Search Results for: align

Previous Series Post | Last Series Post

This is one in a series of thoughts on some broken areas of ID that I’ve been posting for Mondays.   The intention is to provide insight into many ways much of instructional design fails, and some pointers to avoid the problems. The point is not to say ‘bad designer’, but instead to point out how to do better design.

Instructional design has established that the correct order of elements is introduction – concept – example – practice (and feedback) – summary.   While that’s a good default, it doesn’t have to be that way, and there are times when it makes sense to provide other approaches or even self-navigation.   What we shouldn’t see is the prevalent (click to advance ‘next’ button), with linear navigation forwards and back.   Or, rather, we shouldn’t see that without some other support.   And more.

When we did a course on speaking to the media (and without an LMS to handle the navigation, so no built-in ‘next button’), we had a scheme that both provided a good default, and allowed self-navigation.   We had the elements of each of the 3 modules labeled from a learner perspective (e.g. Show Me, Let Me). And we had a nav bar in the upper left that let you choose where to go. At the bottom of the screen (we erred for scrolling rather than one page to minimize clicks and load times, this was over 10 years ago) were also some options of where to go next, with one indicated as the recommended choice.   We graphically supported this with a dotted   line leading the learner through the content and to the default choice (follow the bouncing ball).

Was there benefit from this?   Anecdotaly, I heard (I’d returned to the US) that about half the users followed the bouncing ball, but the other half (presumably the self-capable learners) took the initiative for their own learning and used the nav bar to go where and when *they* wanted to.   I note that UNext/Cardean had a similar nav structure at one time.

Now, you may have heard of case-, problem- or project-based learning. In this case, before you present the concept, you present either an example (a case-study) or a problem.   These serve as the introduction, but are attuned to different ways of learning.

If you buy into some of the learning style models, they have cycles through different learning approaches, but recognize that different learners could prefer to start in different areas.   That was the premise that drove at least part of the strategy behind the adaptive learning system project I led from 1999-2001. We had the system   recommend a path, and alternatives, but it was based upon who they were as a learner.

It turns out that some learners could prefer an example first, that links concept to context, some prefer problems first, to get concrete about what the situation’s about, and some might prefer a more typical approach.   We didn’t have all the answers at the time, but we had a good set of rules, and were going to extract better ones as we went along.

The point is, while a good default is a reasonable choice, having some alternative paths might be worth considering, and allowing learner navigation is almost essential.     Allowing learners to test out is a good option as well.   Don’t lock your learners into a linear experience, unless you’ve really designed it as an experience, focusing on the overall flow and testing and refining until your learners tell you it is an experience.   And I do recommend that, it’s not as tough as it sounds.   However, don’t take just the easy default, learners prefer and deserve choice.   So consider some alternative pedagogies, consider the learner, and think outside the line.

Previous Series Post | Next Series Post

This is one in a series of thoughts on some broken areas of ID that I‘m posting for Mondays.   The intention is to provide insight into many ways much of instructional design fails, and some pointers to avoid the problems. The point is not to say ‘bad designer‘, but instead to point out how to do better design.

At some point (typically, after the introduction) we need to present the concept.   The concept is the key to the learning, really.   While we‘ve derived our ultimate alignment from the performance objective, the concept provides the underlying framework to guide one‘s performance.   We use the framework to provide feedback to help the learner understand why their behavior was wrong, both in the learning experience and ideally past the learning experience the learner uses the model to continue to develop their performance.   Except that, too often, we don‘t provide the concept in a useful way.

What we too often see is a presentation of a rote procedure, without the underlying justification.   In business, we‘ll teach a process.   In software, we‘ll see feature/function presentations (literally going item by item through the menus!).   We‘ll see tutorials to achieve a particular goal without presenting an underlying model.   And that‘s broken.

We need models! The reason why is that people create mental models to explain the world.   People aren‘t very good at remembering rote things (our brains are really good at pattern matching, but not rote memorization).   We can fake it, but it‘s just crazy to have people memorize rote things unless it‘s something we have to absolutely know cold (medical terminology is an example, as are emergency checklists for flights).   By and large, very little of what we need to know needs to be memorized.

Instead, what people need are models.   Models are powerful, because they have explanatory and predictive power.   If you forget a step in a procedure, but know the model driving the performance, you can regenerate the missing step.   With software, for instance, if you present the model, and several examples where the way to do something is derived from the model, and then you have the learner use inferences from the model to do a couple of tasks, you might be saved from having to present the whole system.

People will build models, so if you don‘t give them one, it‘s quite likely that the one they do build will be wrong.   And bad models are very hard to extinguish, because we patch them rather than replace them.   It requires more responsibility on the designer to get the model, as, for reasons mentioned before, our SMEs may not be able to help us, but get them we must.   Realize that every procedure, software, or behavior has a model that drives the reason why it should be done in a particular way, and find it. Then we need to communicate it.

Multiple models help! To communicate a model most effectively, we should communicate it in several ways.   Models are more memorable than rote material, but we need to facilitate internalization.   Prose is certainly one tool we can and should use (carefully, it‘s way too easy to overwrite), but we should look at other ways to communicate it as well.

Multiple representations help in several ways.   First, they increase the likelihood that a learner will comprehend the model, and then have a path to comprehend the other representations.   Second, the multiple representations increase the number of paths to activate a model in a relevant context.   Finally, multiple representations increase the likelihood that one can map closely to the problem and facilitate a solution.

Multiple representations are, unfortunately, sometimes difficult to generate (more so than finding the original model).   However, we should always be able to at least generate a diagram.   This is because the model should have conceptual relationships, and these can be mapped to spatial relationships.   There‘s some creativity involved, but that‘s the fun part anyways!

Yes, doing good instructional design does take more work, but anything worth doing is worth doing well.   On a related, but important, note, unfortunately the difference between broken ID and good ID is subtle.     You may have to explain it (I have literally had to), but if you know what you‘re doing and why, you should be able to.   And having developed a powerful representation increases the power, and success of the learning, and consequently the performance.   Which is, of course, our goal. So, go forth and conceptualize!

First Series Post | Next Series Post

This is one in a series of thoughts on some broken areas of ID that I‘m posting for Mondays.   The intention is to provide insight into many ways much of instructional design fails, and some pointers to avoid the problems. The point is not to say ‘bad designer‘, but instead to point out how to do better design.

One of the first things learners see is the introduction to the content; it‘s the first place that they can be disappointed, and all too often they are.   They are given objectives that don‘t matter to them, they‘re told what they‘re going to see in dull terms, it‘s all aversive rather than interesting.   Which is a wonderful way to start a learning experience, eh?

What we want to do is bring in the emotion! Almost all of instructional design is about the cognitive part, yet the motivational part is often just as important.   And we‘ve got to go beyond simplistic views of what that means.

Even cognitive science recognizes that there‘s more to the mind that the cognitive aspect, and includes the affective and conative as well.   Affective are your learning characteristics, your learner‘s styles.   Whereas conative is the interesting bit: the intention to learn, which includes things like motivation to learn, anxiety about learning, etc.

I‘ve gone off before about learning styles, and the short answer is to a) use the right media for the message, and b) to provide help for learners.   However, addressing motivation and anxiety is a different, and important, thing.   We want to assist their motivation, which happens by helping the learner connect this experience to themselves and their goals.   And we want to reduce their anxiety to an appropriate level (people perform better under a little pressure), by helping manage their expectations.

To help with motivation, there are a couple of things to do.   We know that learners learn better when we activate relevant information up front (it helps associate the new information to existing information).   I maintain that we want to extend that, and open them up emotionally too. And, I believe that it should be done first.   I think we need to indicate the consequences of the knowledge, either negative for not having the information, or positive for having the information.   I think the consequences can be exaggerated, to increase the emotional impact, within bounds, and it can be done dramatically (see Michael Allen‘s Flight Safety video) or humorously.   I‘ve used comic strips to begin elearning sections (we don’t use comics enough)!

There are nuances here: it has to be specific to the situation, not just a non-related exaggeration.   Done well, it can incorporate the cognitive association activation as well!   But hook them emotionally, and the information will stick better.   Too often in the learning I see, there‘s not just little, but essentially no addressing why this information is important to the learner, and that‘s got to be job number 1, or we risk wasting the rest of the effort.

Then we come to objectives, and here I nod in the direction of Will Thalheimer, who‘s said this better than I: the objectives we show to the learner are not the ones we use to design!   Too often, there‘s a section in the cookie-cutter template for objectives, and we slap in the ones we‘re designing to.   Wrong, bad designer, no Twinkie ™.   We (should) use objectives [previous post] to align what we‘re doing to the real need, but the learners don‘t want to know about our metrics.   The objectives for them need to be rewritten in a WIIFM (What‘s In It For Me) framework. They should get objectives that let them know what they‘ll be able to do that they can‘t do now, that they care about!

Another thing that helps, and now we‘re onto anxiety more, is addressing expectations.   Stephanie Burns showed that of people who set out to accomplish a goal, those that succeeded were those who managed their expectations appropriately.   Similarly, when I run workshops, I find I get less concerns when I help lay out what‘s going to happen and why rather than just barging ahead.   If people don‘t know what to expect, or expect it‘ll be X (e.g. entertaining) and there‘s some Y (e.g. hard work), they get frustrated or concerned with the mismatch.   They can get upset in particular if one aspect is difficult and they feel like they‘re floundering.   Making sure that the expectations are set appropriately helps learners feel like they‘re in synch with what‘s happening, and maintains their confidence.

A role that‘s cognitive as well as motivational is that we don‘t do enough has to do with contextualizing what‘s happening.   Too often, learning is conduced in a vacuum.   Yet Charles Reigeluth‘s Elaboration Theory suggests drilling down, and I say contextualize the learning in the larger context of what‘s happening in the world. Even if we‘re learning about some minor medical procedure, we can talk about how health care is a major issue, and getting it right is one of the components to make it effective and efficient.   Or somesuch, but you can quickly connect what they‘re learning to the real world, and you should.   It‘ll help again associate relevant knowledge and increase the effectiveness of the message by connecting what‘s happening now to what‘s really important.

And, I‘ll finally add, no pre-tests, unless it‘s to let the learners test out. I‘ve talked about that before, so I‘ll merely point you to my previous screed.

So, introduce your learners appropriately to the learning, get them cognitively and emotionally ready for the learning experience, and you won‘t be throwing away all the effort to develop what follows the introduction, you‘ll be maximizing it.   And that‘s what you want, at the end, is for that learning to stick.