Search Results for: design

There’s been quite a bit of flurry about Design Thinking of late (including the most recent #lrnchat), and I’m trying to get my around what’s unique about it.  The wikipedia entry linked above helps clarify the intent, but is there any there there?

It helps to understand that I’ve been steeped in design approaches since at least the 80’s. Herb Simon’s Sciences of the Artificial argued, essentially, that design is the quintessential human activity. And my grad school experience was in a research lab focused on interface design.  Process was critical, and when I was subsequently teaching interface design, I was tracking new initiatives like situated design and participatory design, anthropological efforts designed to get closer to the ‘customer’.

In addition to being somewhat obsessive about learning how people learn, and as a confirmed geek continually exploring new technology, I also got interested in design processes beyond interface design. As my passion was designing learning technology solutions to meet real needs, I explored other design approaches to look for universals.  Along the way I looked at industrial, graphic, architectural, software, and other design disciplines.  I also read the psychological research on our cognitive limitations and design approaches.  (I made a small bit of my career on bringing the advances in HCI, which was more advanced in process, to ed tech.)

The reason I mention this is that the elements of Design Thinking: being open minded, diverging before converging, using teams, empathy for the customer, etc, all strike me as just good design. It’s not obvious to me whether it gets into the nuances (e.g. the steps in the Wikipedia article  don’t allow me to see whether they do things like ensure that everyone takes time to brainstorm on their own before coming together; an important step to prevent groupthink), but at the granularity I’ve seen, it seems to be quite good.  You mean everyone isn’t already both aware of and using this?  Apparently not.

So in that respect, Design Thinking is a win.  If adding a label to a systematized compendium of good practices will raise awareness, I’m all for it.  And I’m willing to have my consciousness raised that there’s more to it, because as a proponent of design, I’m glad to see that folks are taking steps to help design get better and will be thrilled  if it adds something new.

 

A few months back, the esteemed Dr. Will Thalheimer encouraged me to join him in a blog dialog, and we posted the first one on who L&D had responsibility to.  And while we took the content seriously, I can’t say our approach was similarly.  We decided to continue, and here’s the second in the series, this time trying to look at what might be hindering the opportunity for design to get better.  And again, a serious convo leavened with a somewhat demented touch:

Clark:

Will, we‘ve suffered Fear and Loathing on the Exhibition Floor at the state of the elearning industry before, but I think it‘s worth looking at some causes and maybe even some remedies.  What is the root cause of our suffering?  I‘ll suggest it‘s not massive consumption of heinous chemicals, but instead think that we might want to look to our tools and methods.

For instance, rapid elearning tools make it easy to take PPTs and PDFs, add a quiz, and toss the resulting knowledge test and dump over to the LMS to lead to no impact on the organization.  Oh, the horror!  On the other hand, processes like ADDIE make it easy to take a waterfall approach to elearning, mistakenly trusting that ‘if you include the elements, it is good‘ without understanding the nuances of what makes the elements work.  Where do you see the devil in the details?

Will:

Clark my friend, you ask tough questions! This one gives me Panic, creeping up my spine like the first rising vibes of an acid frenzy. First, just to be precise—because that‘s what us research pedants do—if this fear and loathing stayed in Vegas, it might be okay, but as we‘ve commiserated before, it‘s also in Orlando, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, San Antonio, Alexandria, and Saratoga Springs. What are the causes of our debauchery? I once made a list—all the leverage points that prompt us to do what we do in the workplace learning-and-performance field.

First, before I harp on the points of darkness, let me twist my head 360 and defend ADDIE. To me, ADDIE is just a project-management tool. It‘s an empty baseball dugout. We can add high-schoolers, Poughkeepsie State freshman, or the 2014 Red Sox and we‘d create terrible results. Alternatively, we could add World-Series champions to the dugout and create something beautiful and effective. Yes, we often use ADDIE stupidly, as a linear checklist, without truly doing good E-valuation, without really insisting on effectiveness, but this recklessness, I don‘t think, is hardwired into the ADDIE framework—except maybe the linear, non-iterative connotation that only a minor-leaguer would value. I‘m open to being wrong—iterate me!

Clark:

Your defense of ADDIE is admirable, but is the fact that it‘s misused perhaps reason enough to dismiss it? If your tool makes it easy to lead you astray, like the alluring temptation of a forgetful haze, is it perhaps better to toss it in a bowl and torch it rather than fight it? Wouldn‘t the Successive Approximation Method be a better formulation to guide design?

Certainly the user experience field, which parallels ours in many ways and leads in some, has moved to iterative approaches specifically to help align efforts to demonstrably successful approaches. Similarly, I get ‘the fear‘ and worry about our tools. Like the demon rum, the temptations to do what is easy with certain tools may serve as a barrier to a more effective application of the inherent capability. While you can do good things with bad tools (and vice versa), perhaps it‘s the garden path we too easily tread and end up on the rocks. Not that I have a clear idea (and no, it‘s not the ether) of how tools would be configured to more closely support meaningful processing and application, but it‘s arguably a collection worth assembling. Like the bats that have suddenly appeared…

Will:

I‘m in complete agreement that we need to avoid models that send the wrong messages. One thing most people don‘t understand about human behavior is that we humans are almost all reactive—only proactive in bits and spurts. For this discussion, this has meaning because many of our models, many of our tools, and many of our traditions generate cues that trigger the wrong thinking and the wrong actions in us workplace learning-and-performance professionals. Let‘s get ADDIE out of the way so we can talk about these other treacherous triggers. I will stipulate that ADDIE does tend to send the message that instructional design should take a linear, non-iterative approach. But what‘s more salient about ADDIE than linearity and non-iteration is that we ought to engage in Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. Those aren‘t bad messages to send. It‘s worth an empirical test to determine whether ADDIE, if well taught, would automatically trigger linear non-iteration. It just might. Yet, even if it did, would the cost of this poor messaging overshadow the benefit of the beneficial ADDIE triggers? It‘s a good debate. And I commend those folks—like our comrade Michael Allen—for pointing out the potential for danger with ADDIE. Clark, I‘ll let you expound on rapid authoring tools, but I‘m sure we‘re in agreement there. They seem to push us to think wrongly about instructional design.

Clark:

I spent a lot of time looking at design methods across different areas – software engineering, architecture, industrial design, graphic design, the list goes on – as a way to look for the best in design (just as I‘ve looked across engagement disciplines, learning approaches, and more; I can be kinda, er, obsessive).   I found that some folks have 3 step models, some 4, some 5. There‘s nothing magic about ADDIE as ‘the‘ five steps (though having *a* structure is of course a good idea).  I also looked at interface design, which has arguably the most alignment with what elearning design is about, and they‘ve avoided some serious side effects by focusing on models that put the important elements up front, so they talk about participatory design, and situated design, and iterative design as the focus, not the content of the steps. They have steps, but the focus is on an evaluative design process. I‘d argue that‘s your empirical design (that or the fumes are getting to me).  So I think the way you present the model does influence the implementation. If advertising has moved from fear motivation to aspirational motivation (c.f. Sach‘s Winning the Story Wars), so too might we want to focus on the inspirations.

Will:

Yes, let‘s get back to tools. Here‘s a pet peeve of mine. None of our authoring tools—as far as I can tell—prompt instructional designers to utilize the spacing effect or subscription learning. Indeed, most of them encourage—through subconscious triggering—a learning-as-an-event mindset.

For our readers who haven‘t heard of the spacing effect, it is one of the most robust findings in the learning research. It shows that repetitions that are spaced more widely in time support learners in remembering. Subscription learning is the idea that we can provide learners with learning events of very short duration (less than 5 or 10 minutes), and thread those events over time, preferably utilizing the spacing effect.

Do you see the same thing with these tools—that they push us to see learning as a longer-then-necessary bong hit, when tiny puffs might work better?

Clark:

Now we’re into some good stuff!  Yes, absolutely; our tools have largely focused on the event model, and made it easy to do simple assessments.  Not simple good assessments, just simple ones. It’s as if they think designers don’t know what they need.  And, as our colleague Cammy Bean’s book The Accidental Instructional Designer’s success shows, they may be right.  Yet I’d rather have a power tool that’s incrementally explorable, but scaffolds good learning than one that ceilings out just when we’re getting to somewhere interesting. Where are the templates for spaced learning, as you aptly point out?  Where are the tools to make two-step assessments (first tell us which is right, then why it’s right, as Tom Reeves has pointed us to)?  Where are more branching scenario tools?  They tend to hover at the top end of some tools, unused. I guess what I’m saying is that the tools aren’t helping us lift our game, and while we shouldn’t blame the tools, tools that pointed the right way would help.  And we need it (and a drink!).

Will:

Should we blame the toolmakers then? Or how about blaming ourselves as thought leaders? Perhaps we‘ve failed to persuade! Now we‘re on to fear and self-loathing…Help me Clark! Or, here‘s another idea. How about you and I raise $5 million in venture capital and we‘ll build our own tool? Seriously, it‘s a sad sign about the state of the workplace learning market that no one has filled the need. Says to me that (1) either the vast cadre of professionals don‘t really understand the value, or (2) the capitalists who might fund such a venture don‘t think the vast cadre really understand the value, (3) or the vast cadre are so unsuccessful in persuading their own stakeholders that truth about effectiveness doesn‘t really matter. When we get our tool built, how about we call it Vastcadre? Help me Clark! Kent you help me Clark? Please get this discussion back on track…What else have you seen that keeps us ineffective?

Clark:

Gotta hand it to Michael Allen, putting his money where his mouth is, and building ZebraZapps.  Whether that‘s the answer is a topic for another day.  Or night.  Or…  so what else keeps us ineffective?  I‘ll suggest that we‘re focusing on the wrong things.  In addition to our design processes, and our tools, we‘re not measuring the right things. If we‘re focused on how much it costs per bum in seat per hour, we‘re missing the point. We should be measuring the  impact  of our learning.  It‘s about whether we‘re decreasing sales times, increasing sales success, solving problems faster, raising customer satisfaction.  If we look at what we‘re trying to impact, then we‘re going to check to see if our approaches are working, and we‘ll get to more effective methods.  We‘ve got to cut through the haze and smoke (open up what window, sucker, and let some air into this room), and start focusing with heightened awareness on moving some needles.

So there you have it.  Should we continue our wayward ways?

In other fields of endeavors, there is a science behind the approaches.  In civil engineering, it’s the properties of materials.  In aviation, it’s aeronautical engineering.  In medicine, it’s medical science.  If you’re going to be a professional in your field, you have to know the science.  So, two questions: is there a science of learning, and is it used.  The answers appear to be yes and no.  And yet, if you’re going to be a learning designer or engineer, you should know the science and be using it.

There is a science of learning, and it’s increasingly easy to find.  That’s the premise behind the Serious eLearning Manifesto, for instance (read it, sign it, use it!).  You could read Julie Dirksen’s  Design for How People Learn  as a very good interpretation of the science.  The Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center is compiling research to provide guidance about learning if you want a fuller scientific treatment.  Or read Bransford, et al’s summary of the science of  How People Learn,  a very rich overview.  And Hess & Saxberg’s recent  Breakthrough Leadership in the Digital Age: Using Learning Science to Reboot Schooling  is both a call for why and some guidance on how.

Among the things we know are that  rote and abstract information isn’t retained, knowledge test doesn’t mean ability to do, getting it right once doesn’t mean it’s known, the list goes on.  Yet, somehow, we see elearning tools like ‘click to learn more’ (er, less), tarted up quiz show templates to drill knowledge, easy ways to take content and add quizzes to them, and more.  We see elearning that’s arbitrary info dump and simplistic knowledge test.  Which will have a negligible impact on anything meaningful.

We’re focused on speed and cost efficiencies, not on learning outcomes, and that’s not professional.  Look, if you’re going to do design, do it right.    Anything less is really  malpractice!

In addition to yesterday’s post about pedagogy, I also mentioned the need to get deeper on curriculum as well.  The notion is that we need to redefine curriculum as a way to get away from a content base, and start moving to an activity base.

The focus is on creating a curriculum that has tasks at it’s core, and these tasks are tasks  like the learner will be expected to be performing  in the world.  These tasks can be viewed as competencies that, if the learner possesses them, there is evidence that they are prepared to perform.

The goal is to choose tasks, with the final task likely being chosen  first and working backwards (as in Understanding By Design) to determine what needs to be done.  From each chosen ‘task’ will be a suite of activities that comprise the pre-, in-, and post-class activities, but here we are focusing on the overall curriculum before we get into the individual pedagogy.

Note that the content is subsequently chosen to support successful execution of the tasks, and is not presented to the learner but is, instead, made available to them at the time of the task.  The goal is to have them process the content in service of accomplishing the task, an approach more consonant with our cognitive architecture. We’re more likely to remember information we’ve had to process rather than information we’ve just been presented with.  Information that a learner can recite is unlikely to be activated at a relevant time (“inert knowledge) unless it’s been applied, and the focus should be on the application, not the recitation.

Again, this turns out to be  very much the approach of Roger Schank of  Socratic Arts as well, but emerged from my own thoughts and frustrations before I found out about the Story-Centered Curricula.  Of course, I referenced the Goal-Based Scenarios in my book on learning (game) design, but I hadn’t been aware of his curricular processes at the time of this or my Reimagining rant pointed to above.

There’re more details required to fully flesh out the process here. I reckon it’d be easier to do with an employer than faculty, but even with faculty, I reckon if you can get more than one in a room, focus on decisions, and help them understand the power of activity-focused learning, it’ll work. Fingers crossed ;).

In thinking through how to design courses that lead to both engaging experiences and meaningful outcomes, I’ve been working on the component activities.  As part of that, I’ve been looking at elements such as pedagogy in pre-, in-, and post-class sessions so that there are  principled reasons behind the design.

 So, here I’m  looking at trying for guidance  to align what happens in all three sections.  In this  case, two major types of activities have emerged: more procedural activities, such as using equipment appropriately; and more conceptual activities such as making the right decisions of what to say and do.  These aren’t clearly discriminated, but it’s a coarse description.

Of course, there’s an introduction that both emotionally and cognitively prepares the learner for the coming learning experience.

So for conceptual tasks, what we’re looking to do is drive learning to content.  In typical  approaches, you’d be presenting conceptual information (e.g. ‘click to see more‘) and maybe asking quiz questions.  Here, I’m looking to make the task of processing the information to generate  something,  whether a document, presentation, or whatever,  and that the processing is close to the way the information will be used.  So they might create a guide for decisions (e.g. a decision tree), or a checklist, or something that requires them to use the information. (And if the information doesn’t support doing, it’s probably not necessary.)  As support, in a recent conversation I heard that interviewed organizations said that making better decisions were the keys to better job performance.

Whereas in the procedural approach, we really want to give them practice in the task. It may be scaffolded, e.g. simplified, but it’s the same  practice that they’ll need to be able to perform after the learning experience. Ideally, they’ll have to explore and use content resources to figure out how to do it appropriate, in a guided exploration sense, rather than just be given the steps.

In both  cases, models are key to helping them determine what needs to happen.  Also in both cases, an instructor should be reviewing their output. In the conceptual case, learners might get feedback on their output, and have a chance to revise their creation.  In the case of the practice, the experience is likely a simulation, and the learner should be getting feedback about their success.  In either case, the instructor has information about how the cohort is doing.  So…

…for in-class learning, the learners should be reflecting on their performances, and the instructor should be facilitating that at the beginning, using the information about what’s working (and not).  Then there should be additional activities that the learners engage in that require them interacting with the material, processing (conceptual) or applying (procedural) it with each other and then with facilitated reflection.

Finally, the learners after class should be getting given elaborative activities.  In the case of the conceptual task, coming up with an elaborated version or some additional element that helps cement the learning would be valuable.  The practice or activity should get fleshed out to the point where the learner will be capable of appropriately acting after the learning experience, owing to sufficient practice and appropriate decontextualization. The goal is for retention over time and transfer to all appropriate situations.

Am I making sense here?

Dorian Peters has written the first book I’ve seen on UI for learning, linking two of my favorite things.  Understand that I did my Ph.D. in a research group that was hot into HCI at the time, and my first faculty position was to teach User Experience.  At the time, in many ways UI was ahead of ID in terms of user-centered practices, and I made many presentations on porting UI concepts to Ed Tech audiences.

Consequently, it was a pleasant surprise to hear about this book, and more so now that I’ve had a chance to peruse it.  This book is very valuable not just for interface designers doing learning solutions, but also for IDs and developers who end up having to design.  The second chapter on how we learn is a great whirlwind tour of learning, well grounded in research and setting up the background for those who’s background isn’t learning. Similarly, she provides an overview of elearning in Chapter 3, and UI basic terms in Chapter 4.  From there, it’s all about UI for learning.

She starts very early on in the book by showing how learning interfaces  have  to be different from user interfaces.  If your goal is to learn, not do a task, it makes sense that the interface should and could be different.  She then delivers on this and goes on to cover a suite of principles: learning is visual, learning is social, learning is emotional, and learning is mobile, in subsequent chapters (with one on multimedia and gaming interspersed). She even discusses the design of learning spaces.  In each, she separates out principles and strategies.

This is a fun book, widely illustrated with examples and illustrations, quotes, and graphical highlighting to practice what she preaches.  It is clear from the breadth and depth of citations that she’s done her homework, and this is a well-organized, easy to read, and  useful book.

Interface Design for Learning is a book  that everyone who ends up developing learning experiences, creating the interface learners interact with, needs to have to hand, on their desk ready to refer to and get the principles down on each project until they’re firmly internalized.  Highly recommended.