In Response To: Are You Qualified to Build E-Learning Courses?

First I need you to read this.

This was written based on a twitter conversation I began after reading this line of a previous post:

“Rapid elearning played a role in the evolution of elearning mostly because it took course creation out of the hands of a few programmers and placed it into the hands of anyone who wanted to create a course.”

My question was: Is this a good thing?

I have worked as an instructional designer my entire professional career and take great pride in both my formal educational background (2+ years doing an MA) and the 15+ years on the ground building technology based solutions. I am both extremely well versed in Instructional design (which encompasses a multi-disciplinary background) and technology. I am a professional instructional designer, not an “elitist”. I believe everybody who works in the capacity of instructional design ought to be a ‘professional’ which means that anybody who ‘designs’ not ‘build’ technology based learning solutions ought to have the required knowledge and skills to do the job correctly.

I have no issues or qualms with any tool, other than the argument I made in Michael Allen’s 2012 Annual. In case your interested, here is the link to the book on Amazon.

The author of the post I’m responding to says “Someone asked if that’s a good thing to place the tools in the hands of anyone who wanted to create a course. It’s a good question. But is it the right question?” That was me that asked the question. Is it the right question, damn straight! According to his previous post, any opinion to the contrary makes you an ‘elitist’ and that providing tools to non-programmers is the ‘democratization’ of eLearning.

This reminds me of cult tactics, where a cult leader will say “If you don’t believe in what I’m saying its cause your not ready to see the truth”. Its smoke and mirrors designed to get you to buy into the philosophy. Lets face it, Articulate has done a masterful job at convincing the unqualified that they can build eLearning too, and that this is a good thing. The issue is really about ‘qualifications’ here and whether being able to ‘program’ without ‘programming’ is the qualification that enables you to build out eLearning.

Admittedly the author says:

“Does it mean that I am a better instructional designer? No. Does it mean that having a drag & drop interaction is going to make my course better? Not necessarily. But it does mean that I am able to do something I couldn’t do before.”

He also states:

“I’d hate to think that there’s some elitist blocking my entry into Home Depot because she’s deciding if I’m qualified or not to use a hammer.”

This isn’t about an elitist blocking access to home depot, its a question about whether you want anybody with a hammer to build you a structure using the hammer that they may or may not be qualified for. If a nail gun was sold as “Now you can do your own framing, no need for a contractor” would you feel comfortable with that? If I said, well, you should probably hire somebody qualified to use the nail gun, would I be an elitist?

So…I don’t disagree with a lot of what was said in the article. The problems I see with the positioning of the article is that:

a) Anybody who wants to create a technology based course can with the now available easy to use tools, implies that the barrier to creating courses was the programming end of things. I’m not sure that’s accurate at all. In fact, Powerpoint from a ways back had and still has save as HTML. There could be no easier way to put up electronic courseware on the web. Programming is not the barrier. Drag and drop exercises don’t make for better learning interventions. Books worked just fine before learning came along. So if its about getting stuff online…

b) We are made to believe that setting criteria for building eLearning is simply an elitist philosophy as opposed to some form of professional designation. These are cult tactics that ultimately undervalue real criteria that may be put in place, including the value that real programmers bring to the table.

c) The idea that the tool helps people become better is pure hogwash. I am in total agreement that there is probably as much bad online courseware developed by supposedly ‘qualified’ individuals as there is bad courseware developed by those using rapid learning tools. If rapid elearning tools were to make people better at doing this why do we see more poorly designed (not executed) online courseware than ever before.

And here’s where the rubber hits the road. If we’re all being honest with one another, has the advent of rapid elearning and all the hoopla around the community and all the tips and tricks created a surge in better elearning? The answer is quite the contrary. The marketing of the ‘democratization’ of elearning, allowing anybody to do it has led to a surge in really poorly designed (not executed) courseware because those who aren’t qualified in ‘design’ believe that with a few tips and tricks and a great tool like Articulate they too can build online courseware.

Here’s a bit of irony for you, and something I address in my book coming out in the fall (Learning onDemand: How the evolution of technology is shaping the future of learning) is that as the ‘democratization’ of elearning grows in popularity, it does so only within the L&D community who struggle everyday to get respect. And so the community keeps building ‘courses’ (poorly designed at that) and the rest of the world (as evidenced by the technology outside L&D) is running at full speed towards ‘content on demand’ which is contrary to the ideas behind a ‘course’ (at least in the way courses are conceived today).

I can take up the metaphor arguments as well but I think at the end of the day there are tools meant to help qualified individuals do the same job they did previous to the tool, just better and quicker and then there are tools built for the unqualified that supposedly compensate for lack of skills. If the initial argument that began this conversation was the tool will help you do your job, I wouldn’t have said anything. But to sell a tool as a replacement for skill followed by the notion that if you believe otherwise you are simply an elitist is, in my opinion, just marketing tactics that work very well.

From where I sit, this is not an argument about the tool and its capabilities. I don’t even really play in the space where rapid eLearning is prevalent. I am more a semantic web kinda guy and believe access to information is really the problem IDs will need to solve in the future. What I do feel strongly about is that tools don’t make you better, they allow you to do a job you know how to do better and faster. Tools don’t give you skills and the key to designing good online learning is not programming. The key to building complex systems that will be consistent with the evolving technology world outside of L&D is in fact programming.

Cheers

 


Is Intelligent Content The Same As RLO’s?

So for those who don’t know an RLO is a Reusable Learning Object. If you haven’t heard this expression before, now is a good time to drop off this conversation. For more info on RLO’s look up Ruth Clark’s RLO/RIO model and read up on SCORM.

I’m taking up this subject because I’ve now heard people disregard the technology behind Intelligent Content as being a rehash of the ‘failed’ RLO experiment. Essentially, can the same piece of content be reused in a different context, separated from its natural place in the flow of a well designed piece of communication. People attribute the intent of RLO’s to being just that and frankly I’m not sure that was what an RLO was or what it was intended to be. Intelligent Content however most certainly wants to allow machines to understand the context of content and allow machines to determine when and how content is to be consumed. This means that yes, content can be moved from context to context and not necessarily as determined by humans, but also determined by machines.

Lets start with RLO’s. Although most people who have never gotten their hands dirty at the programming levels of RLO’s have determined them to be a failure, I’m not sure they have been. But lets not argue that point because the failure to get reuse out of an RLO can be attributed  to many things and the argument is not the purpose of this blog. An RLO is a learning object designed to be self sufficient. It is a nugget of learning that ought not to be dependent on any other nuggets of learning, and if there is some predetermined relationship, then the RLO needs to have the metadata around it to identify that relationship (relationships aren’t dependencies). An RLO is a finished piece of content. It is content already wrapped and packaged in one format or another. Reuse of an RLO isn’t reuse of content in some other medium, or partial reuse of content, it is reuse of the entire object as it is in its final state.

Intelligent Content is not an RLO because Intelligent Content isn’t content that is wrapped as anything, nor does it necessarily have any predetermined organization, such as an ‘object’. Intelligent content has no predetermined criteria of what is a ‘complete’ piece of intelligent content and there can be many instances of the same content written differently but by virtue of it being intelligent, all have relationships with one another. Intelligent content isn ‘t a sentence, it isn’t an image, nor is it a page or section. Intelligent content is content in all its shapes, forms and organizational principles that can communicate to machines all of its aspects, virtues, intents and context use cases. Intelligent content is content backed by a purposeful language that speaks to machines, so that it can be used at the right time in the right context. Not all intelligent content is backed by the same language, yet all the different languages still speak ‘machine’. I work with this technology day in and day out. If you don’t think it ‘works’ its because you’ve never taken a look under the hood.

From somebody who gets their hands dirty working with new technologies focused on ‘intelligent content’ I wish those of you who talk theory and concept from your perch would take a little bit of time to understand the inner workings of what your preaching. Its the ol’ Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance discussion….quality as viewed from the person who gets their hands dirty or from the person who just wants to ride the motorcycle. One is not better than the other, but if you lean to one side, doesn’t hurt to stick your nose in on the other side before you make judgement calls.

 


The Rise and Fall of eLearning

Kris Rockwell the owner of Hybrid Learning and I decided to jointly blog on there topic of eLearning. Through discussion we both felt strongly that the industry that we care about and work hard to advance continues a decline into obscurity. We wanted to voice our joint dissatisfaction and point to a potentially brighter future. Kris has posted this blog on his site here.

————————————

We are the bearers of bad news. After much discussion and consideration we have come to the conclusion that eLearning has failed and that mLearning is moving towards a similar fate. Once a field of interesting new learning concepts and technology poised to replace the misuse of video in the classroom with the promise of providing a more engaging way for students to access content has become a wasteland of glorified PowerPoint presentations, TV game shows and pseudo-science.

Kris
Years ago when I began my journey into the eLearning world I was challenged to work on a project that was, even by today’s standards, amazing. The task was to build ground school training for the Boeing 737-300/400 series aircraft that included complete system simulations imported from another application. We successfully completed this challenge by reverse engineering a 737 simulation. It was remarkable and it worked.

We built the entire suite of courseware in Authorware. The simulation was built in a piece of software called Rapid. The system was great because we could actually carve out bits of the simulation and embed them into the Authorware content. We could capture great bits of data using the Pathware LMS and the AICC CMI standard. This was the future of eLearning and we were really proud of it.

Video is just as engaging, if not more so, than 90% of all modern eLearning. Discuss.

Flash forward to today. What happened? How did the eLearning world end up as irrelevant as it has? What was once a promising medium seems to have floundered into pit of mediocrity.

I think there are two things that relate to each other that explain what has happened here. First, there are the tools used to develop eLearning. Unfortunately, consumer demand required that they be degenerated from robust tool sets like Authorware, which required some measure of design skill and coding talent, to simple tools that can be used by anyone. This leads to the second issue: Talent. Years ago an eLearning developer was a specialized position that required coding skills and an understanding of software development processes. Today the simplicity of tools allow anyone to build content. There is a clear tradeoff here – there are a more developers with a less skill creating a more content with less depth.

The same thing occurred when the web became relevant in the mid 90’s. In the beginning there was no easy way to use web editing software and developers had to know web programming languages and use crude (at least by today’s standards) toolsets to build websites. As tools such as FrontPage and Dreamweaver were introduced it became easier to build sites and suddenly everyone became a web developer. This led to a bloated market that eventually collapsed as it became an unsustainable competition between agencies and the kid next door. Technology, however, has changed and it isn’t arguably feasible to develop without any skills in languages such as JavaScript, CSS and .NET. This means that developers have to be educated and fully understand their craft.

eLearning is on the same slippery slope. What used to require specialized skills can now be accomplished by anyone that understands Powerpoint. The result is that a mediocre developer pool has grown complacent through the increased access to simplistic tools that for all intensive purposes remove the design work from the hands of the designers completely. The knowledge of how to effectively effectuate and support learning has diminished with the lack of evolution in instructional design skills (I am additionally not convinced that ISD skills have kept up with the changing concepts of eLearning, but that is another story). Add into that flailing equation the newer concepts such as gamification and mobile learning (the concept that all of your existing training content can be put on a mobile phone is one of the most asinine ideas I have heard in the past 18 years) and the setup for the long descent into the Gartner Hype Cycle “Trough of Disillusionment” is in place.

What the industry now focuses on is form over function. The question, more often than not, has become “how do we get our content on [insert shiny new device name here]?” rather than “should we put our content on [insert shiny new device thing here]?” Rather than looking at content and ask “How can we make this better for the end user?”, we look at content and say “You know, you can add badges and other game elements to ANYTHING and make it more engaging.” These pervasive viewpoints are only further pushing the industry into a hole at a cost to our end users.

Reuben
Poking around twitter the other day I came across a posting from a company I’m familiar with advertising their new mobile solutions. They provided a description of how they can help you the consumer with your mobile learning strategy and development requirements. When I saw this, a pit grew in my stomach knowing full well this company didn’t have access to the type of expertise required to walk a consumer who didn’t have a mobile strategy through the necessary considerations to design one.

I do recognize how crippling consumer ignorance can be if enforced onto a knowledgeable vendor wanting to help a consumer but the truth is, a lot of the blame falls on the vendors who are guilty of wanting to make a buck ahead of what’s best. I am a vendor and I get it. I have a family to feed too. But let’s face it, the company that I’m referring to only needs to cling to the false innuendos, the conference chatter, the pseudo science of learning that is readily available on any linkedin discussion forum, pull the right words out and you the consumer who buys into ‘easy’ before you buy into understanding will inevitably think this vendor knows their stuff. The vendor who I speak of has many great competencies and can help companies with what they do best. The promotion of their mobile solution however is an attempt to make the consumer believe something that isn’t true, and make a buck off of the ignorance of the consumer.

A couple years ago I wrote about eLearning the religion. Vendors are the guardians of status quo and the purveyors of myth. The consumer is the devotee who is willing to make a leap of faith for whatever reason and abandon the search for truth having found it. There are those in the business of religion who are authentic believers and feel a calling. I don’t question those people. I question those who regularly snow the public through an act and are all too happy to make a buck doing so.

eLearning as we see it is a colossal failure and mLearning is not that far behind. It is a failure not because the surface is ugly but because the potential to create meaningful learning opportunities has been turned into a one sided love affair with moving the classroom into a digital format. Technology could be used with far greater impact such as scaling apprenticeships; one of the most effective ways of moving someone from a novice to an expert. Other potential uses of technology include augmenting real world experience and contextually sensitive tutoring. The potential to support learning through technology is over the top and we have dumbed that down to be ‘easy’. It has been dumbed down in the design and the development phases. We have to stop trying to create learning and instead focus on providing better opportunities for learning to happen. The truth is, there is no one savior there is just the uphill battle of getting eLearning consumers educated about other strategies to deploy technology to assist the learning process, raising the levels of talent working in the field and the calling out of bullshit when we see it. If we could take away the need for vendors (and I am a vendor so speak with experience) to appeal to the lowest common denominator to make money, where would be (This is not a unique state belonging solely to the eLearning industry)?

So what do we do?

Kris
Looking at the current landscape there is a need to address the standards of content that the industry produces. Somewhere in the rush to make everything electronic we lost our way and forgot that there is more to producing eLearning than rapid development tools and quick output. Design, look and feel and interaction all need to be addressed in order to make effective learning content and that requires specialized knowledge and contextually relevant design. It’s time to take a look at the industry and, perhaps, ask what can be done to create designers and developers that understand this (again) and know how to implement it. It’s time to reset development expectations and what it means to build truly effective eLearning.

Reuben
There is tremendous opportunity to rethink and recast how we approach online learning. First and foremost let’s understand that ‘learning’ isn’t something we create but something we can nurture and support. Lets also understand that people have been learning well before there were things called learning objectives and assessments and even PowerPoint. The biggest opportunity we have with technology is to collapse online worlds with the real world and find ways of helping people learn in the real world using the online world. That’s very different than taking someone out of the real world to learn in the online world. No greater opportunity has existed to do this before and the opportunity will only grow from here. But if we want to take advantage of the opportunity we need to unlearn what we know about online learning and rethink it, reflect on it and move forward. There is a brighter future, but let’s stop pretending it’s easy.


Using the 7 metaphors for Experience Design – A new approach.

A while back in Las Vegas I was introduced to the idea of ‘Deep Metaphors’, a concept associated with Gerald Zaltmann through a friend of mine and his friend/employer that we were hanging out with. ‘Deep Metaphors’ came about while we were tossing around the phrase ‘experience design’. Since those discussions I have read about and learned about User Experience Design which is talked about in the field of learning and development by people much smarter than I. One of the things that I enjoy doing is building out ‘content models’ that express approaches to working with content for the express purpose of designing learning interventions. A learning intervention in the way that I use it, is synonymous with a ‘learning experience’ in the most generic sense. In other words, those page turning courses are as much an experience as any other experience, they just tend not to be transformative in nature.

In the ideal world all ‘learning experiences’ are transformative in nature since I believe that most people can settle on the idea that ‘learning’ is in itself a way of discussing transformations specific to the aquisition of new knowledge, skills or beliefs. A learning experience discussed in this way is an experience that we begin thinking, believing and acting in one way and come out the other side thinking, or believing or acting in a different way. The one area where there is room for great debate and discussion is the ‘permanence’ of the transformations and to what degree must the transformations be ‘permanent’. Have we learned anything if several hours, days, years after an experience, we have forgotten or reverted back to old behaviours?

Discussed in this way, ‘experiences’ used to describe a transformative intervention that changes us is a stimulus and the ‘transformation’ or the resulting ‘learning’ is a response. This way of thinking about ‘experience design’ isn’t exactly what most experience designers talk about explicitly, but is implicit in their discussions. I find it helpful to make it explicit since it helps to focus the purpose of ‘instructional design’ to the creation of a stimulus that ought to elicit a transformative response in the target end user group. Instead of creating ‘learning’ designers should be thinking about simply creating the stimulus.

Going back to building out a content model, I created for myself a little project to design a model that uses the 7 deep metaphors I had heard about and tie that into a process focused on designing experiences that elicit transformative responses.

This paper describes both the thinking behind the model and the high level design of the model itself. The purpose of this paper is to solicit community discussion around the ideas presented here as a instructional design model that can be shared and taught to new instructional designers as an alternative to existing models.

To get the model started I thought about the types of ‘experiences’ that we can control and design around. I considered that we can essentially do one of three things. We can:

a) Design new experiences

b) Augment existing experiences

c) Support current or past experiences

Roughly speaking, designing new experiences is where we take an end user and immerse them in something that is outside of their natural work/living environment. Consider your typical web based course, flight simulator, classroom training, etc. Augmenting experiences is when we infuse an environment that is within the natural order of somebody’s work/life space with objects, virtual and non virtual, that provides additional sensory stimulation beyond what the natural environment provides. Consider augmented reality, layar technology on your mobile devices and multi player games played out over time within your work environment. Supporting experiences is what we typically call performance support. Designing supporting materials is to place objects within an environment that can be used for ‘additional materials’ but are not part of the experience themselves. Consider QR codes on museum objects used to provide ‘additional information’ if your interested, but fall outside of the museum experience themselves. However if QR codes are meant to be part of the experience of the museum, then they can be thought of as augmenting the experience.

The seven ‘deep metaphors’ this model attempts to build on are: journey, balance, container, connection, resource, control, and transformation.

Here is the model at a high level in its entirety:

 

 

Broken down by sections, it looks like this:

Starting State

All transformations are a movement away from something and arriving towards something else. If I think about transformative learning experiences two obvious factors surface which are ‘beliefs’ and ‘behaviours’. I group ‘knowledge’ into ‘beliefs’ simply because this opens the door to learning something new that was previously thought of as irrefutable (knowledge). When it comes to ones personal ‘state’ beliefs express the subjective nature of knowledge as it resides in the mind of an individual. Transformative experiences tend to make us alter our belief system or the way that we behave.

I have also added ‘environment’. There are experiences that consume us that ultimately may not change what we believe or how we behave but change our environment. The change of environment ultimately forces us to behave differently although we’re not behaving differently because of internal transformations, we’re behaving differently because our ‘natural environment’ has changed.

This part of the content model should be used to describe or characterize the starting state prior to the transformative stimulus.

 

 

New Experience – Journey

I used the metaphor of Journey exclusively for designing new experiences because I felt that the characteristics of journeys were well matched to the characteristics of designing new experiences. When I think of a journey I think about transporting somebody in an external vehicle. Whether it is a physical journey or a mental journey, there is a construct (physical or mental) that is used to carry somebody from here to somewhere else.

Before you leave on a journey, you generally pack those things that you believe at the time will be helpful to you along the journey and filter out those things that would otherwise be superfluous weight. Your pre-journey experience therefore demands that you park some items and pack others.

Everyone who embarks on a journey has set expectations about the journey. What tends to make journeys transformative is the sense that the end result of the journey was very different from what the initial expectations of the individual were.

The journey is the experience itself. It is the series of mini events along the birds eye view of the journey path that really make up that journey. The sum of all the mini experiences is what makes the journey very different than what the initial expectations were. Although journeys are a series of mini events, its hard to imagine them as separate as opposed to being one big journey.

It is generally after the journey itself where we begin to feel the transformations. Where we take stock of what we never knew, what we always knew to be true (although seems revelatory even when we knew it) and those things where we learned to be wrong.

As a designer of new experiences this section of the model provides a high level construct for helping the end user move from their starting state to some desired end state. Help the end user understand what ideas or things need to be brought for the experience to enjoy it and what to leave behind. Let end users come to their own set of expectations as these expectations will form a foundation for reflection after the experience. Design experiences as mini events and let the sum of the mini events be the experience. Allow learners to reflect on the experience and devise their own conclusions about what was meaningful and how.

 

 

Augment – Transform

Based on the definition provided above for what it is to design ‘augmented experiences’ I’ve used the two metaphors of ‘transformation’ and ‘connect’ to build out a design framework. I used ‘transform’ as a metaphor for augmenting experiences because ‘transformation’ requires an existing state. Learning itself is an integrated experience where new behaviors and beliefs are integrated into the behaviors and beliefs that are already there. Augmenting experience is a design process of using existing structures found in the natural work environment and building sensory objects into the environment that act as a stimulus to create a learning response. Augmenting an existing experience is to transform the experience into one that transforms the individual undergoing the experience.

When I focused on ‘transformation’ itself I realized that individuals who undergo ‘transformations’ travel through the following stages: ‘awareness’ of the environment, the experience of the environment, the opportunity to apply what was observed during the experience, combining new beliefs and behaviours with existing beliefs and behaviours and finally removing beliefs and behaviours that no longer fit.

The purpose for augmenting an experience is to use the existing experience itself as the vehicle to stimulate a learning response. A designer would choose augmenting an experience in this way as there are elements of an experience that provide the necessary stimulus to effect a learning response and in the end serves as a more integrated approach to driving change.

‘Awareness’ becomes an important part of transformation because it is the stage where individuals become familiar with the vehicle and allows them to begin the ‘experience’ itself. The experience is not the transformation itself and therefore ‘applying’ those things that were built into the experience potentially outside the experience itself and possibly within a similar experience without the ‘augmentation’ is important to help the cycle of transformation take hold. The integration of newly acquired behaviours and beliefs into existing beliefs and behaviours and the dropping of old beliefs and behaviours that no longer fit complete a cycle of transformation.

Designing augmented experiences that elicit a learning response requires all the stages of transformation.

 

Augment – Connect

The use of the ‘connect’ metaphor follows the same construct as ‘transformation’ except that the design uses the principles of connections to augment experiences. As a design practice, ‘connecting’ individuals to objects and people during an experience can be a great way to augment existing experiences. Slightly different than a ‘transforming’ experience where objects are built into the environment itself to augment the experience, connecting individuals during an experience can work on many levels, including emotional connections, outside physical connections, people, etc.

Connections in an augmented experience are still built into the environment itself, but the stimuli is driven through connections as opposed to sensory objects directly in the environment. There can certainly be a mix of design strategies used in the augmentation of experiences so do not think of connections as being one path and transform as being another.

Support

Supporting experiences are not the same thing as augmenting experiences. Here is where the metaphors for ‘Container’, ‘Resources’, ‘Balance’ and ‘Control’ are used. The use of ‘container’ in this case is used to support the idea of packaging ‘support’ outside the experience itself, resting in a container. When I was thinking about supporting experiences the notions of balance and control seemed like a natural fit. Resources seems obvious so I won’t spend time discussing this instead lets focus our attention on ‘balance’ and ‘control’.

At the end of the day, when it comes to corporate learning, the ultimate goal is to drive performance of employees to steer a company in the direction it has set for itself through the decisions of management and those below or beside. As important as it is when we discuss learning, that we discuss the focus on creating transformative experiences, it is also important that we remember that there are boundaries to the transformation that we are after. Using ‘balance’ and ‘control’ measures as support for an experience focus the design of that experience on what the desired transformations might be. There are no gurantees that every individual walks away with the same transformative experience, in fact its unlikely anyone will experience the intervention the same way. Balance and Control and those elements that you may build into an intervention to create a minimum baseline of support for those who wander to far astray.

 

 

End State

Every transformation is a movement from a starting state to an end state. Much like the parameters in the starting state, the end state as far as a transformative learning experiences go, will deal with behaviors and beliefs in addition to a potentially altered environment.

This section of the model allows you to design and describe what the end state should look like, bearing in mind that what you are trying to do, is move away from equating the experience or the instruction within the experience with the learning itself. The experience should have been designed to elicit a response that results in people acting and thinking differently. Telling somebody to act in a certain way in general won’t elicit a transformative response. But have a person experience something where acting in the way you want them to act is a natural response and your likely going to have more success.

Use the end state semantics to clearly outline what you hope will change from the starting state.

 

This model is meant to help instructional designers sculpt content in a way that resembles the natural phenomenon of experiencing a transformative life event that results in deep learning. The big difference is that as a designer you are trying to manipulate events to drive experiences where those experiences that have really had an impact in our lives have for the most part been unplanned and more often than not, required no human intervention. This model borrows the key elements of those experiences to help drive meaningful learning in the workplace that have a direct impact on the performance of individuals and their participation in the performance of their host organizations.


Instructional Design Stole ‘Learning’. The people want it back!

This post will surely raise some spines. I ran into a post yesterday that stated the following “Learning starts with clear learning goals and learning objectives and well structured content, activities, assessments and discussions etc as appropriate.

I recommend everybody in the thread runs off to learn about Blooms taxonomy… I take exception to some of the definitions of learning here. They are very shallow. There are many levels till one attains mastery.”

My first reaction was “What a bunch of BS”. Sounds like good old fashioned instructional design rhetoric. So I did what I do and challenged the notion that this was the way ‘Learning’ had to happen. I cited research by Dr Sugata Mitra coming out of the Hole in the Wall experiments. I cited personal experiences of learning where no such structure existed. I got back a reply saying that they respectfully disagreed with Dr. Mitra and what did Mitra’s work have to do with adult learning anyways. The experiments were with kids and it was all about computer literacy. WRONG! I told the person to dig a little deeper or to find me research that refutes Dr. Mitra’s claims. Surprise surprise no such research was cited.

In any case, here’s what really pisses me off about this whole line of thinking. It would seem that Instructional Designers have stolen ‘learning’ and have made themselves the master of when learning can occur. Surprisingly ‘Learning’ or ‘Real Learning’ can only occur if its gone through the hands of the instructional designer and structured so that there are clearly stated learning objectives and then very structured lessons and exercises around those objectives ending with an assessment based on those objectives. Well you know what, the people want ‘learning’ back because if this is the only way we can learn, we hate it! I know we hate it because most of us are finding alternate ways of learning and technology is helping us alot. For one, lets get something straight. Instructional Designers have never, will never, and can not possible ever design ‘learning’ itself. Got it? Cause I’m sick of saying it. We can create the stimulus and we can create ways of helping people acquire knowledge and skills (thats our job) but WE DO NOT CREATE LEARNING!

We can also drop this, “Well your just talking about informal learning” followed by this doesn’t create ‘real’ or ‘deep learning’ because you know what? Bullshit! Formal vs informal vs blended is all a bunch of rhetoric instructional designers have created to take ownership of learning. Learning is a messy process and to talk about it like it can be parceled out into formal vs informal objectifies it and strips it of being a continuous process that our minds are engaged in at almost all times.

I’m here to negotiate a settlement. You give us ‘learning’ back and we’ll let you have ‘instruction’. Talk about formal vs informal instruction, talk about designing instruction, talk about whether a PDF on a mobile device is good instruction and you know what, you can live in that world and be very smart with each other. We the people on the other hand will let learning be what we do organically whether through instruction you’ve designed for us or despite instruction you’ve designed for us. If you really want to help me learn, stop trying to wrap it in a bubble. Let me connect with people, content, games, web pages and help me understand what you want me to do, not what you want me to learn. I’m gonna learn despite you!


The Phenomenology of ‘Nice’

Before I ever got into Educational Technology I was waist deep (if not more) in completing an M.A. in philosophy. My mind loves to think of the abstract and dig into conceptual waste and find truth in what is for most people mind vapour. One of my indulgences is to try and figure out how my kids learn. In other words I really try to find the connections between their experiences and how they are developing into “me”s as they grow older. I think about stuff like ‘How do they learn the meaning of ‘nice’? Thats been my latest fascination.

Its easy to trace the path of learning when the object having been learned can be found in the material world. There’s a word, its said repeatedly when near an object, that seems easy. How did my kids ever learn what ‘nice’ was and how will they continue to learn to be ‘nice’? Nice is really ethereal. When my son was very young he was a biter. Thats right he was the little guy who bit your sons and daughters in daycare. We used to tell him, thats not nice and then pet him on his arm like a dog so he could ‘sense’ what nice was “See…this is nice”. We hoped that the physical sensation he felt created an object in his mind as real as a material thing. The relationship between biting and petting is that they are both physical sensations and so the petting vs biting scenario are at opposite ends of the spectrum for being ‘physically nice’. How does that translate to learning that ‘nice’ isn’t simply a physical sensation?

Lets get right to the heart of the matter. When I get angry at my kids for playing dangerously and demand that they stop, they have told me in no uncertain terms that I am not being nice. I retort in no uncertain terms that I am being nice because I am saving them from inevitable discomfort. They will ask me back “You are being nice?” I say yes, I am being nice, and I pet them. And somehow they get ‘nice’. Think about how translucent the meaning of ‘nice’ is and yet we learn it (some of us do anyways). And what I can’t escape is all the things like ‘nice’ that we learn and how incredible the capacity of our minds are to draw relationships between the feeling of someone petting us, to the words we use, to our demeanour to looking beyond the immediacy of a situation and understand all those things as being ‘nice’. Its an incredible thing to watch a young mind learn.

During the last few years and thinking obsessively about how incredible the capacity for learning things like ‘nice’, I have become a great believer in what I tell people all the time which is ‘learning is a response to a stimulus and never the stimulus itself’. Even though the instructional design community nods their head that instruction is not learning, we still design instruction as though it were the learning. And if you work in corporate learning where performance is what matters, making sure people behave nicely won’t happen because you tell them to behave nicely. Our experiences are not learning either. They are the catalyst for allowing our minds to build relationships between the different experiences we have and frame our understanding of the world around us. Next time you build a course for somebody, instead of limiting their experience of content by having them sit through pages of information (regardless of how well you think those pages are designed), consider widening the path that you have people travel and allow your learners to build their own connections. Be mindful of the connections you want them to build but trust the human mind to do what it can do.

Maybe someday the education system will catch on too…

 


Where are we going with this?

Wow. Over the last few months there has been so much going on with the company, with me personally and within my own network of amazingly talented and smart people that this posting is going to be so garbled that you will need to drink a little Timothy Leary kool aid to get it.

First shout out goes to Aaron Silvers and the Up To All of Us unconference. I’ll come out with it right now. I went in support of a good friend who is trying to make change within an industry that I care about, and regardless of what I hoped to personally gain from it, I felt it was my duty to support an endeavor to shake things up and get great minds in a room talking. In other words I didn’t expect to really ‘gain’ from it. That’s because I’m jaded and weary of people talking without doing. The truth is I did gain from it. Not in the way others did. I gained new perspectives and thoughts through incredible conversations with some incredible people. The workshops were fun, cool, etc, etc but didn’t blow my mind. What did blow my mind were the conversations with people like Chad Udell, Jason Willensky, Julie Dirksen, Kris Rockwell, Jason Early, etc, etc, etc the list goes on and on (I’d love to mention everybody). I also loved the focus on visual communication and how everybody was drawing stuff by the end of the conference. This was I believe due in part to the workshops themselves and the fact that we all got sketch pads at the start of the conference. The one big idea that I came out with was that we have the ability to use technology to go back in time and scale the ‘apprenticeship’ model. The ability to scale real time learning experiences and graft them into everyday life is here, and its here in a big way.

Next on my hit list is the discussion I’ve had lately with my network of peers on what is the industry that we all work in, and what is a professional that works within this industry. We are professional whats? I loved Mark Oehlert’s post the other day and rather than recap all that I’ve been discussing and posting, let me ask you this. What is the industry you work in? What type of professional are you? What are the core skills to being that ‘professional’?

Here’s where everything collides. I am an instructional designer and the industry I work in is ‘Instructional Design’. I could call myself a Human Performance Technologist working in the field of Human Performance Technology but if I’m being honest, if your doing instructional design and not worrying about human performance, you’re not a very good instructional designer. So for me, thats a semantic argument not an essential argument. Anyways, thats my industry and thats my profession. Learning and development is unfortunately a strategic business unit often misinterpreted as a ‘industry’. What if you design customer facing learning/marketing interventions? Are you still in learning and development? Are you in marketing? This is why I believe our industry is Instructional Design. It also helps differentiate myself from my nemesis the instructional developer. If you are an instructional developer, I’m sorry, I just don’t like you. Here’s why. To me, you’ve learned to use some of the most basic software around, narrowly focused in the ‘instructional’ space and have embodied what the software does without bringing any additional value to the table, other than what the software does. So your not a developer and your not an instructional designer, your just a human machine capable of using a piece of software. I have no use for you. If you have real programming skills and can build complex systems, or you have natural artistic skills like my buddy Kevin Thorn, then your a designer/developer and I can use your skills in so many different ways. It is the technology that has invaded the industry, that has made ‘designing instruction’ as accessible as it has to the least skilled of us that has created this nebula around what I believe could very well be an industry (instructional design).

The lack of a core industry means that we lack the definition of a professional which essentially leads to bad design, bad research and our LinkedIn groups being invaded by “Free Webinar: How to pick your LMS”. If you post this stuff, I don’t like you. I understand you need to run a business and make money, but seriously, it needs to stop.

It needs to stop because your simply flogging the industry with old ideas. There are better ways to use social media and one of those ways that I encourage you to do, is rather than push archaic ideas onto people, solicit what people want their LMS’s to do. I know enough people talking about having the LMS move to the background of learning that its time to change the discussion from “how to pick your LMS” to “Rethink what your LMS can do”. Call the Rustici software group if you need any tips!

This of course all dovetails back to #UTAOU because what instructional designers need to do that they haven’t been doing is explore different ways of delivering content to drive performance. Learning about the potential of new technologies, designing systems instead of courses, understanding new analytics and how to measure experience versus outcomes are all things that can help us become better instructional designers. But I’ll tell you what. Its not about the technology at all. Its about studying, reading and designing learning, behaviors and communication. If you can understand how we learn, how we communicate and why we behave the way we do, you can design systems to help.

Would love to hear from you, even if its to tell me I’m wrong or to F-Off. Vent, be free.


Clouduc8 on Rustici SCORM Cloud


Find the time to be in the know #clouduc8


Personal Reflections on Techknowledge

Its done. ASTD’s Techknowledge 2012 is over and I have some time to write down some of my thoughts. First off, its always great to see familiar faces of the people I have come to really look up to and respect for the work they are doing. Y’all know who you are and thank you for continually supporting me and the tiny world that I live in. The presentation that had the biggest impact on me was Tim Martin’s creation station on SCORM outside the LMS. I love the idea of being able to set up a personal remote LMS from anywhere, anytime using WordPress. I think the idea has real merit and for once in a long time, I’m leaving a conference with something I’m excited to play with.

The presentation that was the biggest let down for me was one on Learning 3.0 and once again found someone who equates Web 3.0 with a social web. Web 3.0 is not the social web, its not the immersive web it is what the guy who coined it is, which is the semantic web. That’s not to say that the ‘immersive web’ isn’t the future. Its simply a statement of fact. It is not web 3.0. In any case, I was excited to potentially see real semantic web apps running inside an organization, and instead I got hear that an organization was using Jive and trying to rethink the role of the instructional designer in a world where information is everywhere.

This brings me to my own sessions ‘Instructional Design for a Semantic Web’. I was disappointed with my own sessions as much as I was disappointed with others. My intention was to bring clarity and instead I brought a new level of confusion. I did learn however, that I will no longer speak about the topic at conferences anymore because I think I do as much a disservice to people as anybody else who provides the wrong information.

My session with Aaron Silvers however could not have gone better. The fact that people stood up and participated in an exercise where they brainstormed ideas around alternative assessment models for learning speaks volumes to having engaged participants. Going forward I will be focusing my speaking opportunities on the ideas within my book and using the formula Aaron had brought to our session.

So, like anybody my experience was a mixed bag, but I’m walking away a little bit wiser and a little bit more excited than I came. I’m not sure you can ask for a better result!


Copyright © 2010 edCetra Training Blog
edCetra Training theme derived from iDream theme by Templates Next | Powered by WordPress