May 08 Learning Circuits Big Question: Learning design differences for Digital Natives?

This month' LCBQ is:

Learning design differences for Digital Natives?:

1. Do you believe that we have to design, develop and deliver instruction differently for the so-called Digital Natives?
2. Are there differences in learning expectations and styles or can we just design good instruction and know that it meets all generational needs?
3. If you have an audience that includes natives and immigrants, how can you effectively design instruction without breaking the bank?"

In my view, we are on the threshold of a learning revolution, akin to the explosion of knowledge made possible after the general availability of printed texts following the invention of movable type and the printing press in 1440.

Now read on...

One of the first manifestations of this will be a total redefinition (or perhaps definition?) of e-learning. Right now, “E-learning” means different things to different people. When you consider that you can call the discipline “e-learning”, “elearning” or even “eLearning”, it’s no surprise that there is a range of definitions of the subject, as “we prefer to define things according to how we use them” (Morrison, 2004, p.4).

Clark and Mayer (2003) consider the “how, why and what” of e-learning: that the “e” in e-learning refers to the “how” - the course is digitised so that it can be stored. The “learning” refers to the “what” - the course includes content and ways to help people learn it, and the “why” - that the purpose is to help learners achieve educational goals or to help organisations build skills related to improve job performance (pp.13-14). The assumptions in their definition are telling: note the use of the term “course” and references to organisational skill-building – there is an inherent, unspoken claim on e-learning (what ever that is!) to be part of the corporate, human resources development arena.

Now consider Will Richardson’s Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms, published only three years later. In the e-learning context, a quick scan through a text’s table of contents, introduction, or index will usually orient the reader to the author’s perspective on what they think e-learning is: not in this text. The very first point Richardson makes is that “this may look like a book about technology, but it’s really a book about …connections” (p.vii). With a nod to David Jonassen, the he discusses “cool tools”, “collaborations and conversations” and “creatively motivating students to learn more deeply” using a teaching and learning “toolbox” (p.9). He’s obviously talking about e-learning, but does not see the need to define what it is. So, e-learning has become a common if imprecise term used to refer to technology-enhanced learning.

Will digital natives care?

Probably not a jot.

I'm sure they will still refer to the term, much as we digital immigrants will still differentiate between say "book learning" or "instructor-led" for example, but all our "cool tools" will become just part of the range of media channels available to learners. Naturally, their expectations of learning will be different from those prevalent at the moment, just as one-time learning tools such as audio tapes and 16mm informational films seem terribly quaint now. Similarly, even Generation Xers used electronic calculators in the classroom - using tools like these inevitably shape the expectations of the individuals who interact with these devices.

I think we can expect to see

• Enhanced more immersive Second Life-type personal learning environments
• learning on devices like the Wii (good for those kinaesthetic types)
• learning via 'personal electronic things' (PETs)

Instructional Design

I would assert that the fundamentals of instructional design won't change especially; people still learn in the same way, and as much as technology may change, we as a species are still lumbering around with our hunter-gatherer brains. At this point I should say that Marc Prensky suggests that the new technologies actually lead to physiological changes in the way the brain is 'hard-wired' due to the range of stimuli digital natives receive through interacting with new technologies, but there is no evidence to support or refute this, though it is an interesting assessment.

I think that the changes will be more in the area of content authoring and development. If technological progress in learning demonstrates the same vigour as it did during the transition from CBT to e-learning proper, it will be some years before vendors recognise the niche, and there will be a lag before easy-to-use content authoring environments are brought to market - remember how long we had to struggle with Authorware and clunky, inflexible, horrible-to-use proprietary authoring tools, before Captivate and Articulate et al were eventually released?

Having said that, the open-source community are always ahead of the curve in this domain, and there are already some quite user-friendly open source 3-D engines that could form the basis for highly interactive learning environments in a milieu that digital natives are familiar and comfortable with.

...and who knows what else the next decade may bring? If it's as extraordinary as the last ten years, it's going to be one fun ride...

References:

Clark, R. C. & Mayer R. (2003) e-learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning, San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer

Morrison, D. (2004) E-Learning Strategies: how to get implementation and delivery right first time, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Richardson, W. (2006) Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

--

LCBBQ: The Long Tail, the 80:20 Rule and the role of learning professionals

This month's Learning Circuits Blog Big Question is:

"What is the Scope of our Responsibility as Learning Professionals?"

Since Peter Drucker coined the term "knowledge worker", learning professionals have been moving away from the silo of the training department and have become more integral to the broader ongoing development of the primary assets organisations possess: its people and their expertise.

In 1959 Peter Drucker coined the term “knowledge worker” to describe

one who works primarily with information or one who develops and uses knowledge in the workplace. It is performed by subject-matter specialists in all areas of an organisation;

(1973, p.839)

their tools are the knowledge assets they use in an organisation. It is “generally accepted” (Drucker, 2006, p.165) that the knowledge workers’ expertise in their role is the starting point for enhancing productivity, quality of work, and performance. If knowledge workers are to continue contributing to an organisation, their knowledge must remain up-to-date.

With the range of learning technologies and content delivery channels now available, learning professionals are meeting the needs of learners more successfully than ever before. They have done so adapting to the changing nature of organisations, which has meant increasing the breadth and depth of the functions undertaken by learning professionals.

My belief is that the responsibility of learning professionals encompasses these areas:

Knowledge Management

• Information Repository Development (Formal CMS solutions as well as non-formal wikis, blogs & podcasts)
• Content Management / Architecture Leadership
• Communities of Practise
• Knowledge Networks
• Experts & Expertise

Formal Instruction

• E-Learning
• Instructor-led Training
• Online Mentoring
• Certification

Organisational Development

• Workplace Learning & Support
• Performance Support
• Informal Learning Environments
• Non-formal Learning (InfoSession-type events)
• Formal Instruction (Classroom-based / Web-based)

Performance

• Ongoing workplace-related development

...and growing.

Interestingly, these domains of expertise align closely to Kirkpatrick's Four Levels of Evaluation, where (for example) Formal Instruction in the categories I've detailed here equates with Level 2 (Learning) and Level 4 (Results) with Performance.

But we're here to talk about the Long Tail, which I think is an interesting concept to apply to learning & development, but I'm struggling with seeing how to apply it as a rule or axiom in the learning world; I would assert that there is no evidence to support the view that learning professionals / departments specifically have to support Long Tail learning as distinct from all the other modalities of learning within their sphere of influence, except in a certain context.

That context is this: as more and more digital learning content has been developed and distributed using networked channels, online learning has moved from being a net consumer of educational resources to a net producer of learning materials. As such, more types of information / knowledge / learning resources are now available than heretofore. The very existence and availability of these resources to learners ensures their continued, low-level usage over time. Very much like the odd consumer searching for that obscure title on Amazon.com, some (diminishing) number of learners (over time) will continue to access rarely-use or more likely, out-of-date learning materials. I can give you a good example of this; content developed for an earlier version of an application (i.e. Macromedia FlashMX) will still have an audience, but not a very large one; yet the content still remains available for you to find if you so wish to use it.

However, as John Hager points out in Paying Attention what "we know at any point in time has diminishing value." Taking this truism into account I would suggest that a more appropriate model to apply is the Pareto Principle upon which the Long Tail is based.

The Pareto Principle is more commonly known as the "80:20 Rule" and was originally devised as a means of quantifying distribution of income and wealth among a population (20% of a population own 80% of the wealth).

It is reasonable to say that that knowledge is a form of wealth, and knowledge workers, experts, and "More Knowledgeable Others" exemplify the distribution of knowledge in an organisation. To extend the analogy, learning professionals are the "bankers" or economists of knowledge and the role and responsibility of the learning professional should extend to distributing the acquired skills, expertise and knowledge of workers to others within the organisation. The methods and means of this scope are, like all things, reliant on the nature of the organisation the learning professional is in.

References:

Drucker, P. F. (1973) Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. New York, Harper & Row

Drucker, P. F. (2006) Classic Drucker. Boston, MA. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation

--

LCB February's Big Question - ISD on the precipice of a crossroads

This month's Learning Circuits Blog Big Question is "For a given project, how do you determine if, when and how much an instructional designer and instructional design is needed?"

---

I wonder how many of you are familiar with this situation? A PowerPoint presentation and demonstration script for some end-user training on a certain process arrived in my inbox the other day. The content was created by one of our “star” Subject Matter Experts who has an unrivalled amount of domain expertise in the particular area under investigation, but has a rudimentary understanding of how to communicate his knowledge, not extending much beyond presenting at user conferences and assisting the Sales team in driving application demos, as well as a small amount of experience in using content authoring tools (mainly to support the above).

The demo script is a beautiful piece of work – a two-column table outlining the process being described on the left hand side, with a breakdown of the onscreen interactions and a voice-over narration script describing what’s happening onscreen on the right. In the VO script, the text also discusses why the process works the way it does, and includes references to the legislation underlying the process and links to where the user may find out more about the guidelines surrounding the process. The demo is about 25 minutes in duration.

The PowerPoint presentation is 93 slides in length, a mixture of bullet points, images and animations, with an average of three animated media elements per slide. The voice-over narration script provided with the PPT runs to about 200 words per slide – in all, nearly 150 minutes of content. Added to the 25-minute demo, it’s the best part of three hours of content, all to be delivered over the Web.

A request in the accompanying e-mail asks “By the way, can you make it so the user can jump into the appropriate part of the demo (if they wish) from the relevant slide in the PPT?”

---

From an instructional design perspective, this is the “precipice of the crossroads” as Little Carmine would say. Without access to instructional design expertise at some level, SMEs cannot transfer their knowledge effectively. Similarly, can we expect e-learning professionals to create high-quality courseware from the content and media assets that they are provided with if there is no instructional design to map the course?

By nature and practise, I am a strong advocate of Ted Cocheu’s Disintermediation in Learning principle. Like a lot of e-learning practitioners however, I am constrained by the realities of delivering courseware and all this entails, from delivery channel bandwidth considerations, through structuring the content according to certain pedagogical principles, to ensuring end-users / learners’ are tracked on an LMS.

I am suggesting that the formal role of “Instructional Designer” as we knew it a decade ago is becoming redundant. The ISD skillset is - except in certain cases - being subsumed into the skills possessed by most learning professionals. I would further assert we are moving towards a time where being an expert “in” ISD, or digital media, or EPSS development (or whatever), and working in a team to create courseware is being superseded by the learning professional acting more as a consultant, providing strategic and operational guidance to individuals who occasionally contribute to learning projects, but whose professional competence lies elsewhere.

The table below is an example of how this approach manifests itself, where the e-learning professional specifies all aspects of the course; I typically use this type of outline at the planning stage of courseware development. The key aspect of this model is that the learning practitioner needs to have a broad and deep understanding of all aspects of the courseware lifecycle.

Table 1 Typology of a course

Function	Approach
Theoretical Framework	Social-Constructivist Model
High level ISD Process	ADDIE & RIO/RLO Model
Strategy	Based on Blooms Taxonomy of Educational Objectives
Structure	Based on Gagné’s Conditions of Learning
Content	Uses a multimedia mix of text, slides, images, animation, Flash and video demonstrations
Delivery	The events are hosted as live Subject Matter Expert (SME)-led events, presented in the following format
Synchronous	Asynchronous
Live audience participate in mentoring event	On-demand after live event
Synchronously streamed on the web	DVD-ROMs available to Knowledge Workers. Each DVD-ROM contains one series of 10±2 lessons

Having made such a statement (and before instructional designers sputter, outraged, into their hot beverage of choice), I must now temper it by saying that I believe the primary exception to what I have just outlined is the COTS courseware industry, which will continue to produce content according to the proven production model that has worked so effectively for the creation of generic training content for the last 20 years or so.

Returning to my SME and his demo and PPT – I worked with him to develop an appropriate instructional design that met the end-users' needs, without doing a 'rip and replace' on the hard work he had already put in to developing the content.

We didn’t need an instructional designer.

But someone had to know about instructional design.