Search Results for: engagement

We interrupt your regularly scheduled reading for this commercial announcement:

What is Learning Experience Design (LXD)? Further, why should you care? Finally, (and arguably most important) what does it mean you should do differently? Those, to me, are important questions. My short answer is that LXD is the elegant integration of learning science and engagement. Which, to me, implies some important nuances on top of what’s traditionally done in instructional design (ID). How to address it? There’s actually quite a lot in LXD, but it’s also a lot of overlap with traditional ID practices and processes. I reckon the easiest (and best) way to address it is to talk about the delta. That is, what’s different between the two. So, in my role for Upside Learning, I developed a missing LXD workshop. We ran it internally to good outcomes, and now, you can take it!

I believe that the difference starts with objectives; you can’t make a meaningful experience if you don’t have learners acquiring relevant new skills (not just an information dump). From there, there are nuances on designing individual practice activities, and then aggregated into practices (that is, putting practices together). Moving on, we look at the content elements of models and examples, and then the emotional aspects of learning. The workshop closes by looking at a design process that accommodates these. Recognizing that folks don’t want to throw out their whole process to start anew, it works from a generic model.

In the workshop, I cover each of those topics in a week; so it’s a six week experience. In between, I ask attendees to do some interim processing to both cement their understanding and to change their practices. Each week we’ll cover underlying concepts, see examples of what we’re talking about, actively process the information, and do a major application task.

To make this available more broadly, Upside’s partnered with the Learning Development Accelerator (LDA) to deliver it. Full disclosure: I’m co-director of the LDA, and Chief Learning Strategist for Upside Learning (in addition to my ongoing role for Quinnovation). (So, it’s all about me! :) Seriously, I think this puts together the tools I believe are necessary to lift our industry.

To be clear, since the advance notice timeframe puts this in summer, we’re offering it in Asia time-frames first (tho’ anyone is welcome!):

Australian Eastern Standard Time: July 7, 14, 21, 28, August 4 and 11 from 12h00 to 14h00 each day
Singapore Time: July 7, 14, 21, 28, August 4 and 11 from 10h00 to 12h00 each day
India Standard Time: July 7, 14, 21, 28, August 4 and 11 from 07h30 to 09h30 each day
New York Time: July 6, 13, 20, 27, August 3 and 10 from 22h00 to 24h00 each day

We’re offering it for US$100 to LDA members, and US$350 to non-members (for only $40 more, you get the full LDA offerings as well).

We’re planning to offer the missing LXD workshop again at a later date at East Coast/Europe friendly times (probably at a steeper price, we’ll have worked the bugs out ;). You can find out more at the LDA site. It’s got learning science and engagement bundled up into a coherent whole, for those who’ve already been doing ID and want to lift their game. I hope you’ll find it worth your while.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled reading until next week at the usual time.

Of late, I’ve been talking a fair bit about my take on learning experience design (LXD). To me, it’s the elegant integration of learning science with engagement. Of course, I’m biased, as my two most recent books are specifically to those ends! I don’t claim it’s automatic, but I do believe that with practice, it gets easier. You need to address both process and product, of course.

Our goals are, ultimately, to achieve learning outcomes, typically retention and transfer. That is, retaining skills over time ’til needed and transferring to all appropriate (and no inappropriate) situations. This requires, cognitively, sufficient practice and an appropriate spread of contexts. Emotionally, it requires an initial hook and then maintaining commitment through the experience via relevant activities.

I’ve been running a workshop with my partner, Upside Learning, on the ‘missing bits’. That is, the fine tuning that takes what you normally do in ID and fills in the extra steps that will successfully provide the integration. It’s been great for stress-testing the workshop (stay tuned!), and extremely insightful. I get to hear what these smart and experienced folks are realizing in their own practices, and what they’re struggling to change.  That’s my goal, of course: to help them bake learning science and engagement into their processes and products.

One of the concerns, not surprisingly, is that it takes more time. That includes upfront analysis (which clients can also resist). Then it requires a bit more thought on designing practice and winnowing content. Finally, it should be iterative. I’m not the only one focusing on the latter, of course. However, I argue that it ultimately really doesn’t take that much more time, but there will be a speed bump until the new way of thinking becomes automatic.

Still, it will require adjusting how we develop, to impact what we develop. Process and product are linked at the wrist and ankles. Understanding the underlying principles, the learning science and engagement integration, is a necessary foundation. That’s my take, I welcome yours.

I’ll be offering a free webinar with Training Magazine Network on the core principles of LXD on Wednesday March 22 at 9AM PT (noon ET). I note that if there’s a conflict, they’ll make the recording available afterwards if you register. I welcome seeing you there!

Increasingly, we’re seeing that emotion matters. Scientific evidence supports what we intuitively know. Yet, in many cases, our actions don’t support that understanding. At least, in nuance. In particular, our learning designs suffer from trivialized ‘like’ as opposed to useful and effective approaches. We can and should do better to tap into the power of emotion.

Again, I’m using the term ’emotion’ loosely here. While we do care about emotions like joy and grief (though our picture is changing), what we really need to be caring about are non-cognitive elements like motivation, anxiety, and confidence. It’s about designing to appropriately address them: develop motivation, keep a lid on anxiety, and build confidence. Each has it’s elements.

Motivation improves learning outcomes, but requires understanding what makes us interested. We’re driven by a desire to understand the world (c.f. ‘predictive coding‘. Curiosity can assist in developing an interest. Certainly, self-interest plays a role as well, and helping people tune into the positive consequences of a learning experience (or the negative outcomes of not having the requisite understanding) is also useful. Self-Determination Theory (c.f. Deci and Ryan) talks about mastery, autonomy, and relatedness. We can use this to help people connect with others (instructors/peers/experts), give them tasks (autonomy) and support to succeed (mastery).

Anxiety interferes, if it’s too much. While a small amount helps, that’s quickly overwhelming. Given that learning can be intrinsically anxiety-inducing, keeping anxiety to a minimum is important. Making it safe to fail is an important component of this. Psychological safety is an important element in organizational operation, and learning as well.  We can not attach consequences to practice, certainly at first. We can also have the instructor make mistakes as well.

Building confidence is an adjunct here. As people master the skills, at greater and greater levels of challenge (an important component of successful learning experience design), they build confidence. That reduces anxiety, and maintains motivation. We don’t want false confidence, but we can steadily build confidence as we go. Ultimately, we want learners to have sufficient confidence to try out the skills (and succeed) after the learning experience.

There’s lots more that goes into making an experience effective and engaging, but understanding these elements, and how to enact them, is an important component. The power of emotion, properly harnessed, improves learning outcomes (which is what we should be about ;). I’ll be addressing these and more in my workshop Make It Meaningful at the upcoming DevLearn conference in Las Vegas on Oct 24. I’d love to see you there, as we talk about the complement to learning science that combines to achieve those experience goals.

In a current engagement, we’re faced with the challenge of being given large goals. They can be learning, or performance support, or even just awareness. One of the things we’re wrestling with is how and when to break things up into smaller chunks. To be clear, this is about whether to put it into a separate entity, rather than how to segment within an entity. This isn’t an area of my expertise, I admit. As a consequence, I’ve done some scouring and pondering, and here’re some thoughts and my request for help with breaking up.

My initial reaction is that this is about curriculum. That is, the level above pedagogy: not how to teach, but what to teach. A term which made sense is ‘curriculum mapping‘. Which works for K12, but the advice I found wasn’t helpful in this instance. It seemed to be about iterating, which is good, but I was looking for some research-based principles. We don’t have external standards.

Asking around, my colleagues suggested it’s more like information architecture. I know a bit about information architecture, but not a lot. In general, I take it as organizing around the way users think about the content. Which is good for information, but not necessarily for learning.

Of course, your learning objectives should provide a guide. There should be a path from the learner’s initial state, through enabling objectives, to the final objective. That should define the scope of an experience. If it gets too big, then make one or more of the enabling objectives their own piece. In this case, we’re taking something already created and trying to make sense of it.

Really, I’m fine with that latter, but I just wonder if there are any evidence based principles to guide this thinking. Something besides seemingly sensible breakups. It all seems based upon perception (and iterative testing). However, I wonder if there are metrics, or a principled basis. Hence, my request. I’m asking for help with breaking up. What am I missing? Any pointers?