TftD #2

Thought for the Day:

An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.

-- Niels Bohr

TftD #1

Thought for the Day:

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.

-- Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See

The Mobile Wave

From a recent episode of Charlie Rose....

Michael Saylor, CEO of Microstrategy on his book "The Mobile Wave: How Mobile Intelligence Will Change Everything"

One of the most thought-provoking (and mind-rattling, if accurate) 19 mins I've spent in recent memory.  Stick with it through the slow opening to get to some boggling visions for what lies ahead in the not-so-distant future and the ramifications on life/business.

Reflect on how our grandparent's lives weren't so tremendously different from their parent's lives and then juxtapose that against how radically different things will evolve/change within the current generation's lifetime.  No more "when I was your age..." tales from the past being shared across generations - it'll be tales of "remember when..." stories within a generation.

Hang on tightly... it's going to be a bumpy ride!

The Narrative Spark: Stories in ID (ISPI '08/'09)

During a brief break in my regular schedule, I finally got around to addressing a request I've received several times over the last few years...

I was accepted to present a session at ISPI's 2008 conference on the power of story in instructional design. It went very well - so well, in fact, that they invited me (and a handful of others who received high eval ratings) to the 2009 show as an "encore" presenter. The 2009 session went even better than the first, and it was suggested several times that I figure out a way to post the session in an async fashion for others to reference and leverage. I thought it was a good idea, but I never had (or should I say, took) the time to assemble the media and deliver.

Until now!

I'm happy to share that I've managed to 'flatten' my PPT visuals (remove animations and builds) and sync them with an audio recording I made of the 2009 presentation "The Narrative Spark: Leveraging the Instructional Power of Story". Since it was a 90 min session, I decided to break it up into 4 pieces, each around 20 mins in length. The sections, organized by What, Why, and When/How, focus on how the proper use of Stories within instructional designs can help improve three of the key objectives of successful training - Comprehension, Retention, and Application.

All four segments are available on YouTube.

Part 1 of 4: The What of Story

Part 2 of 4: The Why of Story

Part 3 of 4: The When & How of Story (a)

Part 4 of 4: The When & How of Story (b)

And now back to your regular programming...

After a surprisingly long break, I hope to return to a more regular blogging schedule. The excuses are plentiful (economy tanking that lead to a laser focus on 'regular' work efforts to keep gainfully employed, being one...), but the bottom line is that I didn't make it a priority to post. I saw it, at the time, as an 'extra' in my life that could (and did) fall off the bottom of the to-do list when time was short. What I didn't realize was just how much staying engaged in the broader learning community was central to my intellectual stimulation and ability to innovate. It's amazing how much I feel like my brain has been in neutral in terms of growth because I let this part of my development go untended.

Well, after a brief detour, I am now poised to return to my professional roots in Business Simulation and Story-based Learning design/development with a great organization who shares my passion for the possibilities associated with eLearning that is grounded in 'doing', rather than 'telling'. I'll be busy, for sure, but I feel like it'll be an environment where I'll be encouraged (again) to keep a finger on the pulse of the learning community, which will naturally lead to more fuel for blog postings.

At least that's the plan... We'll see! :-)

Rearranging Deck Chairs on the Titanic (revisited)

I was recently reminded of the still-outstanding discussion related to Jay Cross' (among others) take on Formal vs. Informal Learning by a new colleague.

It's interesting (to me) how portions of this discussion are still chugging along, but not nearly with the same fervor that they had when Jay's book came out. I'm honestly not sure how to interpret this - have Jay's points been tempered from their original, more extreme stance to be something that should be considered, but not seen as a 'sky is falling' situation?

The following was originally posted to the Tata Interactive Systems' Blog, but it bears repeating for (renewed?) consideration:
-----------------

Rearranging Deck Chairs on the Titanic?

Jay Cross recently posted some interesting (and startling) statistics about the impact of what we, in the custom learning design and development business, make a living doing.

(Low Hanging Fruit is Tasty)

Consider the following blurb (three times - once to allow your amazement to pass; a second time to allow your denial to pass; and a third time to slowly and deeply consider the ramifications, if this is even remotely true):

Formal training programs are not the only learning game in town. CLOs who spend the bulk of their time improving the development and delivery of training might be optimizing the insignificant. Consider this:

• According to Tom Gilbert and Peter Dean, training only accounts for 10.5 percent of the total potential change in worker behavior. Clarity of objectives, working conditions and other factors are more important.
• According to the Institute for Research on Learning, at most, formal training only accounts for 20 percent of how people learn their jobs. Most workers learn their jobs from observing others, asking questions, trial and error, calling the help desk and other unscheduled, largely independent activities.
• According to Robert Brinkerhoff and Stephen Gill, people who do attend formal training never apply 80 to 90 percent of what they learn back on the job. They forget the bulk of what they’re exposed to in a matter of days.

So, formal training accounts for 20 percent x 20 percent x 10 percent of the possible improvements you can make to worker performance. That’s 0.4 percent. To account for potential double-counting and other quirks, let’s say training might influence 1 percent of worker potential. C-level officers who want the human capacity to thrive over the long haul are looking for more.

Now, I'm certainly not lobbying for the end of formal training, but perhaps there is some merit to calling for the end of the *current version of* formal training.

With all that is known about HPT/HPI, Simulations, and Story-based Learning, not to mention long-available but minorly-leveraged knowledge about EPSS, why is it that the vast majority of the eLearning work that is done today resemble electrified versions of what was used to teach our great grandparents? Why are Jay's ideas regarding "informal" and "free-range" learning (for instance) readily accepted in theory, but largely ignored in practice?

We can do better (and it doesn't have to mean a loss of business).

When will learning professionals, who know in their heart that what their client is asking for isn't going to solve their problem or have the desired impact, feel confident to act on their responsibility/obligation to say as much?

When will customers (internal and external) allow the T&D professionals they've hired (again, internal or external) do what they do best, rather forcing them to act as glorified order takers and production shops for knee-jerk/best-guess remedies?

It may be a utopian wish that will never arrive, but, as Robert Browning said, "A man's reach should exceed his grasp or what's a heaven for?"

Update: 11/20/06
Jay's efforts related to Informal Learning have blossomed with the recent publication of his book on the subject. Good stuff!

In reflecting on his points and how they relate to Storytelling (my current area of focus), I ran across a Breeze session he's shared at: http://jaycross.com/informl/ . It's a great overview that clicks at a deep level with many of my thoughts/experiences.

I thought I'd share a shot of one of the slides that give a visual representation of the original point I made above. It may help to communicate just how small a slice of what is done in "formal training" is making any substantive difference.

(to recap the claim: Only about 10% of all potential change factors are related to "training". Of that 10%, only 20% is "formal" (the other 80% is "informal"). Of THAT 20%, only 20% makes its way out of the classroom and into application on the job. So... 10% * 20% * 20% = <1%!)

Design is as design does

For a brief period of time after I gave up on Ceramic Engineering as an undergrad major (I had no idea it involved so much Chemistry - not my favorite subject), I seriously considered Industrial Design. Something about form and function, aesthetic and technical really appealed to my nearly even left/right brain split, but the pragmatist in me thought that getting a formal Engineering degree would open more doors, so off I marched towards the Tech Quad...

I never lost my interest in ID (not to be confused with my current day job, Instructional Design), and still get a great kick out of the thumbing through magazines like I.D. in my local mega-book store.

The latest issue of Fast Company (Oct '07) is focused on Design of all shapes and sorts and is a really interesting read (IMHO). One thing that struck me as I browsed the pages was a minor realization that although it wasn't an intentional goal (and certainly isn't as classically 'tangible' as other types of design), my interest in software, technology, and their hooks into learning have led me into the broad field of Design in a way that I might have experienced if I'd followed my heart rather than my head as a 19 year old.

Just how different is Instructional Design from Industrial Design, at its root? Just how far can you push the question (Software Programming vs. Interface Design vs. Architecture) before the differences begin to outweigh the similarities? Are there some fundamental commonalities that run, like a thread, through them all? Is it as simple as the urge to 'create' something?

The lead/cover article is on Yves Behar, the creative spark behind the much lauded XO-1 of Nicholas Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) initiative, among other things. In that article, he shared an insight that kicked the question above into gear for me:

"The simplest definition of design is how you treat your customer. If you acknowledge their intelligence, and treat them well from an environmental, emotional, and aesthetic standpoint, you're probably doing good design." By that standard, he says, few CEOs come close. "They just don't know how hard it is, and what it will take on their part. There's a pain in transformation, pain when you have to do things differently." Most execs hope skillful marketing will make up for design shortfalls, or that word of mouth around an occasional well-conceived product will float the rest of their wares. Such rosy thinking overlooks the tensions that arise when design gets factored into a big business. "Marketing people are incented to come up with great ideas," says Mitch Pergola, fuseproject's vice president and general manager. "Engineers are incented to drive out costs." To resolve those conflicts, somebody at the top has to make the Solomonic calls. "If you want to be design-driven, " Behar says, "the question is, Who's driving?"

Although he is speaking of the design of physical objects, much of the sentiment he captures could just as well apply to Instructional Design (or Software Design, or...). At its core, good design requires some recognition and respect for your customer/audience. In training terms, acknowledgement that your (adult) learners bring something to the educational table, based on their background and experience. They are NOT blank slates that are poised to be filled with the blessings of the wisdom that has been deemed necessary for them to imbibe. Time and time again, when ID's step off their artificial platform of being the fount of knowledge and assume a position of being an enabler and facilitator of information exchange, everyone is richer for it.

Good design isn't window dressing on some more important, underlying core. It is an equal at the table of required elements for success.