Archive for May, 2012

Instructional Design Tips For TinCan

Recently, a concept presented to a client for an online orientation course was well received by our stakeholder group, but very poorly received by the stakeholder group’s seniors. In an ironic turn of events, the stakeholder group wanted tradition and convention while their leaders wanted fresh, young, new and definitely not conventional.

The concept as we had presented it ultimately had to sit in an LMS and as it stood, we were pushing the boundaries of what could be done. For example there were content elements that our client wanted to ensure participants reviewed and interacted with, and others that were non essential. The issue we faced was that the essential content wasn’t all together and sequenced, it was interspersed with non essential elements. From a design perspective, if I need to meet certain compliance driven requirements I do so within SCORM protocols and design to optimize SCORM. However when ‘mandatory’ content is all mixed in with non-mandatory, whats the approach? Open navigation (go anywhere do anything) or closed (hit next until the end). So we were doing a lot of consultation with the client, a lot of brainstorming to figure out how to structure content and present content in a way that SCORM could fulfill the mandatory elements of tracking.

When we were let loose our design completely changed, and TinCan had a huge influence on the new concept. I thought I would share some tips on how you can use TinCan to improve the user experience, as well as capture real value in your analytics for your organizations.

#1 – Don’t think of content in units anymore (Learnning objects, SCOs, modules, etc). We don’t need to track units. Identify elements within a unit that are meaningful and look at capturing data around those elements.

#2 – Don’t worry about ‘submit’ buttons. Your learners don’t need to get things right or wrong anymore to capture data. Think about actions and performance online because what learners are doing can now be captured. Do you remember doing math in school and being tested? Some teachers gave you points if you did the process right but came out with the wrong answer. In mathematics, process is everything. Capture the experience, not the outcome.

#3 – Your free to think of instruction as a non linear experience and establish meaningful milestones regardless of the sequence a learner chooses to travel. Yes thats right. You can let learners figure things out on their own and still establish metrics for success.

#4 – Your free to think of online content for learning outside the rubric of a course. Yes thats right. Think of designing experiences in and outside of the online environment that can all feed the performance of an individual and still ‘track’ user progress.

#5 – Which reminds me, stop thinking of user ‘progress’ and think of user achievements. Now design your content to help people ‘achieve’ competence, achieve skills, acquire knowledge.

#6 – If we can remove the rubric of courses, of units, of unit completions, pass/fail….lets blow people’s minds. The best part is when we do so, we stand a much better chance of showing value to our clients and our organizations than ever before.

Look for more tips designing for TinCan over the coming weeks.


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

 

Comments Off more...

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.


Copyright © 2012 edCetra Training Blog
edCetra Training theme derived from iDream theme by Templates Next | Powered by WordPress