After reading Clark's comment on my posting from yesterday, I've been looking into Cognitive Flexibility Theory (Spiro), trying to better understand the notion of "multiple representations." (You can read more about CFT here and here and here, or just Google it like I did and see what you find....)
I had been thinking of multiple representations as meaning you show the graph on one screen with audio, then on the next screen have a video of someone talking about that concept. Use multiple representations to provide the learner with multiple ways of accessing the information: visual or auditory. Not quite.
From the CFT vantage, multiple representations is not about providing the same information in a different format (the learning styles approach), but rather presenting different perspectives on that information. Provide a variety of examples or case studies that get to the concept in different ways. This allows the learner to be more flexible in her understanding of the material, so that she can effectively apply it to concepts in the real world (knowledge transfer).
Got it. Makes sense. Provide lots of examples as a way of beating that path through the woods; helping the learner make connections to ensure successful transfer of knowledge to a real-world situation.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Getting an Informal M.Ed
For various reasons, I'm not going to go back to school to get a Masters Degree in instructional design. At least not formally.
But I firmly believe that this journey I'm on is giving me the experience and educational equivalent (if not better) than a formal M.Ed.
The benefits: It's free! It's available whenever I want it to be! I get to learn what I want to learn! I never have to graduate! I already have a job doing it!
Even though I've been doing this ("instructional design") for over ten years, I'm starting over. I'm putting my beginner's mind back on; I've realized how much I don't know about this stuff.
I'm the over-eager kid in the front row, asking the dumb questions. The 1st year grad student.
You are my professors.
You are my classmates.
You are my students.
This blog is my notebook. Comments are encouraged, especially when I get something wrong.
My work-related projects are my laboratory, my assignments, my assessments -- to be "graded" by my clients.
I don't have a formal curriculum. I am starting right where I am.
I am compiling some reading lists and resources that I have found useful. See also the "Instructional Design Resources" section in my sidebar, which I just added this morning.
Be sure to check out Essential Reading for Instructional Designers with a link to Dr. John Curry's post How to Get An Instructional Design Education Without Paying Tuition.
I welcome your suggestions, your feedback, your guidance.
Thanks for helping.
But I firmly believe that this journey I'm on is giving me the experience and educational equivalent (if not better) than a formal M.Ed.
The benefits: It's free! It's available whenever I want it to be! I get to learn what I want to learn! I never have to graduate! I already have a job doing it!
Even though I've been doing this ("instructional design") for over ten years, I'm starting over. I'm putting my beginner's mind back on; I've realized how much I don't know about this stuff.
I'm the over-eager kid in the front row, asking the dumb questions. The 1st year grad student.
You are my professors.
You are my classmates.
You are my students.
This blog is my notebook. Comments are encouraged, especially when I get something wrong.
My work-related projects are my laboratory, my assignments, my assessments -- to be "graded" by my clients.
I don't have a formal curriculum. I am starting right where I am.
I am compiling some reading lists and resources that I have found useful. See also the "Instructional Design Resources" section in my sidebar, which I just added this morning.
Be sure to check out Essential Reading for Instructional Designers with a link to Dr. John Curry's post How to Get An Instructional Design Education Without Paying Tuition.
I welcome your suggestions, your feedback, your guidance.
Thanks for helping.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Humble Learning Moment
File this one under the challenging of outdated theories and assumptions.
I've been reading e-Learning and the Science of Instruction (2003) by Ruth Clark and Richard Mayer. I'd say this is a must-read for learning/experience/ instructional designers, or whatever you may call yourself. For a great summary of the book, head over to Clive's blog.
When I got to chapter 6, "Applying the Redundancy Principle", I started to get that squirmy, oh-crap feeling. The realization that I've been working off some really outdated theories...as recently as this week.
The old theory:
Up until now, I've gone along with that concept of learning styles, which the book's authors tell me is based on the information delivery theory. This is the notion that we all have a preferred channels for learning: visual or auditory. (I've always included kinesthetic on the list as well.)
So when designing a program with different learning styles in mind, one presents information in multiple formats: both as onscreen text and audio along with an illustrative graphic. The idea being if you're more visual, you'll read...if you're more auditory you'll listen. You present the content in multiple ways so that the user can access the information in their preferred way.
So here's this program I've been working on: lots of animated graphics, audio narration, and timed text bullets (a full transcript of the audio does not appear on the screen -- just key points to underscore the audio).
Apparently , this is considered a Bad Move. Overwhelms the learner's visual channel. OK -- duh. Now it seems painfully obvious to me that this is what's going on, and explains why I so easily tune out with these types of presentations.
The new theory -- the Redundancy Principle:
The Redundancy Principle is based on the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The notion is that people process verbal and visual information in separate channels. It's not one preferred style over another. Each channel can only process and handle so much information at once. So, if you present an animated graphic, the learner must look at the graphic in order to absorb the information. If you're also presenting onscreen text, you're overwhelming the learner. They don't know where to look and the visual channel gets overloaded.
The best presentation method is to show an animation/important graphic with narrated audio only -- no text. Don't include redundant on-screen text.
If you're not displaying a graphic or animation or other visual illustration, then text with audio is fine. (Be sure to read the book for more detailed information, research evidence, and examples of when it is ok to use redundant onscreen text).
I suppose if you still go for the learning styles approach, then you're best to opt for multiple representations of the content. Present the content in a variety of ways over a couple of pages. Clark Quinn is an advocate of this approach. In the session I took with him at the eLearning Guild event, he talked about multiple representations as a way to forge stronger pathways of memory in the brain. Cut a trail through the virgin forest; beat a path through the woods; create better connections in the brain by providing more opportunities for the learner to connect with the content.
A humble learning moment for this instructional designer.
I've been reading e-Learning and the Science of Instruction (2003) by Ruth Clark and Richard Mayer. I'd say this is a must-read for learning/experience/ instructional designers, or whatever you may call yourself. For a great summary of the book, head over to Clive's blog.
When I got to chapter 6, "Applying the Redundancy Principle", I started to get that squirmy, oh-crap feeling. The realization that I've been working off some really outdated theories...as recently as this week.
The old theory:
Up until now, I've gone along with that concept of learning styles, which the book's authors tell me is based on the information delivery theory. This is the notion that we all have a preferred channels for learning: visual or auditory. (I've always included kinesthetic on the list as well.)
So when designing a program with different learning styles in mind, one presents information in multiple formats: both as onscreen text and audio along with an illustrative graphic. The idea being if you're more visual, you'll read...if you're more auditory you'll listen. You present the content in multiple ways so that the user can access the information in their preferred way.
So here's this program I've been working on: lots of animated graphics, audio narration, and timed text bullets (a full transcript of the audio does not appear on the screen -- just key points to underscore the audio).
Apparently , this is considered a Bad Move. Overwhelms the learner's visual channel. OK -- duh. Now it seems painfully obvious to me that this is what's going on, and explains why I so easily tune out with these types of presentations.
The new theory -- the Redundancy Principle:
The Redundancy Principle is based on the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The notion is that people process verbal and visual information in separate channels. It's not one preferred style over another. Each channel can only process and handle so much information at once. So, if you present an animated graphic, the learner must look at the graphic in order to absorb the information. If you're also presenting onscreen text, you're overwhelming the learner. They don't know where to look and the visual channel gets overloaded.
The best presentation method is to show an animation/important graphic with narrated audio only -- no text. Don't include redundant on-screen text.
If you're not displaying a graphic or animation or other visual illustration, then text with audio is fine. (Be sure to read the book for more detailed information, research evidence, and examples of when it is ok to use redundant onscreen text).
I suppose if you still go for the learning styles approach, then you're best to opt for multiple representations of the content. Present the content in a variety of ways over a couple of pages. Clark Quinn is an advocate of this approach. In the session I took with him at the eLearning Guild event, he talked about multiple representations as a way to forge stronger pathways of memory in the brain. Cut a trail through the virgin forest; beat a path through the woods; create better connections in the brain by providing more opportunities for the learner to connect with the content.
A humble learning moment for this instructional designer.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Rapid e-Learning, Templates, & SMEs
There's been a lot of good talk lately about rapid e-learning tools and templates and the roles of SMEs vs. instructional designers. I think about this topic a lot. One of our main products is creating customized templates for our clients; "empowering non-programmers to build e-learning." Our tools still require the user to work in the Flash environment, but you really don't need to know Flash.
Up until recently , I've been thinking it's instructional designers who will be using our tools. Perhaps. But as I look around at who is actually doing instructional design out there (and look at me) I realize more and more that 'instructional designer' is an over-used title and does not necessarily mean that one knows a thing about it; perhaps it's just a role that someone evolved into. It certainly doesn't mean that the individual has a background in 'experience design' (to borrow from Patrick Dunn) or even in e-Learning. Instructional designers are often SMEs who have evolved into trainers. And then e-Learning fell onto their plate.
The folks at Kineo wrote a piece on the future of rapid e-learning tools, summarizing "our view is to give potential authors [SMEs] some easy to use but well structured templates which will give instructional integrity to how they develop their learning."
Barry Sampson responds,
My response to Barry, hmmm....well I suppose I agree that a template, in and of itself, can not be instructionally sound. But what is a template? It's really a mental model. We all work from templates. Even when you've got a blank page in front of you and you start writing: paragraphs, commas, periods. We have some pre-existing notion in our heads of the structure we might want to follow.
From a rapid e-Learning perspective -- or just e-Learning in general -- templates and tools provide a starting point. They provide a mental model. They can save time; create a more efficient process. And hopefully, they are flexible enough that they can be altered as needed in order to create an effective learning experience.
Silke Fleischer of Adobe Captivate fame, in her post Update on eLearning Guild Conference , talks about the rapid e-learning panel of which she was a part, and the subject of SMEs and IDs:
I think this is a good vision. In fact, one of the sessions I attended at the Guild Event gave me a taste for this approach. In Rapid Project Management Techniques for e-Learning presented by Coates & Hill of Deloitte, they outlined their approach to creating a big enterprise-wide training program in an extremely aggressive timeframe. The project management stuff from the session was really basic, but the main point I took away was embedded into the program about 40 minutes in.
They described their War Room. The got the key SMEs together in a room with the instructional designers. The SMEs had to create the storyboards. Once the storyboard was created, the lead instructional designer reviewed it, fine-tuning things to create an "instructionally sound" experience. This approach saved them a ton of time, and resulted in an effective training program.
But before they even set the SMEs loose on the storyboarding process, they gave them a training in the basics of e-Learning and instructional design! Nothing long, nothing too deep, just the basics. And this was the seed that led to a conversation with Clive Shepherd that led to the 30-minute masters.
So we give SMEs access to these tools: because this is the wave of the future/the now, this IS what is required. We create templates and tools that provide some instructional approach. Perhaps we build wizards and guidance right into the tools themselves. We provide flexibility in the tools so that they are seen as a starting point.
More importantly, we educate the SMEs upfront. We provide mentoring and partnering between SMEs and instructional designers. If we set the SMEs -- AND the instructional designers -- loose with these tools, let's set them up for success.
Up until recently , I've been thinking it's instructional designers who will be using our tools. Perhaps. But as I look around at who is actually doing instructional design out there (and look at me) I realize more and more that 'instructional designer' is an over-used title and does not necessarily mean that one knows a thing about it; perhaps it's just a role that someone evolved into. It certainly doesn't mean that the individual has a background in 'experience design' (to borrow from Patrick Dunn) or even in e-Learning. Instructional designers are often SMEs who have evolved into trainers. And then e-Learning fell onto their plate.
The folks at Kineo wrote a piece on the future of rapid e-learning tools, summarizing "our view is to give potential authors [SMEs] some easy to use but well structured templates which will give instructional integrity to how they develop their learning."
Barry Sampson responds,
[This approach] presupposes that the templates are instructionally sound in the first place: In reality I doubt that any templated approach is likely to be instructionally sound. For me this is is one of the key failings of traditional elearning content: fitting your learning need to pre-existing templates, whether that's SME built rapid content or something produced by an elearning provider. Templates are about keeping costs down, not standards up.
My response to Barry, hmmm....well I suppose I agree that a template, in and of itself, can not be instructionally sound. But what is a template? It's really a mental model. We all work from templates. Even when you've got a blank page in front of you and you start writing: paragraphs, commas, periods. We have some pre-existing notion in our heads of the structure we might want to follow.
From a rapid e-Learning perspective -- or just e-Learning in general -- templates and tools provide a starting point. They provide a mental model. They can save time; create a more efficient process. And hopefully, they are flexible enough that they can be altered as needed in order to create an effective learning experience.
Silke Fleischer of Adobe Captivate fame, in her post Update on eLearning Guild Conference , talks about the rapid e-learning panel of which she was a part, and the subject of SMEs and IDs:
Some instructional designers want SMEs to use rapid tools to create rapid eLearning, some would not want them near an authoring tool. For me it seems less a discussion between rapid eLearning that SMEs develop content or not, it's rather rapid eLearning developed by IDs (Instructional Designer) with the SMEs (SMEs start by capturing the knowledge, IDs add the ID) versus the informal learning SMEs like most of my coworkers produce using rapid eLearning tools - they don't call what they do "rapid development" nor "rapid eLearning".
I think this is a good vision. In fact, one of the sessions I attended at the Guild Event gave me a taste for this approach. In Rapid Project Management Techniques for e-Learning presented by Coates & Hill of Deloitte, they outlined their approach to creating a big enterprise-wide training program in an extremely aggressive timeframe. The project management stuff from the session was really basic, but the main point I took away was embedded into the program about 40 minutes in.
They described their War Room. The got the key SMEs together in a room with the instructional designers. The SMEs had to create the storyboards. Once the storyboard was created, the lead instructional designer reviewed it, fine-tuning things to create an "instructionally sound" experience. This approach saved them a ton of time, and resulted in an effective training program.
But before they even set the SMEs loose on the storyboarding process, they gave them a training in the basics of e-Learning and instructional design! Nothing long, nothing too deep, just the basics. And this was the seed that led to a conversation with Clive Shepherd that led to the 30-minute masters.
So we give SMEs access to these tools: because this is the wave of the future/the now, this IS what is required. We create templates and tools that provide some instructional approach. Perhaps we build wizards and guidance right into the tools themselves. We provide flexibility in the tools so that they are seen as a starting point.
More importantly, we educate the SMEs upfront. We provide mentoring and partnering between SMEs and instructional designers. If we set the SMEs -- AND the instructional designers -- loose with these tools, let's set them up for success.
New Rapid e-Learning Tool from Epic
Another new rapid e-Learning tool, this from Epic (UK).
Epic launches new tool for accessible rapid e-learning
Product features to include:
It's not clear to me from the press release what type of authoring environment is used (is it Microsoft Word?) or what format the output is in.
From the press release:
Epic launches new tool for accessible rapid e-learning
Product features to include:
- A wizard that guides users through course creation
- An in-built art direction library, allowing users to choose from a range of predefined 'look-and-feel' templates
- The ability to insert media of the user's choice (graphics, video and audio)
- Automatic 'one-click' SCORM packaging
It's not clear to me from the press release what type of authoring environment is used (is it Microsoft Word?) or what format the output is in.
From the press release:
'It's important to remember, however, that as with any tool, you only get out what you put in. To makes sure that clients get the most out of Rapid Create, or from any other authoring tool they may select, Epic also provides training and capability building to ensure internal teams are skilled-up in creating effective e-learning.'
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Please PLEs Me
I've just been dying to use that title.
Anyway, who of you Google users noticed today that your homepage is now iGoogle?
I did about two hours ago...but I thought it was just a cute Google thing, the way they make the logo all green and earthy for earth day. It's not that, it's actually the Race to Personalize the Web. PLEs here we come.
(I just listened to Stephen Downe's PLE presentation, so the topic is fresh on the brain).
Beginning Instructional Designer's Toolkit
I want to incorporate a reading list for the next level of the 30-minute masters (taking a crash course in Instructional Design). This would be for those who want to take their own learning to the next level. A list of important books, key terminology, basic theory.
Because it's true -- you can impress your clients and peers by working "cognitive load" into a sentence. And, more importantly, you can improve your design when you understand the theory.
(I'm not a big theory person. I'm much more into practical application. This is probably why I have never gone for that master's degree...)
These are terms that I have learned (some relatively recently) and thought, why didn't I know this ten years ago if it's so important? I'm not saying that these theories are right or wrong -- but they get tossed about and referred to with great relish by some in the industry. And I have learned a lot by looking into each of them.
This is just a starting point and doesn't provide links. Perhaps we just include this in the wiki and the informal learners can go off and do their own research (because we learn best by doing, right?).
Please add your own essentials.
My list begins as such:
Important Theories and Terms:
Gagne's 9 Events
Kirkpatrick Levels
ADDIE
Cognitive Load Theory
ARCS (John Keller)
Books:
Ruth Clark: e-Learning and the Science of Instruction
Malcom S. Knowles, et al: The Adult Learner
Other Good Resources:
Clark Quinn The Seven Step Program for e-Learning Improvement (PDF whitepaper)
Will Thalheimer Learning Show: Don't Forget Forgetting
Will Thalheimer Learning Research Quiz
Because it's true -- you can impress your clients and peers by working "cognitive load" into a sentence. And, more importantly, you can improve your design when you understand the theory.
(I'm not a big theory person. I'm much more into practical application. This is probably why I have never gone for that master's degree...)
These are terms that I have learned (some relatively recently) and thought, why didn't I know this ten years ago if it's so important? I'm not saying that these theories are right or wrong -- but they get tossed about and referred to with great relish by some in the industry. And I have learned a lot by looking into each of them.
This is just a starting point and doesn't provide links. Perhaps we just include this in the wiki and the informal learners can go off and do their own research (because we learn best by doing, right?).
Please add your own essentials.
My list begins as such:
Important Theories and Terms:
Gagne's 9 Events
Kirkpatrick Levels
ADDIE
Cognitive Load Theory
ARCS (John Keller)
Books:
Ruth Clark: e-Learning and the Science of Instruction
Malcom S. Knowles, et al: The Adult Learner
Other Good Resources:
Clark Quinn The Seven Step Program for e-Learning Improvement (PDF whitepaper)
Will Thalheimer Learning Show: Don't Forget Forgetting
Will Thalheimer Learning Research Quiz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)