The Total Learner Experience

Click Next

How many training programs have you taken that go like this:

 (taken from suddenlysmart.com)

Training Philosophy

I thought I'd document my basic philosophy of learning design... just so I can complete an exercise in reflecting on what I'm doing professionally, and why. Sometimes this is a good exercise, and you never know -- it may lead to a career change (I always wanted to open my own used CD store... but that dream was dashed when Napster emerged).

I have three basic goals when designing any type of learning intervention:

1. Create Value. I look at training and learning from a value-centered model. Is the need for an intervention driven by the overall goals of the business? Will the intervention lead to a measurable ROI?
2. Create Relationships. Creating training just to create revenue defeats the purpose. In today's participation age, we must strive to create long-lasting relationships with our customers: both internal and external. Through hybridization of education -- coaching, mentoring, teaching, showing, doing -- we can help formulate relationships of value that will last and the learner will benefit from. Basically, if the learner is not doing something, I question why I'm creating it.
   
3. Create Knowledge. A lot of learning happens on the job, in the field, between two or more people: a seasoned expert sharing knowledge with others. To truly understand the value of what we do and what we're about, we must find ways to capture that knowledge, store it, and re-purpose it for the organization. To help do this, our culture must be infused with the knowledge that from learning and education comes our competitive edge, our strength, and our sense of purpose.

 

The Agnostic Geek

<rant>

Sorry, gonna rant a bit. I've been getting hit with "oh, you built this in Flash, not Java" lately when showing some of the learning games I'm building. One person asked me why I didn't use JavaFX. Easy answer: I've been told JavaFX is not ready for prime-time, combined with the fact that I couldn't find anyone to actually do the programming (I'm not a programmer myself).

But going a bit deeper: when you look at a web page, do you think, "Gee, I wonder if they coded this in BBEdit or Dreamweaver?" I don't know about you, but I don't give a flip what software product is used to create a web page. Use TextEdit for all I care.

I build training and learning programs. The industry standard is Flash. Why? Because in Flash you can work with both the visual design AND the programming environment simultaneously. Also, the web player is completely saturated, so my audience will already have it. I personally loved Authorware -- but guess what -- no one uses it. I'd love to continue using it, but alas, no one would be able to see the end-result.

I'm researching creating a game-based learning program for Java Fundamentals. Do I want to build a learning game targeted to Java programmers in Flash? No. But in the real world I have 60 days to create the game. And it must be visually appealing, as well as fun to play. When I call around asking for JavaFX programmers (even internally), there's just silence on the other end.

My approach really is this: I'm software agnostic. I choose the most appropriate software tool to get the job done within the constraints placed in front of me. If I build a web-based Java programming tutorial in HTML, will someone refuse to take it because it's not built in Java? I doubt it.

So instead of people slamming the tool the learning is built in, provide me resources, expertise, advice, and directions on how to leverage our own stuff, and I'd be happy to use it. I'm really more interested in finding that people are actually learning something by taking my class.

 </rant>

Net Geners and Learning 2.0

I've been preparing a presentation for CEdMA's conference this week about our New Hire Experience. Once of the topics I'll discuss is how a company like Sun attracts the newer generation of workers (the Net-Geners or Millennials) as they're referred to. This is the generation born around 1982. 

Here are some interesting statistics about "relating" to this generation when it comes to designing learning programs for them (list is from and expanded here):

• They were 11 when the Soviet Union broke apart, and do not remember the Cold War.
• They have never feared a nuclear war.  "The Day After" is a pill to them, not a movie.
• They have only known one Germany.
• They are either too young to remember the Space shuttle blowing up... or it is their first collective television memory.
• Tienanmen Square means nothing to them.
• They never had a polio shot, and likely, do not know what it is.
• Bottle caps have not only always been screw off, but have always been plastic.
• They have no idea what a pull-top can looks like.
• They have never owned a record player.
• They have likely never played Pac Man, and have never heard of Pong.
• Star Wars looks fake and the special effects are pathetic.
• There have always been Red M&M's, and Blue ones are not new.
• They have always had an answering machine.
• They have always had cable.
• The Tonight Show has always been with Jay Leno.
• Popcorn has always been cooked in a microwave.
• They do not consider the Colorado Rockies, the Florida Marlins, The
  Florida Panthers, the Ottawa Senators, the San Jose Sharks, or the Tampa Bay Lightning expansion teams.
• They have never seen Larry Bird play, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is a football player.
• They never took a swim and thought about Jaws.
• The Vietnam War is as ancient history to them as WWI, WWII or even the Civil War.
• They have no idea that Americans were ever held hostage in Iran.
• They can't imagine what hard contact lenses are.
• They don't know who Mork was or where he was from.
• They never heard the terms "Where's the beef?" or "de plane, de plane!".
• They do not care who shot J.R. and have no idea who J.R. is.
• The Cosby Show, The Facts of Life, Silver Spoons, The Love Boat, Miami Vice, WKRP in Cincinnati and Taxi are shows they have never seen.
• They cannot remember the Cardinals ever winning a World Series or even being in one.
• Kansas, Chicago, Boston, America, and Alabama are places, not musical groups.
• McDonald's food never came in Styrofoam containers.

 

The Persuasive Expression of Learning Games

Ian Bogost's new book, "Persuasive Games" has many compelling arguments for the persuasive power of videogames. I took the theories he espouses in his book and applied them to the two learning games I designed for the New Hire project (you can play the games here).

The basic learning objective of each game is to explain Sun's mission and vision as well as the company's five primary business practices (now four). The foundation of the use of games for this intervention is based on the theory that vivid interaction is more persuasive than static or moving images (even when combined with text and narration).

Vividness in Imagery 

Another underlying ideal behind the use of the immersive game format is to symbolically communicate the learning objectives. Charles Hill stated that "images offer greater vividness than verbal narration or written description." Hill argues that vivid information "seems to be more persuasive than non-vivid information." In the game format I designed, I used vivid imagery combined with interactivity to communicate the game's core message. This begs the question, "can vivid images alone cause viewers to take action?" I think that imagery alone is more compelling than text, but I also believe that interaction is necessary to convince the viewer to take action. Vivid imagery is synonymous with propaganda whereas it can cause a visceral reaction, but it's not conclusive that a vivid image alone can persuade a viewer to specific action.

Hill created a table displaying what he calls a "comprehensive continuum of vividness" although Bogost questions the use of the word "comprehensive" since the table ignores interactivity in a simulated experience:

The table shows that the most vivid information comes from actual experience. In learning theory, we absolutely agree that the best learning experience comes from direct mentoring. I added Bogost's theory of procedural representation directly under "actual experience," because the combination of vivid imagery with interaction provides a higher level of vividness than moving images with sound.

Is procedural representation more persuasive than vivid imagery?

Procedural representations are often interactive, as in simulations, and can leverage moving images with sound. They rely on user interaction, therefore they should be considered more vivid than moving images with sound. Furthermore, the type of input/output (IO) derived from the procedural representation may determine its likelihood to be more or less effective than moving images with sound. For example, statistical IO may not provide as vivid a result as the symbolism represented by a fictional story as in a videogame (Bogost). Given this, one could argue that a videogame is a more persuasive expression of rhetoric than a moving image with sound.

Procedural Objection

Hill argues that images are comprehended "instantaneously" whereas text is comprehended over time. Moving images, as well as videogames can mount argument and proposition, however only videogames allow the player to raise procedural objections -- the player can't change the rule of play. So inherent corruption can indeed infect the videogame if the rule of play is biased or does not allow the player to raise personal objections to the message. Bogost cites an example of a moralistic game where the player must operate a fast-food business and while the rule of play is to operate a profitable business, moral decisions affect the profitability of the venture, i.e., bribing landowners, allowing diseased meat to be served, imposing harsh work rules on employees, etc. Players are not allowed to raise objections to the moral questions the game forwards. They must play within the prescribed rules to win.

A game's goal and rules makes up its procedural rhetoric. Its procedural system includes the play tactics. The New Hire learning games make two claims:

• that the player is a new employee to Sun Microsystems, and
• that the employee has little or no knowledge of Sun's business practices.

These claims could be refuted by the player (maybe they are not an employee, or they are already familiar with Sun's businesses). The player cannot raise a procedural objection during game play -- the game's goals and rules do not allow for that type of input. The community discourse feature of the wiki platform which hosts the games, however, does provide a mechanism for procedural objection. The players can use the comments and ratings feature to raise procedural objections to the games.

So although I believe there is sound instructional reasoning behind choosing the immersive game format to communicate the claims the games make, the player must move outside the simulated environment to raise any procedural objections to the games' inherent bias. Obviously, the persuasive elements in the game are biased. The game design leverages Bogost's four elements of persuasive expression to symbolically communicate the bias:

 
 

The integral component added to the vivid imagery is interactivity. I'll dissect the theories we relied on for interactivity in another post. 

Executive Learning Theory

Maybe I'm too hard on what I call Executivosaurus Predatorus (the predatory executive)... ok, I admit I often have a bias towards the executive class. But, in the spirit of open-mindedness, I spent some time thinking this morning about how best to design a training program for new managers. That led me to think about the "information new managers need" in today's business world and how best to build an information display system to support that information:

• What are the thinking tasks that managers face? The best way to clearly understand a process is to watch the actual data collection involved in describing the process (Edward Tufte speaks eloquently on this). A designer needs this understanding to effectively design a useful information display system.
  

• As Peter Drucker once said, good management is boring. How best do we build an information system that will disseminate information in the way a new manager prefers to consume it and will learn from it?

• Tufte models a process for designing simple high-resolution data. Note that all information displays should be accompanied by annotation, details from the field, and other supplements. High-resolution data supports critical decision-making. Note also that jargon is obsessively prevalent in management training. Jargon is an impediment to thinking. Again, Tufte refers to this in his discussion about chartjunk.
  

• It is worth investigating if managers spend too much time on busybody work rather than performing real, useful, and productive tasks.

• Most of all, the right evidence needs to be located, measured, and displayed. And different evidence might be needed next quarter or next year. 

In whatever training program we end up building, we will reinforce it with the principles of evidence and causality.

 

The Death of "2.0"

<rant>

I know I'm a bit late on the uptake here, but I really think "_____ 2.0" has jumped the shark. For me, the leap happened when the "2.0" suffix was attached to a car commercial (Nissan). Ok, done. Finished. "2.0" is now a useless and irrelevant glob of marketing jargon. I mean, come on... they're selling cars with it now.

I don't see Sun as a Web 2.0 company. Didn't Sun help invent technologies that made the web possible? So why would we even want to be a Web 2.0 company? We're an innovative, creative, dynamic, shift company. We make shift happen. We'll be there for Web 3.0, the Semantic Web, the Creative Web... and whatever else nubile thirty-something marketing execs want to call it.

Note to Self: Change latest preso title from "Onboarding Talent 2.0" to something else...

</rant>

Learning Together

I was doing a bit of reflecting a moment ago, and getting a bit distracted from the preso I'm working on, when it dawned on me... so many of the learning programs we (SLS) develop are directed toward the individual learner. Instead, why aren't we designing more for connected learning? Let's learn together... isn't that the essence of social learning? Note that I simply refuse to use "Web 2.0" as a term in relationship to learning. And I don't mean "social learning" in the context of social cognition.

So I brainstormed a few thoughts on how we can design social learning programs to build connected learning communities that can spontaneously spring up when needed (granted, this is brainstorm stuff, not vetted by Kazoo - my secret agent shoulder editor):

Learning Together

1. View learning as work, and work as learning. Let's recognize work in all its forms in order to improve performance across the organization. When you're designing a learning program, are you fully aware of all the tasks involved from the worker perspective? Is there a way to design learning into the work task and reduce the need for a separate training program? Remember, 60% of all training programs are unnecessary.
2. Count on informal learning. That is where the real work gets done. Keep learning as close to the task as much as possible.
3. View our company as interconnected communities of practice. Each organization needs enough information to understand how they fit within the whole company so they can contribute to the bottom line goals of the company. Do each of us in SLS (Sun Learning Services) recognize this?
4. Encourage brokered learning. Build connections across departments. A brown bag lunch can be an essential catalyst to sharing knowledge and information. Learning about something will invariably occur when you make a connection outside of your comfort zone.
5. Expect misunderstanding and frustration. Recognize the strengths and weaknesses inherent in the way each of us learn. Consider the individual's or the group's relationship in the community of practice, i.e., are there personality conflicts, managerial dysfunction, systemic barriers to communication, exclusion? You must take these issues into consideration when designing.
   

On Creativity

Lately I have been spending quite a bit of time reflecting on what elements are necessary to create successful learning programs. I am a big advocate for comprehensive analysis, and gaining a thorough understanding of the audience is essential. However, beyond analysis and audience, there are bigger questions I've been pondering.

One of those is innovation. When I think about innovation as it applies to learning, the first thing I think about is creativity. This leads me to ponder how we can instill creativity throughout Learning Services to build better learning interventions.

Over the past several years our industry has undergone a transformation in how we operate. Off-shoring, outsourcing, and hiring skill-specific temporary workers in reality is no longer a problem, it's a business model.

We have been adapting to a flood of new work models over the last few years, and we have feverishly been trying to keep up while still delivering the work. What is being lost, in my opinion, is a focus on creativity.

A basic definition of creativity goes something like this: creativity is the process of generating new ideas and/or concepts that are both original and appropriate.

Since Learning Services is currently questioning and changing how it creates and delivers learning interventions, one of our biggest areas of concern should be how to infuse creativity into everything we design.

I remember once talking to a fellow game designer, and he told me that he was having trouble teaching others how to design learning games. He concluded that the ability to create a learning game involved:

• Knowledge of instructional theory
• An understanding of how to create play
• And the art of designing engagement and heightened emotion

On reflection, to some degree, he's right. How do you teach someone the art of play? Can someone who does not play games, design them? I think not.

And teaching someone to be creative is also difficult at first glance. Breaking it down, however, I don't think it's that difficult to build an organization focused on creativity. We need these elements in place:

• A culture of innovation. Do we reward "out of the box" thinking? Do we allow our people the necessary time to investigate "creative options" while working on projects? Note that Google allows its engineers to set aside 20% of their work time for exploring innovation. This is how Gmail came about.
• Examples of creativity. Is there a structure that encourages each of us to collaborate, peer review, and brainstorm? Are we able to question our directives, question our leaders, and put into practice ideas that we come up with?
• Funding for both innovation and creativity. Does the organization back up the desire for innovation and creativity with the proper funding? Are we ready and able to commit to allocating resources and time to ideas that may or may not pay off?

Without these three elements in place, I don't see how we can complete the transformation from the Information Age to the Creative Age in designing learning interventions.

Without encouraging creativity, and standing behind the need for it, our audiences, and ultimately our business will suffer.