Search Results for: align

I stumbled across the Elements of UX diagram again, and happened to wonder if it would map to LXD. Here’s my stab:

And the text, as usual.

---

In a justifiably well-known image (PDF), Jesse James Garrett (JJG) detailed the elements of (web) user experience. I‘ve been involved in the parallel development of UX and ID (and cross-fertilized them), so I wondered what the LXD version would be. So, of course, I took a stab at levels of LXD design.

To start with, JJG‘s diagram works from the bottom up. The five levels, in order, are:

1. The original objectives and user needs.
2. That leads to content requirements and/or functional specifications.  
3. The next level is an information architecture or interface design that is structured to meet those needs.  
4. Those semantic structures are then rendered as an information design with navigation or interface design.
5. The top level is the visual design, what the user actually sees or experiences.

This systematic breakdown has been well recognized as a useful development framework. The development from need to semantics to implementation syntax suggests a logical development flow. As an aside, no one‘s claiming we should develop in a linear manner, and there tends to be more up and down action in actual practice. Drilling down and then working from the bottom up as well is a well-known cycle of design!  

The learning equivalent, then, should similarly have a structured flow. We want to go from our needs, through various levels of representation, until we reach the learner experience.  

Given that we should be driven not by the goals for the interface but learner needs, I‘ll suggest we start with the performance objectives.   Then, in parallel with user needs, I‘ll stipulate that the other top-level definition comes from the user characteristics. These match the initial level stipulated.  

At the next level, I‘ll suggest that the performance objectives drive assessment specifications, and the other decision at this level is for the pedagogical approach. We need to know what learners need to able to do, and how we‘ll get them there.

As an intermediate representation equivalent to UX‘s information architecture or interface design, I suggest from the assessment we determine the necessary practice activities required, and these are coupled with the necessary content requirements: models and examples, as well as the introduction and closing. Here we‘re still at what‘s required, not how it manifests.  

The next level is where we start getting concrete. We need to pick an overall theme or look and feel, and the flow of the experience. We‘ll also, of course, need to make a consistent interface to support navigation and taking action. We know what we need to have, but we haven‘t actually rendered it yet.  

Finally, we must render the necessary media. This will be the videos, audios, text, diagrams, images, and more that comprise the experience. This includes the actions to be taken and the associated consequences of each choice.  

That‘s the equivalent structure I‘m suggesting are the different levels of LXD design. Of course, this is a thought exercise, and so I may well have made some interpretations you could disagree with. For instance, I may have slavishly followed JJG’s levels too closely. Let me know! Also, it‘s not clear whether this is a useful representation, so far it‘s sort of a ‘because it‘s there‘ effort ;). You can let me know your thoughts on that, too!  

Here’s a story about where performance support would’ve made a task much easier.

And, as always, the text.

---

The other day, I had a classic need for performance support. Of course, it didn‘t exist. So here‘s a cognitive story about when and where a job aid would help.

Our Bosch dishwasher stopped near the beginning of the cycle, and displayed an icon of a water tap. The goal was to get the dishwasher running again. What with the layer of undrained water, we figured there was some sort of problem with the drain, clogged or the pump broken. M‘lady had cleaned the drain, but the icon persisted. What now? Of course we could call a service person, but trying to be handy and frugal (and safe), we wanted to find out if it was something I could deal with. So, off to the manual.

Well, in this case, since I didn‘t know where the manual was, I went online. I accessed the site and downloaded the manual. Only to find no guide to what the icons mean. What?!? This violates what we know about our brains, in this case that our memory is limited. The support section of the site did list the error codes, but numerically, not by icon.  So, I had an indication I couldn’t map to a problem, let alone a  solution.  

This is a real flaw! If you‘re gonna use icons, provide a guide!  Don’t assume they’re interpretable. (This had happened once before with this same appliance, with an impenetrable icon and no clue.) As a result, I had to call the service line. That wait took awhile (with more people staying home, they‘re using their dishwashers more, and the appliances are therefore breaking down more). Once, the call dropped. The second time I had to stop because I had an upcoming call. The third time, however, I got through.

And a perfectly nice person listened, asked some questions, and then instructed me through a process. After hitting cancel (which automatically tries to drain everything and reset to zero) by simultaneously pressing two buttons linked by a line on the control panel, I heard noises in the sink like it was draining. After a minute, I was told to go ahead and open it up (yep, drained), turn it off and on, and then try running the cleaning cycle again. And, voila, it worked! (Yay!)

So, what‘s wrong with this picture? First of all, there should be a clear explanation of what the icon means, as indicated above. Second, it should be clearly tied to a process to address the problem, including intermediate steps.This is so common, I am quite boggled that the great engineers that made our (very good) dishwasher aren‘t complemented with a great technical communications team who write up a useful manual to support. It. Is. Just. Silly!

Note: this isn‘t a learning experience. It‘s just fine that I don‘t recall what the last time‘s icon was or what it meant, and maybe what this icon meant and what I should do. It should be infrequent enough that it‘d be unreasonable for me to have to recall. Instead, I should be able to look it up. Put information in the world!  In the long term, this should save them buckets of money because most people could self help. Clearly, they‘ve gone to numeric codes, but they could‘ve just added in the associated icons, or given a mapping from icon to numeric code. Something to help folks who have the pics.  

This is just bad design, and it‘s so obvious how to ameliorate it. People will self-help many times, but only if they can!   Just as you shouldn‘t be creating a training course when a job aid will do, you can save a help call when a job aid can address most of the problems. Use performance support when it makes sense, and doing so comes from understanding how we actually think, work, and learn. When you do, you can design solutions that meet real needs. And that‘s what we want to do, no?

On Twitter today was a question from an organization that, frankly, puzzled me. Further, I think it’s important to understand  why this was a bad question. So here let me unpack several illustrative problems.

First, the question asks “What kind of learning do you prefer?” My initial response is: why would you ask that? What learners prefer has little to do with what outcomes you need to achieve.  We should design for the learning outcomes.

Then, there’s the list of elements:

• Video-based learning
• Article-based learning
• How to guides
• Interactive quizzes

There are several problems with this list. First, why this subset? This isn’t a full suite of alternatives. What about simulations, scenarios, or games? AR or VR? Podcasts? Why this selection?

Then, the options lack full definitions. What do they mean by ‘video-based learning’?  Is it just a video, with no assessment? Is it really ‘learning’ then? Of course, if the ‘-based’ means assessment as well, how is that separate from ‘interactive quizzes’? Similarly for articles. What is included?

Yet guides and quizzes aren’t ‘-based’. Are we assuming they’re full learning solutions? That’s questionable. A how-to guide, aka performance support, might yield an outcome, but it doesn’t guarantee learning. There are lots of factors that would influence that. And interactive quizzes, without models and examples, would be a slow way to develop expertise.

Another problem is in the separation of the elements. So, for instance, a ‘how to’ guide could be a video or an article! There’s the Youtube video I used to fix my dryer, or the step by step instructions I used to figure out how to run cables on a monitor. Likewise, interactive quizzes could include video or point to an article. These aren’t mutually exclusive categories.

The point is that this is a bad question. It’s already been taken down (I wasn’t the only one to question it!). Still, there’re lessons to be learned. (Maybe the most important is to ensure your social media marketing person has enough knowledge of learning not to do such silly things, but I can’t assume that’s the locus of the problem. It’s just a hypothesis I’ve seen play out elsewhere. ;) While there are times it makes sense to ask provocative questions, there’s also a reason to have conceptual clarity.  At least, that’s my take, I welcome yours!

 

 

There’s a potential belief that I’m the ‘myths‘ person, and I’ve both principled and practical reasons to try to counter that. Here’s my thinking.

And, as always, the text.

---

I’ve a dilemma. These days, if someone posts some learning myth, people tend to let me know. And I don‘t really mind, but I do worry that it buckets me as the ‘myths‘ person. Despite the book, that‘s not really my role. Another way to bucket me would be the learning science person (my next book). That‘s better, but maybe still not quite accurate. So what the <x> person am I?

Yes, I did write a book about myths. But the purpose there was to point out bad things we‘re doing, so we can instead do better things. In fact, that‘s included: what you should do instead. It‘s really about better design, not about myths.

Similarly, the learning science book coming out is a primer on the underlying cognitive science and the implications for learning design. With the emphasis on learning design, not learning science. It concludes with two chapters on the implications and the important bits. So it‘s not about learning science per se, but as a basis for what we do with it.

Really, what I am is a learning science translator, not a myths debunker. Practically, that‘s because there‘s essentially no money in being a myths debunker. They might hire a talk, but what‘s the business model? Are you going to hire me to come in and debunk your myths? Er, that‘d be no. But there‘s a principled reason, too.  

It‘s about redesigning your learning design processes to better incorporate learning science (and avoid myths). The evidence is that the processes aren‘t well done, because we see too much bad learning. And the rationales are myriad: lack of knowledge, focus on efficiency, tool orientations, and more. Consequently, the services are similarly varied: workshops on learning science-informed design, consulting on the minimal changes to keep impacts on budget low but increase the effectiveness of the outcomes, and of course beyond: to performance consulting, informal learning, and more.

Because, L&D should properly be aligned with learning (and cognitive) science. And there are many ways to improve. That‘s what I‘m about, and that‘s why I‘m here. You can think of it as learning engineering (applied learning science), but that‘s a term still in flux in terms of meaning, since it also can mean the folks who spin the bits on complex platforms for adaptive learning, or the folks who analyze data to improve outcomes.  

I‘ve been recently calling myself a learning experience design strategist. Which is conceptually accurate, and yet unwieldy (since no one knows what it means). Yet it‘s about being strategic in learning experience design: creating processes that successfully integrate learning science with engagement to create outcomes that are effective, even transformative.

There are lots of things I do:  

• Improve learning design processes to make learning more engaging and effective
• Architect design approaches to address learning needs
• Understand new technologies’ ability to enhance   learning experiences
• Educate clients, audiences, and employees about the nuances of learning design
• Review designs to improve effectiveness and engagement  
• Convince clients (internal and/or external) and audiences about the value of learning science-based approaches
• Interpret learning science and engagement research into practical guidelines

All of these are focused on being strategic about learning design. And I struggle to find another term: learning architect, learning strategist, and more. Still, there are several colleagues who are myths debunkers and learning science translators, and I‘ll suggest that you should follow, listen to, and most importantly, hire us. So, I’m not the myths person, but we do need more people applying learning science appropriately, and getting help to do so well. So whatever you want to term my role (suggestions welcome ;), do apply what we‘re talking about. Here‘s to better learning design!

This is the second of four posts where I’m talking about the next step beyond trivial engagement. Here I talk about some tips ‘n’ tricks that help us take our learning designs deeper in meaning.

And, as always, the text.

---

This is the second post about how to ‘make it meaningful‘. I talked about some tricks to maintain engagement in the previous one, and here I want to talk about what this means for the elements of learning. Here, I‘ll talk about story, challenge, exaggeration, and humor.  

First, a good experience has the characteristics of a lived story. To me, there are three major components: goal, role, and world. The goal is what the learner needs to achieve. (We choose this so that the learner won‘t achieve it unless or until they understand the necessary elements.) The role is the character that the learner is playing in trying to achieve this goal. They should be aligned. And the world is the context in which this is happening. The fantasy wrapping. Again, alignment.

The challenge to actually achieving the goal is important as well. This is what leads to learning and engagement. The alignment between Csikszentmihalyi‘s Flow and Vygotsky‘s Zone of Proximal Development lets us know that there‘re two extremes: ‘so difficult as to be frustrating‘ and ‘so easy as to be boring‘. In between is where learning, and engagement, happen. This increases as the learner‘s abilities do.

Another element to keep things from being boring is some exaggeration. That is, most of life is mundane, but our work is challenging. In the learning experience, however, what would seem challenging at work seems mundane because there is nothing really at stake.  

Thus, we can exaggerate: let‘s not work on just a patient, but the rebel leader‘s daughter, or not just a business deal, but the one that will save the company!   And, typically, we keep this down to about one level above real life, to not violate the willingness to suspend disbelief.

Finally, we can talk about humor. It‘s challenging to do, as it can be culturally specific, but appropriately applied humor can build trust and safety, and support greater exploration. And, if we realize business is a culture, we find some universals we can leverage. Timing matters, too, not just in the ‘letting a joke land‘ sense, but where and when humor‘s appropriate.  

There‘s more, but these tips ‘n’ tricks are typically missed opportunities. There‘re more details to this, of course. And, if you‘re interested in the more, I‘ll encourage you to sign up for the workshop. This is the topic of the second week!   Of course, it‘s a full workshop, so in addition to the content, we‘ll have live sessions to workshop some ideas and discuss what we‘ve done, and assignments with personal feedback.   Hope to see you there! More in my next post.

---

All posts in the Make It Meaningful series:

First: Hook

Second: Tips’n’Tricks

Third: Elements

Four Process

I know, I know, I’ve been doing a lot of updates: books, workshops, and now webinars. I promise I’ll get back to my regular posting on learning things, but the benefit of these, unlike books or courses, is that they’re free. And several are coming up! So I thought I’d at least let you have a chance. So, here’s an update on my webinars.

First, I’ll be talking for eLearning Learning on the 27th of January at 11AM PT (2PM ET). They were interested in discussing about the impact on Covid, and of course I’m taking it in an aspirational direction. I’m presenting about how we’re not well aligned with how we think, work, and learn, and what that looks like in general, and in particular online.

Then, I’m doing a ‘make it meaningful’ presentation for iSpring on 25 Feb at 9AM PT (noon ET). The coordinates to sign up are here.   It aligns with their theme and I’ll get into some top-level issues.

Then, on 18 March, at 10AM, I’ll talk with Barbara Covarrubias Venegas on facilitating innovation. Since here topic is on virtual space, I suspect we’ll focus there. It’s a LinkedIn Live event, you can see it as one of her list of interviews.

Finally, at 10 AM PT (1PM ET) on Thursday the 13th (not Friday), I’ll be talking learning science for ATD.  That, as yet, doesn’t have a page AFAIK. More info as it emerges.

(BTW, there’s a recording of my webinar last week on learning science.)

This actually presents a pretty fair coverage of my areas of focus, so if any one (or more) is of interest, here’s a chance to see my thoughts. My general focus, as I like to quip, is on those things L&D isn’t doing, and what they’re doing badly. Which is most everything! 😁  I’m sure more webinars will eventuate, but that’s it for now. So there you go, an update on my webinars. Hope to see you there!