Search Results for: top 10

Virtual Worlds #lrnchat

31 July 2009 by Clark 4 Comments

In last night’s #lrnchat, the topic was virtual worlds (VWs). This was largely because several of the organizers had recently attended one or another of the SRI/ADL meetings on the topic, but also because one of the organizers (@KoreenOlbrish) is majorly active in the business of virtual worlds for learning through her company Tandem Learning. It was a lively session, as always.

The first question to be addressed was whether virtual worlds had been over or underhyped. The question isn’t one or the other, of course. Some felt underhyped, as there’s great potential. Others thought they’d been overhyped, as there’s lots of noise, but few real examples. Both are true, of course. Everyone pretty much derided the presentation of powerpoints in Second Life, however (and rightly so!).

The second question explored when and where virtual worlds make sense. Others echoed my prevailing view that VW’s are best for inherently 3D and social environments. Some interesting nuances came in exploring the thought that that 3D doesn’t have to be our scale, but we can do micro or macro 3D explorations as well, and not just distance, but also time. Imagine exploring a slowed down, expanded version of a chemical reaction with an expert chemist! Another good idea was for contextualized role plays. Have to agree with that one.

Barriers were explored, and of course value propositions and technical issues ruled the day. Making the case is one problem (a Forrester report was cited that says enterprises do not yet get VWs), and the technical (and cognitive) overhead is another. I wasn’t the only one who mentioned standards.

Another interesting challenge was the lack of experience in designing learning in such environments. It’s still new days, I’ll suggest, and a lot of what’s being done is reproductions of other activities in the new environment (the classic problem: initial uses of new technology mirror old technology). I suggested that we’ve principles (what good learning is and what VW affordances are) that should guide us to new applications without having to have that ‘reproduction’ stage.

I should note that having principles does not preclude new opportunities coming from experimentation, and I laud such initiatives. I’ve opined before that it’s an extension of the principles from Engaging Learning combined with social learning, both areas I’ve experience in, so I’m hoping to find a chance to really get into it, too.

The third question explored what lessons can be learned from social media to enhance appropriate adoption of VWs. Comments included that they needed to be more accessible and reliable, that they’ll take nurturing, and that they’ll have to be affordable.

As always, the lrnchat was lively, fun, and informative. If you haven’t tried one, I encourage to at least take it for a trial run. It’s not for everyone, but some admitted to it being an addiction! ;) You can find out more at the #lrnchat site.

For those who are interested in more about VWs, I want to mention that there will be a virtual world event here in Northern California September 23-24, the 3D Training, Learning, & Collaboration conference. In addition to Koreen, people like Eilif Trondsen, & Tony O’Driscoll (who has a forthcoming book with Karl Kapp on VW learning) will be speaking, and companies like IBM and ThinkBalm are represented, so it should be a good thing. I hope to go (and pointing to it may make that happen, full disclaimer :). If you go, let me know!

Standards and success

20 July 2009 by Clark Leave a Comment

Apparently, Google has recently opined that the future of mobile is web standards. While this is wonderfully vindicating, I think there’s something more important going on here, as it plays out for a broader spectrum than just mobile.

I’ve been reflecting on the benefits that standards have provided. What worked for networks was the standardization on TCP/IP as a protocol for packet transmission. What worked for email was standardization on the SMTP protocol. HTTP standardization has been good for the web, where it’s been implemented properly! What’s been a barrier are inconsistent implementations of web standards, like Microsoft’s non-standard versions of HTML for browsers and Java.

The source of the standard may be by committee, or by the originator. Microsoft’s done well for itself with the Office suite of applications, and by opening up the XML version, they’re benefiting while not doing harm. They own the space, and everyone has to at least read and write their format to have any credibility. While IMS & IEEE held meetings to get learning content standards nailed down, ADL just put their foot down with SCORM (and US Defense is a big foot), and it pretty much got everyone’s attention. But it’s having standards that matters. The fact that Blu-ray finally won the battle has really opened up the market for high definition video!

On the other hand, keeping proprietary standards has hindered development. At the recent VW talks hosted by SRI, one of the topics was the inability to transfer a character between platforms. That’s good for the providers, but bad for the development of the field. Eventually, one format will emerge, but it may take committees, or it may be that someone like Linden Labs will own the space sufficiently that everyone will lock into a format they provide. Until then, any investment has trouble being leveraged in a longer term picture, as the companies you go with may not survive! There’s an old saying about how wonderful standards are because there are so many of them. The problem is when they’re around the same thing! I was regaling a colleague with the time I smoked (er, caused to burn up, not lighting up!) an interface card by trying to connect two computers to exchange data. One manufacturer had, contrary to the standard, decided to put 12 volts on a particular pin!

And, unfortunately, in the mobile space, the major providers here in the US want to lock you into their walled garden, as opposed to, say, Europe, where all the phones have pretty much the same abilities to access data. This has been a barrier to development of services. The web is increasingly powerful, with HTML5, and so while some things won’t work, web-based applications are defaulting to the lingua franca for not just content exchange but interactive activities. The US is embarrassingly behind, despite the leading platforms (iPhone, Pre, etc).

In one sense this is sad that we can’t do better, but at least it’s good to have the web as a fallback now. We can make progress when it doesn’t matter what device, or OS, you’re using, as long as you can connect. The real news is that there is a lingua franca for mobile that you can use, so really there aren’t any reasons to hold off any longer. Ellen Wagner sees a tipping point, and I’m pleased to agree. There may be barriers for enterprise adoption, but as I frequently say: it’s not the technology, the barriers are between our ears (and maybe our pocketbooks :).

Update: forgot my own punchline. Standards need to be, or at least become, open and extensible for real progress to be made. When others can leverage, the greatest innovations can occur.

Standards are hard work, but the benefits for progress are huge. This holds true in your organization, as well. Are you paying attention to standards you should be using, and what you should standardize yourself?

Mining Social Media

15 July 2009 by Clark Leave a Comment

One of the proposed benefits of social media is the capture of knowledge that’s shared, taking the tacit and making it explicit. But really, how do we do this? I think we need to separate out the real from the ideal.

The underlying premise is that we have an enlightened organization that’s empowering collaboration, communication, problem-solving, innovation, etc (what I’m beginning to term ‘inspiration’ in all senses of the word) by providing a social media infrastructure, learning scaffolding, and a supportive culture. Now, all these people are sharing, but are we, and can we be, leveraging that knowledge?

The obvious first answer is that by sharing it with others, it’s being leveraged. If information is shared with the relevant people, it’s been captured for organizational use by being spread appropriately. That’s great, and far too few organizations are facilitating this in a systematic way. However, I’m always looking for the optimal outcome: not just the best that is seen, but the best that can be. So how can we go further?

The typical response is using data mining that focuses on semantic content: systematically parsing the discussions, and using powerful semantic tools to attempt to capture, characterize, and leverage information systemically. (Hmm, you could map out the knowledge propositions, and link them into coherent chains and then track those over time to see significant changes, even regularly re-sort to see if different perspectives are changing…oh, sorry, got carried away, enough adaptive system designing :).

In terms of social media systems, while there are analytics available, semantics are not part of it, as far as I can see. Further, I searched on social media mining, and found out that the first international workshop will be happening in November, but it’s not happened yet. There’s an interesting PhD thesis on the topic from UMaryland, but it’s focused on blogs and recommendations. In other words, it’s not ready for prime time.

The point is, that machine learning and knowledge mining mechanisms are in our future, but not our present. Don’t get me wrong, there are huge possibilities and opportunities here, but they’re a ways off. So, are we back to the best that can be? I want to suggest one other possibility. The systemic mechanisms are nice because, set up properly, they run regardless, but there’s another approach, and that’s human processing. For all the advances in technology, our brains are still pretty much the most practical semantic pattern matching engines going. So how would that work?

Well, let’s go back to the role that learning professionals play. We’ve already looked at how they could change as learning units take over responsibility for the broader picture of learning in the organization. Learning professionals need to be nurturing social learning, and that means being in there, monitoring discussions for opportunities to draw out other members, spark useful feedback, develop skills, and more.

Well, they also can and should be looking for outcomes that could be redesigned/redeveloped/reproduced for broader dissemination. They should be monitoring what’s happening and looking for information that’s worth culling out and distilling into something that’ll really bring out the impact of that information. Turning information into knowledge and even wisdom!

Yes, that’s a greater responsibility (though it’s also fun; you shouldn’t be in the learning space if you don’t love learning!). It’s a new skill set, but I’ve already argued that. The world’s changing, and the status quo won’t last long anyway. So, while you can just allow and hope that individuals will perceive the value of the information created, and even facilitate by encouraging people to participate in all the relevant communities (which will likely cross role, product/service, and more), there’s a step further that’s to the benefit of the organization and the learners.

We’ll steadily build support for that process, but it will be facilitated, and advanced, by individual practice to complement, supplement, and inform the mechanistic approaches. Don’t ignore this role; plan for it, prepare for it, and skill for it. Responsibility for recognizing should be shared, so that the individuals in the network are also doing it (for example, retweeting valuable information), and that’s a learning skill that should be developed.

Here’s hoping you find this valuable!

Artifacts of reflection

27 June 2009 by Clark 3 Comments

The other day John Ittelson stopped by for a visit. I think of him as the guru of video usage in elearning, not least because of the recording studio he built in his house! He mentioned his use of Flip camcorders, and finally a piece clicked into place that had been floating around in my thoughts.

Media Properties I’ve had a slight blindspot for photos and video because I peg the ‘conceptual’ meter. I recognize the value, though I don’t play with the files enough (tho’ I took a digital audio/video editing course more than a decade ago, and recently edited home videos for my wife’s birthday). Photos and videos are really good for contextualizing, and that’s particularly valuable for examples (and practice).

The revelation was about the value of having learners capture information in situ, and sharing this for a variety of reflective opportunities. The information captured can be performances, products, whatever. It could also be interviews, or thoughts.

A colleague’s wife used to take an iPod with a microphone to conduct interviews. Gina Schreck discussed giving groups of employees Flips to make videos of what their business unit does for the org, to share. John mentioned capturing samples of teaching to share. Having captures of actual practice is a valuable tool around which to scaffold discussion, and a powerful tool for reflection. You can capture someone’s stories of best practices, or your own performance to review.

Note that making both other’s and personal captures available opens up the opportunity to learn more with and from others than your own reflective observations will provide, if you can be that open. As a learning facilitator, you should provide ways for individuals and groups to capture and share thoughts, actions, events, and more.

One of the powerful things in digital performance environments (read: games, er, immersive learning simulations, and virtual worlds as was part of the discussion the other day) is the ability to capture records of action for review, too. So look at ways to digitally track activity in learning environments (another reason to make the alternative to the right choice to be a reliable misconception!).

Reflection is powerful, and digital tools give us ways to truly leverage that power. Reflect on that!

Conferencing Reflections

9 June 2009 by Clark 5 Comments

Last week I presented a workshop on strategic learning as an opening act to ASTD’s 2009 International Conference (ICE), which was followed by DAU/GMU’s Innovations in eLearning (IeL) conference. It was a study in contrasts, and a great learning experience.

Obviously, the focuses (yeah, focii, bugger it) are different. ICE is huge, and for all training and development, while the IeL conference is smaller and focused on elearning. There’s much more to see at ICE, but it’s also appears to be run as a revenue opportunity, where as IeL is designed to provide the latest thinking to a select community (DAU & GMU stakeholders), and appears to be a cost-center.

ICE should be able to be interpreted as a ‘state of the industry’ snapshot, representing the audience’s interests and needs. As such, there are some serious concerns. During the keynote on Blue Ocean Strategy (greatly descriptive, less prescriptive utility), colleagues overheard audience members asking “what’s in it for me?” I can’t think of anything more relevant to organizations than looking ahead and trying to come up with answers for the increasingly turbulent times!

There were some social media sessions, and people ‘getting’ the message, likewise some other topics, but there was similarly good attendance at pretty ordinary stuff. Sure, you do need to learn about assessment, and how to cartoon (a great session, BTW), but there wasn’t the sense of urgency I reckon should be felt.

The expo hall also was scarily populated with generic leadership training, university degrees, flashy examples of elearning that didn’t have much substance, and of course the ubiquitous ‘styles’ assessments (of which the less said, the better). That is, plenty of other reasons to worry about the current concerns of the average conference attendee. Aren’t they needing something more? Support/responsibility beyond the classroom?

Granted, these conferences are planned out close to a year in advance, so it may not reflect current concerns as much as those of half a year or more ago, but it seemed little different than one I attended several years ago. C’mon! There were plusses, of course, not least of which were chances to meet colleagues I’d heard of or interacted with but not had the pleasure of meeting face to face, including Rae Tanner, Dave Ferguson, Craig Wilkins, and Gina Schreck, as well as reconnecting with folks including Marcia Conner and Wendy Wickham. And I was pleased that there was WiFi access throughout the conference! Kudos to ASTD for getting that right. The lack of tweets from the conf can’t be laid at ASTD’s feet. And the team (e.g. Linda, et al), keep the sales pitches in sessions to a minimum.

The IeL conference, on the other hand, was a whole different story. Way smaller, and deliberately focused on technology-mediated learning & the cutting edge. The keynotes by Vint Cerf and Will Wright were both awesome in scope and depth, truly visionary stuff. The sessions were more targeted specifically at my interests, and again it was a great chance to hook up with some new colleagues, including Koreen Olbrish and Aaron Silvers, and similarly connecting with colleagues like Marks Oehlert & Friedman. And there was more tweeting of sessions in this small conference than ICE, but given the audience that wasn’t as unexpected as you’d think.

I can’t say that one conference was better than the other for me or for their audiences. I got to present what I was really interested in at ICE, versus doing a talk for IeL that met their request rather than my passion (tho’ it was within my capability and I did my usual due diligence to make it accurate, worthwhile, and at least moderately engaging). However, the good thing at IeL is that people were really looking not just at training, but at where they really needed to be for organizational learning, and how technology could help. And that’s the most important thing, to be looking ahead. What I missed at ICE was people really trying to do more than just their job. And I’m perfectly willing to be wrong about that.

It’s just that I think there’s a coming crisis in organizational learning, and the answers are not doing training better. Formal learning will be part of it, but training as it’s currently delivered will not, and there’s so much more. Here’s hoping that message starts getting heard.

Mapping the learning space

20 May 2009 by Clark 6 Comments

In trialing a mind-mapping tool on my iPhone, I started mapping the ‘performance ecosystem’ space. I carried it over to my desktop tool (not literally, the free version doesn’t seem to export), and started elaborating. I got to this point, and think it’s not too bad a top-level cut, with the caveats that a) each of those nodes unpacks even further, let alone each leaf, and b) that I haven’t even tried to capture the cross links, e.g. between performance support and mobile, between mobile and content model, etc.

strategicmindmap

Here’s the same as an outline (ok, Stephen? :):

Learning Architecture
â‘ Performance Support
â–¼â‘ Job Aids
â€¢ â‘ Information Design
â–¼â‘ Portals
â€¢ â‘ Information Architecture
â–¼â‘ Interactives
â€¢ â‘ EPSS
â‘ Formal
â–¼â‘ Delivery
â€¢ â‘ F2F
â€¢ â‘ Synch
â€¢ â‘ Asynch
â–¼â‘ Deeper ID
â€¢ â‘ Emotional
â€¢ â‘ Cognitive
â‘ Social Learning
â–¼â‘ Identify
â€¢ â‘ Profile
â–¼â‘ Chat
â€¢ â‘ Microblog
â€¢ â‘ IM
â–¼â‘ Journal
â€¢ â‘ Blog
â–¼â‘ Discuss
â€¢ â‘ Forums
â–¼â‘ Collab
â€¢ â‘ Wikis
â‘ Integrated Architecture
â–¼â‘ Content Model
â€¢ â‘ Semantics
â–¼â‘ Governance
â€¢ â‘ Lifecycle
â–¼â‘ Systems
â€¢ â‘ KM
â€¢ â‘ LMS
â€¢ â‘ CMS
â‘ Mobile
â–¼â‘ Access
â–¼â‘ Designed
â–¼â‘ Contextualized
â‘ Concepts
â–¼â‘ Culture
â€¢ â‘ Leadership
â€¢ â‘ Processes & Policies
â€¢ â‘ Supportive Environment
â–¼â‘ Expertise
â€¢ â‘ Levels
â€¢ â‘ Development
â–¼â‘ Meta-learning
â€¢ â‘ Skills
â€¢ â‘ Awareness

Definitely a ‘learning out loud’ work-in-progress. Feedback welcome!

Learning Out Loud

14 April 2009 by Clark 1 Comment

We’re about ready to kick up a fair bit of dust! TogetherLearn (Jane, Harold, Jay & I, in various combinations) are serendipitously going to be sending out the social learning and strategy message in a number of ways.

First, on the 21st of April starting at 9AM PT but revolving around the globe for the subsequent 24 hours, Corporate Learning Trends will be hosting a day long circle-the-globe Conversation about Learning in Organizations. Jay is the organizer, and he’s arranged a host of the biggest names in organizational learning to take part. Still needed are hosts and topics in regions around the world for blocks of time. This is free, but we do expect participation. So seize the day, pitch in, and make it happen (or don’t complain when there’s nothing happening in your preferred time slot).

On the 22nd, Harold, Jay, & I are going to be part of the ASTD Pulse of the Profession series of webcasts, talking about Blowing Up the Training Department: Make Learning a Management Priority. Registration is $39.95, but it supports ASTD (we don’t get a dime), and we’ve got a good session planned, with the esteemed Kevin Wheeler serving as our ringmaster/lion tamer. It’s specifically intended for managers, directors, & executives charged with part or all of organizational learning. We intend to talk about the problems that organizations are facing, some of the barriers, and some new ways to think about it.

Then I will be presenting on April 30 (10 AM PT) for Training Magazine Network’s Provocative Ideas webinars, speaking about Why Incrementalism Won’t Cut It Anymore. This presentation is free, but you have to register. I’ll be looking at the bigger picture, not just social/informal, but also content strategy, mobile, and more, and particularly focused on systemic changes and the need to shift, not creep.

I’m sure there’s more I’m forgetting, but that’s enough for now. Hope to see you here and there!

A wee bit o’ experience…

11 March 2009 by Clark 1 Comment

A personal reflection, read if you’d like a little insight into what I do, why and what I’ve done.

Reading an article in Game Developer about some of the Bay Area history of the video game industry has made me reflective. As an undergrad (back before there really were programs in instructional technology) I saw the link between computers and learning, and it’s been my life ever since. I designed my own major, and got to be part of a project where we used email to conduct classroom discussion, in 1978!

Having called all around the country to find a job doing computers and learning, I arrived in the Bay Area as a ‘wet behind the ears’ uni graduate to design and program ‘educational’ computer games. I liked it; I said my job was making computers sing and dance. I was responsible for FaceMaker, Creature Creator, and Spellicopter (among others) back in 81-82. (So, I’ve been designing ‘serious games’, though these were pretty un-serious, for getting close to 30 years!)

I watched the first Silicon Valley gold rush, as the success of the first few home computers and software had every snake oil salesman promising that they could do it too. The crash inevitably happened, and while some good companies managed to emerge out of the ashes, some were trashed as well. Still, it was an exciting time, with real innovation happening (and lots of it in games; in addition to the first ‘drag and drop’ showing up in Bill Budge’s Pinball Construction Set, I put windows into FaceMaker!).

I went back to grad school for a PhD in applied cog sci (with Don Norman), because I had questions about how best to design learning (and I’d always been an AI groupie :). I did a relatively straightforward thesis, not technical but focused on training meta-cognitive skills, a persistent (and, I argue, important) interest. I looked at all forms of learning; not just cognitive but behavioral, ID, constructivist, connectionist, social, even machine learning. I was also getting steeped in applying cognitive science to the design of systems, and of course hanging around the latest/coolest tech. On the side, I worked part-time at San Diego State University’s Center for Research on Mathematics and Science Education working with Kathy Fischer and her application SemNet.

My next stop was the University of Pittsburgh’s Learning Research & Development Center for a post-doctoral fellowship working on a project about mental models of science through manipulable systems, and on the side I designed a game that exercised my dissertation research on analogy (and published on it). This was around 1990, so I’d put a pretty good stake in the ground about computer games for deep thinking.

In 1991 I headed to the Antipodes, taking up a faculty position at UNSW in the School of Computer Science, teaching interface design, but quickly getting into learning technology again. I was asked, and I supervised a project designing a game to help kids (who grow up without parents) learn to live on their own. This was a very serious game (these kids can die because they don’t know how to be independent), around 1993. As soon as I found out about CGIs (the first ‘state’-maintaining technology) we ported it to the web (circa 1995), where you can still play it (the tech’s old, but the design’s still relevant).

I did a couple other game-related projects, but also experimented in several other areas. For one, as a result of looking at design processes, I supervised the development of a web-based performance support system for usability, as well as meta-cognitive training and some adaptive learning stuff.

I joined a government-sponsored initiative on online learning, determining how to run an internet university, but the initiative lost out to politics. I jumped to another, and got involved in developing an online course that was too far ahead of the market (this would be about 1996-1997). The design was lean, engaging, and challenging, I believe (I shared responsibility), and they’re looking at resurrecting it now, more than 10 years later! I returned to the US to lead an R&D project developing an intelligent learning system based on learning objects that adapted on learner characteristics (hence my strong opinions on learning styles), which we got up and running in 2001 before that gold rush went bust. Since then, I’ve been an independent consultant.

It’s been interesting watching the excitement around serious games. Starting with Prensky, and then Aldrich, Gee, and now a deluge, there’s been a growing awareness and interest; now there are multiple conferences on the topics, and new initiatives all the time. The folks in it now bring new sensibilities, and it’s nice to see that the potential is finally being realized. While I’ve not been in the thick of it, I’ve quietly continued to work, think, and write on the issue (thanks to clients, my book, and the eLearning Guild‘s research reports). Fortunately, I’ve kept from being pigeonholed, and have been allowed to explore and be active in other areas, like mobile, advanced design, performance support, content models, and strategy.

The nice thing about my background is that it generalizes to many relevant tasks: usability and user experience design and information design are just two, in addition to the work I cited, so I can play in many relevant places, and not only keep up with but also generate new ideas. My early technology experience and geeky curiosity keeps me up on the capabilities of the new tools, and allows me to quickly determine their fundamental learning capabilities. Working on real projects, meeting real needs, and ability to abstract to the larger picture has given me the ability to add value across a range of areas and needs. I find that I’m able to quickly come in and identify opportunities for improvement, pretty much without exception, at levels from products, through processes, to strategy. And I’m less liable to succumb to fads, perhaps because I’ve seen so many of them.

I’m incredibly lucky and grateful to be able to work in the field that is my passion, and still getting to work on cool and cutting edge projects, adding value. You’ll keep seeing me do so, and if you’ve an appetite for pushing the boundaries, give me a holler!

On the road again

12 February 2009 by Clark 2 Comments

Well, this spring is shaping up differently than I expected. Instead of the doing the familiar talks or workshops in the usual places: Training’s Conference, eLearning Guild’s Annual Gathering, and ASTD’s TechKnowledge and International Conference, I’m doing new things in old and new places. Not that I don’t like those conferences, in fact I recommend them, it’s just that life takes funny turns (and I like challenging myself). Which isn’t to say I won’t be at those conferences again (I hope and intend to).

So, where will I be showing up? At VizThink, for one. A conference I’ve been very interested in, and managed to get a chance to present at. That’s really just in a few days (Feb 22-25), and I’ll be talking about the cognitive underpinnings behind diagrams (and more). As well as soaking up some great thoughts from others!

I’ll also be talking at the 5th Annual Innovations in eLearning Conference, hosted by the Defense Acquisition and George Mason Universities in the beginning of June. My topic is myths about new learners, and I intend to debunk much of the hype just as I like to do around learning styles (which will probably show it’s head in the talk), as well as provide practical guidelines. Folks like Will Wright and Vint Cerf are keynoting, so this is bound to be special.

Finally, assuming there are enough registrations, I will be at ASTD’s ICE (end of May), not speaking but running a pre-conference workshop on elearning strategy. This is based upon my chapter in the forthcoming Michael Allen’s eLearning Annual 2009 about both the important principles of elearning tactics like mobile, portals, social learning, and more, and tying those tactics together into a strategy. The focus is on an integrated ‘performance ecosystem‘, and I reckon it’s the most useful thing I can offer in this economic uncertainty. I’ve given it as a talk before, but not as a workshop, and this is for managers and executives to take the next step in improving their organizational learning infrastructure. It’s time to work smarter, folks!

One of the ways I work smarter and keep learning is to push myself into new areas that are beyond my comfort zone but that are within my reach (e.g. Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development). I recommend it to you too. It’s a way to keep learning, and expanding. I welcome new challenges, got any handy?

« Previous Page