ll access some generalized skills.   And web apps are not going away.

I believe training anybody on any particular tool (even the seemingly ubiquitous Microsoft Office suite), is the wrong way to go.   Talk to them about the skill (writing, creating presentations, etc), and then give some assignments across a couple of different tools.   This gives you transferrable skills, which will equip you to communicate and collaborate regardless of the latest wave of tools.   And that’s what’s important, in this day of increasing change.

Motivation by Behavior Change

by Leave a Comment

Clive Shepherd blogs this idea from Richard Middleton, about two possible dimensions that might affect your learning goals: how motivated your learners are, and how ‘big’ the behavior change is:

The quick notion is that if you’ve a small change and high motivation, it can be very lean.   Lower motivation requires more engaging presentation, and once you start having big changes you’ll need lots of practice, and when the learner isn’t interested or is resistant, you’ll really have to ramp up the engagement (tuning it into a game).

There are lots of other dimensions (e.g. maybe it doesn’t even require rapid elearning, but just an information update), but this is certainly a good way to look more richly at the design task and how it might be addressed.   And looking richly at your learning task is where you get more creative learning solutions (read: learning experience designs).

(Really) Mobile Games

by 1 Comment

There have been some interesting experiments with location-specific games (see the work David Metcalf talks about), but this article really is interesting, talking about GPS equipped phones.   I recall an early game for the Treo that placed aliens around you virtually (laid the images over your camera image), and you had to pan around with your Treo, spot, and shoot them. This is much more.

Now, imagine the learning potential: games for onboarding that have you and your cohorts running around the campus or plant and solving puzzles; having to try to sell to virtual customers, and tracking their effectiveness in both space and time; the rest are left as an exercise for the reader (I’m on vacation, after all… :) ).   A topic for the Summer Seminar Series next week?

DevLearn ’08

by 2 Comments

Up in the mountains, there’s lots to reflect on, little time to capture it. However, I do want to note that DevLearn is again on the horizon (November), which will include keynote, preconference sessions, concurrent sessions, and more.

I’m really looking forward to Tim O’Reilly’s keynote, as his description of Web 2.0 is fairly definitive.   I reckon I’ll again be part of the pre-conference sessions on Serious Games, er, Immersive Learning Simulations, and Mobile Learning as well.   I have a concurrent session on deeper instructional design which is stuff I really believe is fundamental yet seemingly not widespread, and fortunately has been well received in a few prior instances.

The real excitement for me is having a chance to catch up with some of the brightest folks in the business, like Tony Karrer, Will Thalheimer, Ruth Clark, Judy Brown, David Metcalf, Mark Oehlert, Brent Schenkler, Frank Nguyen, Lance Dublin, Karen Hyder, Michelle Lentz, and more, as well as the new folks I’ll meet.

The Guild’s conferences have always been a highlight of the year for me, so I hope I’ll see you there!

Going Mobile

by 3 Comments

I found out that where I’m going this week didn’t have coverage by Sprint. We’d be in the mountains (‘rustic’ cabins) but there is power, and I didn’t want to be completely out of touch as I was a couple of weeks ago.

I’d been waiting a year and half since my two year contract had expired, but wasn’t completely happy with any new mobile phone solutions.   At first I hoped the iPhone was the solution, but it wasn’t quite ready for primetime.   As a Palm fan (simplicity, solidity, great story about it’s design), the Centro was appealing, having full PIM (notes & ToDos as well as contacts and calendar), cut/copy/paste, a real keyboard, lots of apps, etc, but the browser’s weak, and no GPS or wi-fi is kind of a bummer.   The Treo 800W is mighty appealing, except for Windows Mobile.   I just *can’t* go there.   It’s got to be dead reliable.   Blackberry‘s just too closed for me, and Symbian‘s too odd (these are mobile OSs).

So, the iPhone 3G appealed (ok, maybe I’m an Apple fanboy, but I was a grad student in an interface design group when the Mac came out, and you had to love the leadership in user experience which has stayed market leading from then ’til this day), and the fact that ATT does claim to have coverage in the area was the kicker that got me to go wait in line Friday morning.   And, yes, I know that the iPhone 3G does not have full syncing PIM yet, nor copy/paste.   But it’s software upgradeable, and all the hooks are there. So, we’ll see.

So far, my experience is mixed.   The screen is simply awesome, and the interface is quite cool. It does sometimes take a lot of work to get to various things. It’s got a non-standard jack, so suddenly all my hands-free wires are worthless (grumble mumble); I may be forced to get a bluetooth headset for driving!   Typing’s OK.   I’ve got music loaded, and photos (but dual copies of the folder I want, and can’t figure how to delete one).   It gets email, but I managed to tap-dance over the push account I’d set up, and one of my accounts keeps complaining about connection ( I got one message only on the phone, not on my computer, and can’t forward it #$%^&!)

So, something (else) to keep me busy in the mountains. Besides prepping.   In a week, I fly off to Chicago for the Guild’s summer seminar series on Collaborative Learning, and the one on Immersive Learning Simulations.   I expect to learn heaps in the former, and think we’ve managed to design a great experience for the latter.     I do believe it will be good value, good learning, and good fun.

BTW, my brother and family stopped thru on their way back from the mountains.   Their boys have matured well of late, and it was great to see them and have them here.   Pool, wildlife museum (live fox, owls, raptors, snakes, coyote, all wounded and saved), ultimate frisbee in the park, eating, drinking.   Family is important to us.   I reckon it’s something that’s wired-in, and to be nurtured.   As well as having fun!   Hope your summer is turning out fun too.

Future of the Book?

by 7 Comments

Last nite was the NextNow event on the future of the book/publishing/? Jay Cross really helped by adding significant data around and input to the discussion; a very public thanks.   He’s also blogged it, with video.   We had a very diverse audience of around 30 or so; many were authors, there were CEOs & entrepeneurs, artists and musicians, noted scientists, and more. Many shared one or more of my own publishing experiences, including as author, board member of a not-for-profit that publishes, editorial board member of a journal, and, of course, as a blogger.

After introductions, which already raised many issues, Jay walked us through the history of the book (Guttenberg was an entrepreneur, the first totable book was sized to fit in saddle bags), and we talked about the pros and cons of books.   We discussed our varied experiences with publishers, and there were quite a few unhappy ones.   Then we got into the issues.

As I mentioned earlier, Jay and I had come up with a few, including editorial ‘voice’ (who’s vetting the information), interactivity, volatility, ownership, and money.   Interestingly, as the discussion continued, others emerged.   Michael Carter raised an interesting point, that we were conversing about books and publishers, and they’re not the same things, and that it was really about matching ignorance with knowledge.   He also mentioned that the current chapter and book size is arbitrary, which is something I’ve seen in textbooks.   Christine Walker mentioned how our cognition might change without the book experience.   There was considerable optimism about setting information free, which I didn’t squelch with my concern about the need for ‘filters’.

We covered the ‘collected papers’ model, where proactive instructors or good editors choose appropriate contributions to a definitive compilation (with my note that most instructors just want to choose a text, and there are compilations that are just vanity projects without a representative or definitive sampling for the topic).   We also talked about marketplaces, and Laleh Shahidi mentioned a learning object model of content, of which there’ve been several experiments (including Propagate, a system that Peter Higgs launched way back around 1998!).   One of the ideas would be to have several authors to choose from, but then you’d need ‘templates’ for topics, with agreed structure.   One of the current situations is that authors present totally different takes on subjects.

At the end, it appeared that publishing is about 4 things:

  • development: the right choice of message and author for the knowledge gap
  • production: the right choice of presentation of the information
  • marketing: the right marketing of availability to need
  • money: the business model that surrounds the first three

The interesting thing is that with the internet (and on-demand printing), the production costs have essentially hit zero. There’s clearly a role for editorial choice, but at some point everyone can publish, and we need ways to find what we want, which is really about the marketing, which was clearly where many authors (including yours truly) felt that they were let down.   We heard of an interesting experiment in viral marketing, with Amy Jussell mentioning a blog-produced book. The question is whether such an effort is replicable. Of course, there’s still the cachet that comes with having a publisher choosing.   The flip-side is tha traditional publishers still take months from final manuscript to final print.

So, no answers, but lots of interesting issues.