Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Search Results for: engag

10 mobile questions

by 5 Comments

As part of an initiative for ASTD’s upcoming International Conference and Exposition, I was filmed as I responded to 10 questions around mobile (if you’re there, hope to hear how it goes) from Tony Bingham (he came in via conference call). Here is what I wrote up as thoughts before the filming (and then answered spontaneously, but mindful of what I’d written).

1. How do you define mobile learning?

I really think mobile learning is about augmenting the brain wherever and whenever you are, or, as I say “accessorize your brain“.  Yes, you can get into elegant definitions (I like how Judy Brown mentions size, familiarity, and omnipresence), but really it’s about how it’s used.  I advocate not thinking about courses on a phone, but instead about augmenting formal learning and augmenting performance.

2. Why mobile / why now?

I think the reason mobile is becoming ‘hot’ is that the devices are converging and offering powerful capabilities in a small factor, and that mobile devices are now ubiquitous (at least in the developed world, and are at surprising levels in the developing world.  But perhaps most importantly, as I think about it now (and not what I said or wrote originally), is that the space is maturing. We have workable app stores and easy usage.  The power is now out there, and the mechanisms are now there to take advantage of it. When a small company like Google is saying they’re developing for mobile first, something significant is happening.

3. Where is mobile learning having the biggest impact today – how do you see that changing in the future?

Right now, I think the biggest impact is in quick access to needed problem-solutions, whether it’s content, computation, or the right person.  In the future, I expect to see more context sensitivity (e.g. augmented reality).  The opportunity already exists to get information based upon where you are, and I hope we’ll see more, but also support for ‘when’ you are (that is, what you are doing regardless of where it is), and of course the combination of both.

4. How does mobile learning support other types of learning at the organizations with whom you work (e.g., formal learning / social learning)? Has it replaced any other learning modes?

I see mobile learning as providing a way to extend the formal learning in time and space, and while the time one is important, again I think the space one will be come important.  I don’t see mobile learning as a replacement though I think it can spark a useful shift to consider performance support in addition to or in place of formal learning.

5. What impact has mobile learning had on instructional design?

I think that mlearning has had a beneficial impact on instructional design in several ways. For one, it requires minimalism, and that’s good for elearning in general from the perspective of the learner experience.  Second, I think it has emphasized more granularity in design, separating out concepts from examples from practice activities, and that’s beneficial in terms of looking forward to adaptive and personalized systems. Overall, I think it has helped foment a greater emphasis on separating out the content itself from how it’s delivered.

6. From a development perspective – do you think the industry should be focused on apps or the web for mobile learning – do you see this changing in the future?

I don’t think there’s one answer, it’s horses for courses, as they say.  Mobile web currently has a greater reach across platforms, and is easier to develop.  On the other hand, it can have limitations in terms of taking advantage of device-specific capabilities.  And, of course, there is still such dynamism that whatever answer you give now might change between when I write this and you read it.  In the longer term, I hope for a cross-platform development environment that allows production of highly interactive experiences and the delivery can be platform-specific for most devices and then have a web option for other devices.

7. How do you recommend dealing with the various platforms that are currently available – and, what do you consider in making those decisions?

The platform solution depends mightily on many factors: who the audience is, what devices they have, what the need is, and what resources are available all can play a factor in deciding what platform to choose.  Increasingly, you also have to ask what the context of the individual is, and the task as well.

8. Please talk about the importance (or not) of senior executive and organization support for mobile learning.

Like all organizational initiatives, top-down support is really beneficial.  While stealth operations, bottom-up grassroots initiatives can succeed and have done so, in the long term you want executives to ‘get’ the value. Increasingly, we’re seeing that executives are using smartphones and tablets, so the opportunity is there.

9. What advice would you give to someone thinking about implementing mobile learning in their organization?

Think strategically.  And, at the same time, get your hands dirty with a first experiment. That may seem contradictory, but you want to be developing both your experience with it as you start incorporating mobile into your long-term thinking.  Naturally all the pre-existing wisdom holds true: start small, find something easy that will have a big impact, etc.

As I think of it now, I think you should do several things:

  1. make sure all the content you generate (and post-hoc do this for legacy content) is mobile-accessible and mobile deliverable.
  2. find mobile solutions for all your internal communication channels: phone, text messages, email, but also access to social networks, wikis, etc.
  3. create a place for mobile-generated content – images, videos, etc – to be stored and shared

10.   What do you see in the future for mobile learning?

I naturally mentioned my interest in slow learning, beginning to move away from the event model and start thinking about a more mentor-like relationship in developing individuals over time, in ways that more naturally mimic the way our brains learn.  Also, of course, I think alternate reality games will combine the best of simulation game learning and mobile learning, making learning closer to the real task, more engaging, more distributed, and consequently more effective.

Those are my answers, what are yours?

 

Beyond Talent

by 1 Comment

A post I wrote for the ATC conference:

As I prepare to talk to the Australasian Talent Conference I’ve naturally been thinking about the intersection of that field and what I do. As I recently  blogged, I think there’s an overlap between OD and the work of trying to facilitate organizational performance through technology. I think Talent Management  similarly has an overlap.

While technology is used in talent management, it really is more focused on the management part, supporting the role of HR in recruitment, competencies, and more. Which  is good, but now there’s more on the table.  We now have the benefits of Web 2.0 to leverage. To understand how, it helps to look at the charateristics of Web 2.0.  Brent Schlenker talks about the 5-ables:

  • findable – the ability to use search to find things
  • feedable – the ability to subscribe to content
  • linkable – the ability to point to content
  • taggable – allowing other to add descriptors
  • editable – allowing others to add content

At core, this is about leveraging the power of the network to get improved outcomes. When others can add value, they do. We have seen that in learning and development, and the drivers there are not unique to the area.

Things are moving faster, and information is increasing. Worse, that information is more volatile, as well. As if that weren’t enough, competition is increasing.  The luxury to plan, prepare, and execute is increasingly a thing of the past.  As a consequence, optimal execution is only the cost of entry, and continual innovation is the necessary differentiator.

As a result, the old top-down mentality is no longer a solution, one person can not do all the necessary thinking for a team. Instead, forward-thinking organizations are finding the solution in empowering their people to work together to come up with the necessary solutions. They are devolving problem-solving, research, design, innovation further down in the organization, and realizing real results from the process. Instead of having to own all the content, learning units are instead facilitating the development of answers from among the stakeholders.

Note that by doing so, organizations are also making work more meaningful and consequently more rewarding. As Dan Pink’s Drive demonstrates, individuals are more motivated by the opportunity to engage than by artificial rewards. And these results are not unique to high-tech, but being seen in organizations engaged in manufacturing, medicine, and more.

This revolution can, and should, be seen in talent management as well. Throughout the lifecycle of talent, the network can add value. Beyond recruiting, networks can be used for talent evaluation, and then within the organization for onboarding, development, performance management, and even debriefing and alumni activities.

The point is to think about how to tap into the power of people. And even when you are now hiring people, you are not just hiring what is in  their heads, but what’s also in their networks. Similarly, they are choosing organizations on how well they use networks. As the Cuetrain Manifesto documented, an organization can no longer control the message. If an organization is inauthentic externally, it is a safe bet that it is similarly dysfunctional internally.

Social media is much more than just marketing, it’s a tool to take advantage of for many reasons. More meaningful work, better outcomes, and a better connection to the market are just the top level benefits. Social, it’s not just for parties any more.

 

The Pad and the Pod

by 5 Comments

I had a conversation today where I was asked about the difference with a tablet versus a smartphone (or pad versus pod :).  This is something I’ve been thinking about, and some thoughts coalesced as I answered. I don’t think this is my definitive answer, but it’s worth wrestling with (learning out loud and all that).

The must-read for mobile designers, The Zen of Palm, shows data collected from years ago on the early Palm devices (Figure 1.3) which showed the difference between usage of desktops versus handhelds. The general pattern is that folks access desktops a few times a day for long periods, while handheld devices were accessed many times a day for very short periods.

I believe this is still largely true: we tend to use our smartphones and similar devices as learning/performance support as quick access to information.  While we might listen to music, that’s a different thing.   Yes, there will be times we access a video or read a document or even listen to a podcast, but the usual use is as quick access.

And I think we use tablets more like desktops.  We settle down with them for longer periods of time, and engage more deeply. They’re often about content consumption, and they may also be for content creation, in both cases more so than the smaller devices.  And I think it’s more than a quantitative difference, I really do feel it’s qualitative.  Yes, this blurs when we’re talking about 7.1″ tablets instead of 10″, but overall I think it holds.

Which naturally leads to the question of what’s the difference between a tablet and a desktop?  And here I’m on stranger ground.  I think one of the interesting phenomena of the tablet experience is the ‘intimacy’ of the experience. You’re holding the device and touching it.  It’s in your arms, instead of at arms-length.  And I believe, without having come up with empirical ways to document, that’ it’s a more personal engagement. It helps that the first successful instance, the iPad, has an overall aesthetic that’s elegant, so media look good and the user experience feels natural.  I hate the over-used phrase ‘intuitive’, but many inferences about how to use the device play out.

So, in a sense is the tablet a mobile device?  When it’s acting like a desktop: being used to take notes, for instance, I don’t really consider it a truly mobile device, but when it can be with you to meet needs that you’re unlikely to consider meeting with a laptop, and it can deliver some meaningful interaction that’s more immediate than you’d accomplish with even a netbook, a tablet definitely is a mobile device.  And there are plenty of those times.

Fundamentally, though they can share apps, I think a pad serves a different need than a pod.  I think the pod is more performance support and learning augmentation, while the pad is more full learning.  There is overlap, and each can act as the other, but if you’ve got both, I reckon you’ll find this to be the case.

Naturally, I’m still thinking that a real learning opportunity for the pad will be when they can be more than content consumption, and actually do meaningful interaction. Not just quizzes, which can be done now via mobile web, but immersive simulations and serious games.  And you can do that now, but  not in a cross-platform way. We need a standard, like ePub for ebooks, but one that supports simulation-driven interaction.  Flash could’ve been it, but the performance problems have been a barrier.  It’s not clear whether HTML5 will meet my desires, but otherwise we need something else.  When we’ve got that capability, we have a market to provide more meaningful experiences to learners.

The implications for design are to not be exclusive to either, but if you’re designing performance support, you might be thinking more pod, and if you are thinking more full task and full learning, you might be thinking more pad.  That’s what I think, what do you think?

New Horizon Report: Alan Levine – Mindmap

by 3 Comments

This evening I had the delight to hear Alan Levine present the New Media Consortium’s New Horizon Report for 2011 to the ASTD Mt. Diablo chapter.  As often happens, I mindmapped it.  Their process is interesting, using a Delphi approach to converge on the top topics.

For the near term (< 1 year), he identified the two major technologies as ebooks and mobile devices (with a shoutout for my book: very kind).  For the medium term (2-3 years), he pointed to augmented reality and game-based learning (though only barely touching on deeply immersive simulations, which surprised me).  For the longer term (4-5 years), the two concepts were gesture-based computing and learning analytics.

A very engaging presentation.

mind map of Levine talk

Pedagogical Cycle

by Leave a Comment

In a recent post, I was trying to communicate the benefits of social learning: the additional processing that occurs while negotiating a shared understanding. Interestingly, the diagram I designed to accompany the post and communicate the concept was not well received. C’est la vie.  As this was to be the representation on a slide talking about social learning, I was forced to come up with another way to communicate the concept.  Instead of focusing on exactly the same concept, I decided to take another tack.  The idea I’m communicating is how our model of learning has changed.

The first organized learning was really accomplished through apprenticeship: an individual would come to a task developing some artifact or performing some task, and would perform some minimal component in the context of the overall work.  As we developed more abstract concepts, we moved to a dialog, where individuals would express their understanding, and others would engage in a conversation until agreement (even to disagree) was reached.  Then, for efficiency reasons, we moved to a classroom model, where one individual would propose knowledge and the others would recite it.

The latter model has some problems, not least that the little learning would dissipate quickly, as it was typically knowledge focused and only applied in abstract ways.  Such learning situations can be well-done, but only to the extent that there are meaningful tasks and learners are supported in accomplishing those tasks.

In other words, we move back to the apprenticeship model.  Learning research has largely converged on a model that say we learn best when we are motivated and applying our knowledge to solve problems we realize are important, and are supported both with information resources and scaffolding, and reflection is guided around that performance.  My favorite model is Collins & Brown’s Cognitive Apprenticeship, influenced by anthropological work and abstracting across several great pieces of work to create an integrated approach that still seems relevant.

In short, we’re looking backwards to how we learned naturally and bypassing a learning approach that is driven more by industrial and agricultural constraints than cognitive and social ones.  We can certainly use technology to augment this approach, and we’re more aware of the nuances, but in taking a step back we’re taking a major step forward.  How about that!

Pseudoteaching

by 4 Comments

As a nice complement to my last post on Understanding by Design, comes this piece on Pseudoteaching that Donald Taylor (who runs the excellent UK Learning Technologies conference) pointed out.   The premise is that much teaching that appears good to both the instructor and observers is really ineffective.   And this is instructive in a couple of ways.

First, it’s easy to believe that if you’re preparing, and presenting eloquently, you are communicating.   And that isn’t necessarily so.   For learning to stick, there are several necessary components, the most important being that the learner needs to be engaged in meaningful activity.   That’s not likely the case in the classroom where learners are in your control.   Now, if you’re giving meaningful assignments before the lecture, and then extending the learning afterward, you have a chance.   Otherwise, the content is likely to fall on deaf ears.

And, to fend off the hoary old canard about why do we attend conferences then (and I give a lot of talks): if people are doing meaningful activity, like their jobs, then a presentation related to their work can serve as a valuable reflection opportunity. So, speaking to practitioners makes sense: it can provide new insights, inspiration, and more.   But not for learners who don’t have meaningful activity and aligned content resources.

Which brings me to the second point, you need to start with thinking about what you want learners to be able to do after the learning experience, and then align assessment and learning materials accordingly. Like the post author, I too probably was “doin’ a Lewin” when I first started lecturing, but I coupled it with meaningful and challenging assignments.   And not as well as I now would do, but I improved over time and if I ever get a chance to be an instructor again, I will continue to improve (I’ve got some courses or a program I’d love to run).

It’s real easy to delude ourselves that good production equals good learning, but the evidence is to the contrary.   Similarly, it’s easy to convince ourselves that we’ve given the learners the necessary information.   That doesn’t work either.   You’ve got to understand learning, formally or intuitively (and the latter is not the way to bet), and align the elements to succeed.

That’s if a significant skill-shift is what’s needed, and there are lots of times a course isn’t the answer. But when it is, get it right.   Please.   We really can’t afford to waste money and time like it is all too easy to do.

Understanding by Design

by 1 Comment

I have long advocated, in consonance with sound learning   principles, that in a good design process works backwards:

  • start with the desired outcomes as capabilities,
  • align assessment to the outcomes,
  • and then design the learning experience to achieve those outcomes.

This shouldn’t be new.   Recently, I was pointed towards Wiggins & McTighe’s Understanding by Design, which turns out to be a curricular approach predicated on just such lines.   I am of mixed feelings.

First, I am thrilled to see someone in formal education talking about looking at more meaningful outcomes, particularly aimed at “clarify learning goals, devise revealing assessments of student understanding, and craft effective and engaging learning activities”.   This is something I’ve been trying to argue for in my work with formal education, e.g. with publishers, schools, and more.   It’s a more enlightened approach to design.

On the other hand, it’s sort of like my reaction when we investigated what should be covered in continuing medical education and were told that we should proselytize evidence-based medicine: “what have they been doing ’til now?!?!”   I continue to be amazed at how folks go about things in ways that do not reflect what we understand about doing things well.   And what I’ve seen of their 6 Facets of Understanding seem a bit vague (and mea culpa, I have not read their thorough exposition, but it seems like YAT, Yet Another Taxonomy), though I’m perfectly willing to be wrong about that.

Interestingly, they apparently do not recommend applying this approach to individual lesson plans, and instead constrain it to curriculum level goals. I can see how the focus should be on the goal, not the time-frame, and I personally believe in spreading out learning over a longer period of time.

It’s nice to have another label to attach to good design, so I laud the initiative, and hope we can get more good design, and more understanding, in our schools and everywhere else.

Thinking Social

by 1 Comment

In talking about the 4C’s of Mobile, the last one I usually mention is ‘communicate’.   Communicate isn’t last because it’s least, but instead because it leads us furthest afield, into the areas of social learning, which has many ramifications in many ways: organizationally, cognitively, culturally, and more.   However, it is of importance for mobile in terms of thinking about how and when to take advantage of it.   It is also something that the Internet Time Alliance is wrestling with.

We strongly believe in performance consulting, that is getting to the root cause of the organizational problem, and determining whether the problem is skill set, information, motivation, or whatever.   This is a necessary step before you decide your intervention. However, the current models of performance consulting seem to be   missing a couple of things.   For one, they are not particularly good at engagement, at least in the formal learning setting, and trying to understand the audience’s interest.   More importantly here, they also seem to lack consideration of when a social media solution might make sense.

As a preliminary step, I went back to some material I have from my workshop on mobile learning design.   One of the activities is thinking about when you might want to consider a social solution, to connect to someone to communicate, rather than have a prepared solution.   My initial thoughts were that you might want to connect when:

  • the content is highly volatile
  • the situation is likely unique
  • the cost of access is low
  • the need for personal touch or mentoring is high

These make sense to me, but I’ve no reason to believe the list is comprehensive.   However, it is a starting point for thinking about when you might want to provide access to a social resource, whether a directory of appropriate people, or consider providing communication tools.

I might extend the list with:

  • when the situation is likely new
  • when there is an expert
  • when the situation is likely to be complex.

Here’s a tougher one: when would you think the situation would likely need a collaborator, instead of an expert?   What’s the trigger?

As I said, I’m just starting to wrestle with this.   What ideas do you have?

Quip: design

by Leave a Comment

If you get the design right, there are lots of ways to implement it; if you don’t get the design right, it doesn’t matter how you implement it.

Too often, people under design and overproduce, resulting in great looking products that are worthless.   This is certainly the case in elearning, but you see it in other fields, too.

Similarly, I’ve found that if you get the design right, you don’t need lots of production.   In an example cited in my Engaging Learning book, we designed a game for kids that need to learn how to live on their own. The first version looked like it was done by lame 3rd graders, but the play was right; as a consequence, we got some funding to tart up the graphics.   On the other hand, if the play hadn’t been right, it wouldn’t have gotten used.

One of the reasons to tout this is so many people are concerned about what tool to use.   I don’t really systematically study tools, because once you’ve got the design, you can probably implement it in a variety of tool solutions. And the tools will change, but the need for quality design won’t.

The focus has to be on the learning experience design first, and then you can worry about how you might build the delivery environment.   So, please, get design, and get the design right.   Then we can talk about how to develop it.

Social Media Strategy thoughts

by 2 Comments

What is a social media strategy for outreach?   Really, it‘s about demonstrating your thinking, your values, and background. It‘s about interacting with appropriate people in ways that reflect who you are.

Here is some thoughts about how that maps out in two areas: Facebook, and Twitter.   I‘m mentioning these as two of the most viable and visible tools for social media engagement.

Twitter

Having a twitter account is a necessary start, maybe several. One might be just a daily thing people can follow, but it has to provide value.   So, for example, you might stream out an interesting bit of the day. That, alone, however, is not enough.

A second important role is to engage people.   More important than the first idea is to ‘be‘ an entity.   If an organization is on social media, and increasingly they should be,   it needs to be interactive. This is accomplished in several ways:

  • point to what the organization is doing
  • point to interesting things outside of the organization
  • re-tweet relevant stuff that others post (which requires following interesting people)
  • respond to people replying to that account.

These require resources, essentially a person or persons who handle these duties.   Done well, these activities demonstrate that there is an interesting mind and a sincere heart behind the account.

Facebook

The same is true of a FaceBook page.   Not only should people be friending it, they should be coming back to be engaged   the organization, but now also with their colleagues also interested in the organization.

There are different ways to be on Facebook: as a static page, or as a ‘presence‘ with dialogs, groups, etc.  A static page might get a few ‘likes‘, but you really want to build a site as a place to come for folks interested in the organization and it’s work.   There need to be discussions supported (and interacted with).   There need to be updates.   There needs to be a way for people to have a dialog with you.   You need information: photos, events.   Use apps to create polls. In short, it’s about interaction around the organization and it’s work.

Again, the message is that you‘re active, engaged, you really care about what you do.   And, again, it takes resources.

Twitter/Facebook Integration

These two elements do not live independently.   Your Twitter strategy should be aligned with your Facebook strategy, so your tweets point to new information on Facebook, your Facebook account reflects your tweets, etc.   Your tweets should drive traffic to the Facebook site, but not exclusively.

There‘s more that can be incorporated: blogs (I use twitter and my blog more than my facebook page, but I‘m an individual not an organization).   However, your elements shouldn‘t be too fragmented.   E.g. only have separate Twitter handles and Facebook pages if your separate initiatives have to maintain unique identities. However, that‘s a branding issue, and not a place I‘m qualified to talk about.   Once you‘ve got the identity, then you need to align your Facebook and Twitter strategies.

So, you should be doing this, and you need to be doing it well.   If you don’t do it right, you may as well not do it at all.