I guess until I start the next Google or YouTube, or win the Lotto, TED is going to be out of my price range, but a boy can dream, can't he?
I'm just happy that they've opted to open a window to the rest of the world by sharing select sessions for free. I've watch nearly every one of the posts and it has rarely left me feeling anything less than amazed and energized. It's actually a great example of (one of) the possibilities the Web offers in terms of knowledge/idea sharing.
To get a better feel for what it's all about, you can watch this news story (by David Pogue, of the NYT, for CBS).
Monday, February 5, 2007
Monday, January 22, 2007
Speed vs. Quality - Still Relevant?
January’s “Big Question” at the Learning Circuits Blog is:
What are the trade offs between quality learning programs and rapid e-learning and how do you decide?
My knee-jerk reaction is that the question makes an unspoken assumption that quality and speed are diametrically opposed – that “rapid” should be equated with “low quality”. Although that certainly may be the conventional wisdom position, I’m not sure it holds water under closer inspection.
It’s similar to asking about the trade-offs between ‘fast’ food and a ‘good’ food. Upon initial inspection, there’s a shared tacit agreement that a drive-through dinner from your local burger franchise won’t (can’t) hold a candle to the quality that would come from a multi-course meal from your favorite fancy sit-down restaurant.
But if you think more deeply about it for a moment, you may discover that (just as with most things) the “trade-offs” are intimately tied to objectives – or more simply put, “it depends”.
If you are in the midst of running a marathon, “good” and “fast” eating are defined quite differently than if you are having an anniversary dinner with your spouse. It’s only when you fully understand the needs and expectations of parties involved in a situation are you able to properly assess what (if any) trade-offs must be made to effectively/properly serve their objectives.
In the case of (e)Learning, the argument stands, as well. It’s generally accepted (in theory, at least) that one solution rarely addresses the needs of more than a few – that what is ‘fast’ and ‘good’ to one person/group isn’t the same as for another. The "value" of a solution is highly dependent upon the needs of target.
Consider, for example, the case of Google and how their primary service has been so deeply adopted into the fabric of society that their company name has morphed into a generic verb meaning “to search”. One of the more dramatic results of the service Google provides is that information on any topic at (nearly) anytime is available to anyone, all with a microsecond response time (rapid). Granted, there’s no guarantees to the quality of the information Google supplies in response to a query, but (and here’s the interesting part) that lack of guarantee also doesn’t preclude quality – it actually says nothing about it at all!
So, we are witnessing an interesting swing away from the monolithic course model, to a JIT search-browse-synthesize-apply model. In this world, ‘rapid’ and ‘quality’ can (and often do) comfortably co-exist. There’s no reason that a similar, albeit more constrained, replica of this model cannot be adopted and leveraged within individual organizations, as well. Instead of leaving the determination of ‘quality’ up to the seeker to discern (as is largely the current case when broadly searching with Google, despite the confidence their ranking algorithms is supposed to proffer), a company could create and offer a multitude of high-quality but quickly accessible & consumable ‘learning bites” on the most frequent/timely/damaging/profitable topics of interest. By aiming for succinct responses to the most leveragable “20” of the 80/20 Pareto Principle of business/sales/performance themes, it would be possible to serve the double-masters of Speed and Quality without any contradiction.
It’s important to note that one element will take precedence over the other in many cases – when the validity and comprehensiveness of information trumps the amount of time necessary to locate and understand it, or when something that half-right today is infinitely more valuable than something that is completely right tomorrow. Again, it all comes down to understanding the underlying objectives of your audience and adjusting your ‘S vs. Q’ knob accordingly.
(My response, obviously, is taking a consumption-oriented interpretation on the BQ. If one was to read the BQ to relate to production, I may have a slightly different stance in answering.
But then again, maybe not… :-) )
What are the trade offs between quality learning programs and rapid e-learning and how do you decide?
My knee-jerk reaction is that the question makes an unspoken assumption that quality and speed are diametrically opposed – that “rapid” should be equated with “low quality”. Although that certainly may be the conventional wisdom position, I’m not sure it holds water under closer inspection.
It’s similar to asking about the trade-offs between ‘fast’ food and a ‘good’ food. Upon initial inspection, there’s a shared tacit agreement that a drive-through dinner from your local burger franchise won’t (can’t) hold a candle to the quality that would come from a multi-course meal from your favorite fancy sit-down restaurant.
But if you think more deeply about it for a moment, you may discover that (just as with most things) the “trade-offs” are intimately tied to objectives – or more simply put, “it depends”.
If you are in the midst of running a marathon, “good” and “fast” eating are defined quite differently than if you are having an anniversary dinner with your spouse. It’s only when you fully understand the needs and expectations of parties involved in a situation are you able to properly assess what (if any) trade-offs must be made to effectively/properly serve their objectives.
In the case of (e)Learning, the argument stands, as well. It’s generally accepted (in theory, at least) that one solution rarely addresses the needs of more than a few – that what is ‘fast’ and ‘good’ to one person/group isn’t the same as for another. The "value" of a solution is highly dependent upon the needs of target.
Consider, for example, the case of Google and how their primary service has been so deeply adopted into the fabric of society that their company name has morphed into a generic verb meaning “to search”. One of the more dramatic results of the service Google provides is that information on any topic at (nearly) anytime is available to anyone, all with a microsecond response time (rapid). Granted, there’s no guarantees to the quality of the information Google supplies in response to a query, but (and here’s the interesting part) that lack of guarantee also doesn’t preclude quality – it actually says nothing about it at all!
So, we are witnessing an interesting swing away from the monolithic course model, to a JIT search-browse-synthesize-apply model. In this world, ‘rapid’ and ‘quality’ can (and often do) comfortably co-exist. There’s no reason that a similar, albeit more constrained, replica of this model cannot be adopted and leveraged within individual organizations, as well. Instead of leaving the determination of ‘quality’ up to the seeker to discern (as is largely the current case when broadly searching with Google, despite the confidence their ranking algorithms is supposed to proffer), a company could create and offer a multitude of high-quality but quickly accessible & consumable ‘learning bites” on the most frequent/timely/damaging/profitable topics of interest. By aiming for succinct responses to the most leveragable “20” of the 80/20 Pareto Principle of business/sales/performance themes, it would be possible to serve the double-masters of Speed and Quality without any contradiction.
It’s important to note that one element will take precedence over the other in many cases – when the validity and comprehensiveness of information trumps the amount of time necessary to locate and understand it, or when something that half-right today is infinitely more valuable than something that is completely right tomorrow. Again, it all comes down to understanding the underlying objectives of your audience and adjusting your ‘S vs. Q’ knob accordingly.
(My response, obviously, is taking a consumption-oriented interpretation on the BQ. If one was to read the BQ to relate to production, I may have a slightly different stance in answering.
But then again, maybe not… :-) )
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
What's Easy vs. What's Right
I've been a member of the "eLearning" community for over 15 years now. Throughout that time, I've consistently been frustrated with the elephant in the room that no one wants to recognize:
More often than not, T&D departments and the CXO's to whom they report are more interested in going through the motions related to training than with the actual impact and effectiveness of those efforts.
What I mean by this is that there is a disturbingly large amount of money, time, and energy devoted towards getting course completion "checkmarks" for the entire employee population, regardless of whether that tornado of effort and funding actually makes any difference.
For example, why are Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs) so entrenched in corporate (and K-12) training? Is it because they are especially effective? No. It's because they are efficient. And efficiency and efficacy are rarely related.
MCQs are a terrifically efficient way to move a large number of people through an evaluation process in a quick and easily quantifiable fashion. The problem is that most MCQs are structured in such a ridiculous way that it's often relatively easy to discern the correct answer without any actual knowledge or background in the subject. (I once took an internal "certification exam" that a client used to qualify their employees, sight unseen and with no background in the subject, and scored a passing (78%, if I recall correctly) grade.) Even if the MCQs you create don't fall in this category (and it is possible to create decent MCQs, with a little effort and creativity), the extra effort may not be justified because life and work don't often consist of selecting from menus of options. Recognition doesn't equal Recall, and neither equal Performance. And Performance is (usually) what we are really seeking.
This old saw rant of mine was recently rekindled by a terrific article by Sarah Boehle on the disconnect between L1 eval (smiley sheet) results and the actual effectiveness of that training (L3/L4).
I won't attempt to reframe her arguments, as she makes a strong and pointed case, leveraging a few folks I respect (Roger Chevalier and Will Thalheimer), but I will pull out a couple of items that had me cheering:
T&D professionals have an obligation to "get dirty" and dig into some of the hard questions and actions associated with making training *matter*. And that involves taking the road less traveled and providing some solid business rationale for why the annual budget has a line item for T&D, whether the CxO is asking for it or not. Until that happens, T&D will never be considered anything more than a "necessary evil" in the boardroom.
More often than not, T&D departments and the CXO's to whom they report are more interested in going through the motions related to training than with the actual impact and effectiveness of those efforts.
What I mean by this is that there is a disturbingly large amount of money, time, and energy devoted towards getting course completion "checkmarks" for the entire employee population, regardless of whether that tornado of effort and funding actually makes any difference.
For example, why are Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs) so entrenched in corporate (and K-12) training? Is it because they are especially effective? No. It's because they are efficient. And efficiency and efficacy are rarely related.
MCQs are a terrifically efficient way to move a large number of people through an evaluation process in a quick and easily quantifiable fashion. The problem is that most MCQs are structured in such a ridiculous way that it's often relatively easy to discern the correct answer without any actual knowledge or background in the subject. (I once took an internal "certification exam" that a client used to qualify their employees, sight unseen and with no background in the subject, and scored a passing (78%, if I recall correctly) grade.) Even if the MCQs you create don't fall in this category (and it is possible to create decent MCQs, with a little effort and creativity), the extra effort may not be justified because life and work don't often consist of selecting from menus of options. Recognition doesn't equal Recall, and neither equal Performance. And Performance is (usually) what we are really seeking.
This old saw rant of mine was recently rekindled by a terrific article by Sarah Boehle on the disconnect between L1 eval (smiley sheet) results and the actual effectiveness of that training (L3/L4).
I won't attempt to reframe her arguments, as she makes a strong and pointed case, leveraging a few folks I respect (Roger Chevalier and Will Thalheimer), but I will pull out a couple of items that had me cheering:
"Why do so many companies make this mistake? In all likelihood, they do so because the steps they must take in order to get their hands on the objective information necessary to accurately assess training effectiveness can be complex, difficult, costly and time-intensive. "and
"From my experience talking to corporate training departments, the calculus in the field seems to be, 'Don't do good evaluations,' " Thalheimer says. "Why would anyone want to? If you evaluate at all levels, only bad things can happen. If you use Level I and get good results, then you're maintaining the status quo and everyone assumes that training is doing a good job. If you evaluate more rigorously and get bad results, however, all hell breaks loose."There seems to be some sort of unspoken conspiracy/agreement between T&D and upper management of "don't ask, don't tell". T&D keeps shoveling meaningless stats to the boardroom that help to justify their existence, and the boardroom keeps accepting them as a means to help them feel better about the "necessary evil" that they see T&D to be. It's an easier, cleaner, and more friendly way to go about business, but it's an enormous waste of resources all around.
T&D professionals have an obligation to "get dirty" and dig into some of the hard questions and actions associated with making training *matter*. And that involves taking the road less traveled and providing some solid business rationale for why the annual budget has a line item for T&D, whether the CxO is asking for it or not. Until that happens, T&D will never be considered anything more than a "necessary evil" in the boardroom.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Supply vs. Demand Learning
I'm sure I'm not the only one to (re)stumble upon great stuff that had been forgotten from a previously read book. It's, at once, an exciting and frustrating experience for me - great in that I have a sudden rush of an "oh, YEAH!" reminding, but bitter in that I'm (once again) faced with how poorly I'm dealing with the challenge of my own information management efforts (which I see as different from my personal knowledge management, which, due to its being "personal" and "knowledge", doesn't really need "management, per say - it's who I am). I digress...
In reskimming JS Brown's terrific The Social Life of Information, I was reminded of a simple but important way to frame one of the common mistakes made in Instructional Design.
So simple. So obvious. So often ignored.
What Instructional Designers (and those in charge of Training/Education, both at the academic and corporate levels) should always keep in the forefront of their minds is Motivation, Relevance, and Need. And I don't mean from the teacher's/organization's perspective - it's all about the learner, no matter how much we may twist and turn and stand on our heads to convince ourselves otherwise. Remember the old saying about leading a horse to water? The sooner we deeply embrace this fact, the sooner we'll stop burning time, money, effort, and goodwill trying to force that which isn't wanted.
The trick is to design to the "sweet spot" where what has been prescribed as necessary overlaps with what the audience wants. And it's not as difficult as one might initially think.
One way is to simply start each course/module/unit/section with a brief context-setting story or example that establishes (in the learner's mind, not the designer/instructor's mind) how the content that follows is important and relevant to the learner's world. BOOM! Suddenly the "sweet spot" overlap grows larger! It's certainly not rocket science, but the concept of establishing the WIIFM clearly and in a compelling/memorable fashion is so frequently ignored, there seems to be a need to provide (another) reminder.
The question is, will it be the last time the ID community requires this fundamental prompt?
Unfortunately, I'm guessing "no".
Why?
I'm really not sure. Probably because it's easier to simply copy/paste an old "preaching" design than to craft a new custom "teaching" design.
In reskimming JS Brown's terrific The Social Life of Information, I was reminded of a simple but important way to frame one of the common mistakes made in Instructional Design.
"Learning is usually treated as a supply-side matter, thought to follow teaching, training, or information delivery. But learning is much more demand driven. People learn in response to need. When people cannot see the need for what's being taught, they ignore it, reject it, or fail to assimilate it in any meaningful way. Conversely, when they have a need, then, if the resources for learning are available, people learn effectively and quickly."
So simple. So obvious. So often ignored.
What Instructional Designers (and those in charge of Training/Education, both at the academic and corporate levels) should always keep in the forefront of their minds is Motivation, Relevance, and Need. And I don't mean from the teacher's/organization's perspective - it's all about the learner, no matter how much we may twist and turn and stand on our heads to convince ourselves otherwise. Remember the old saying about leading a horse to water? The sooner we deeply embrace this fact, the sooner we'll stop burning time, money, effort, and goodwill trying to force that which isn't wanted.The trick is to design to the "sweet spot" where what has been prescribed as necessary overlaps with what the audience wants. And it's not as difficult as one might initially think.
One way is to simply start each course/module/unit/section with a brief context-setting story or example that establishes (in the learner's mind, not the designer/instructor's mind) how the content that follows is important and relevant to the learner's world. BOOM! Suddenly the "sweet spot" overlap grows larger! It's certainly not rocket science, but the concept of establishing the WIIFM clearly and in a compelling/memorable fashion is so frequently ignored, there seems to be a need to provide (another) reminder.
The question is, will it be the last time the ID community requires this fundamental prompt?
Unfortunately, I'm guessing "no".
Why?
I'm really not sure. Probably because it's easier to simply copy/paste an old "preaching" design than to craft a new custom "teaching" design.
Math + Science = Value?
Roger Schank is at it again...
In his latest posting he goes against the conventional wisdom tide (big surprise..HA!) and argues that the old saw solution to all of the US's educational woes resting in teaching more math and science is simply misguided. He argues (my paraphrasing) that we are missing the forest for the trees in this obsession with more facts/figures/formulas.
The typical argument for why math & science are valuable is that they help students "learn how to think and reason". While I agree that this end may, in fact, be achieved through math and science exposure, it's a bit like arguing that a class in creative writing is valuable because it helps students to spell better. Sure, it's a side effect, but (a) is the end substantial justification for the means?, and (b) are there better, more direct methods of achieving the same end? Certainly there are a variety of routes towards the goal of "more people who can think", other than making everyone endure mandatory math and science classes that have questionable real-world relevance to most.
In the spirit of disclosure, I admit to having a background that is grounded in math and science (engineering and CS) and to reading the occasional math-related book for leisure. I like math and science and feel like my life is richer because of them. But here's the rub....
I probably would have taken about the same math/science courses, regardless of what was mandated, because I was interested in it! To force students who don't have similar native interests or vocational wishes that require such skills/knowledge to take much more than "daily survival skills math" (which probably tops out in middle school or early high school), under the guise of "teaching reasoning/logic" is simply a waste. A waste of time and energy on both ends of the experience (teacher/district time and money that clearly too rare and precious to squander, and student time and energy invested in something with so few tangible dividends), and a waste in the poisoning of any future interests in math/science these students may someday develop because of the bitter experience that this lock-step, decontextualized, forced-feeding results in.
As is Roger's way, he often argues to the extreme of the spectrum ("you couldn't get me to go back to college if you pointed a gun at me!" - Audio intro to Engines for Education) to provoke thought that leads to something more "reasonable". I add this latest rant of his to the same stack of his previous, controversial postings, but that doesn't discount or dismiss the validity of his core argument -
We do spend too much time/energy/money teaching things that are (supposedly) "good for you" via methods that would be as recognizable to George Washington as to George Bush, not because there is any real evidence or justification for it, but rather because it's familiar ("that's what I went through and I didn't turn out so badly, so...") and it's easy (what other rationale is there to explain the prevalence of multiple-choice questions/testing?).
It's time we revisit WHAT we teach, based on WHY it's of value to the core of the student population living in the 21st century, and HOW that material is best taught, and release old, pre-conceived notions of the answers that are based in the past.
In his latest posting he goes against the conventional wisdom tide (big surprise..HA!) and argues that the old saw solution to all of the US's educational woes resting in teaching more math and science is simply misguided. He argues (my paraphrasing) that we are missing the forest for the trees in this obsession with more facts/figures/formulas.
The typical argument for why math & science are valuable is that they help students "learn how to think and reason". While I agree that this end may, in fact, be achieved through math and science exposure, it's a bit like arguing that a class in creative writing is valuable because it helps students to spell better. Sure, it's a side effect, but (a) is the end substantial justification for the means?, and (b) are there better, more direct methods of achieving the same end? Certainly there are a variety of routes towards the goal of "more people who can think", other than making everyone endure mandatory math and science classes that have questionable real-world relevance to most.
In the spirit of disclosure, I admit to having a background that is grounded in math and science (engineering and CS) and to reading the occasional math-related book for leisure. I like math and science and feel like my life is richer because of them. But here's the rub....
I probably would have taken about the same math/science courses, regardless of what was mandated, because I was interested in it! To force students who don't have similar native interests or vocational wishes that require such skills/knowledge to take much more than "daily survival skills math" (which probably tops out in middle school or early high school), under the guise of "teaching reasoning/logic" is simply a waste. A waste of time and energy on both ends of the experience (teacher/district time and money that clearly too rare and precious to squander, and student time and energy invested in something with so few tangible dividends), and a waste in the poisoning of any future interests in math/science these students may someday develop because of the bitter experience that this lock-step, decontextualized, forced-feeding results in.
As is Roger's way, he often argues to the extreme of the spectrum ("you couldn't get me to go back to college if you pointed a gun at me!" - Audio intro to Engines for Education) to provoke thought that leads to something more "reasonable". I add this latest rant of his to the same stack of his previous, controversial postings, but that doesn't discount or dismiss the validity of his core argument -
We do spend too much time/energy/money teaching things that are (supposedly) "good for you" via methods that would be as recognizable to George Washington as to George Bush, not because there is any real evidence or justification for it, but rather because it's familiar ("that's what I went through and I didn't turn out so badly, so...") and it's easy (what other rationale is there to explain the prevalence of multiple-choice questions/testing?).
It's time we revisit WHAT we teach, based on WHY it's of value to the core of the student population living in the 21st century, and HOW that material is best taught, and release old, pre-conceived notions of the answers that are based in the past.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Proactive New Year's Resolution
I've watched from the sidelines for too long and I'm resolving to make a change.
Although my tech knowledge is limited and rusty, I am a big advocate of 'learning by doing', so I suppose it's time for me to practice what I preach. This blogging effort is in conjunction with an effort to create and experiment with a website, so we'll see if I've bitten off more than I can chew!
For now, I'm planning on using this site as a means to capture my thoughts on a variety of topics, but probably mostly regarding technology-based learning and leveraging storytelling (business narratives) as an effective tacit knowledge transfer technique. I'm figuring if no one else ever reads these entries, it'll serve as an "idea net" for me, at a minimum. With any luck, a few items will catch others attention and they'll be kind enough (provoked enough?) to post comments that'll help to further expand/solidify my thinking.
So... here goes nothing!
Although my tech knowledge is limited and rusty, I am a big advocate of 'learning by doing', so I suppose it's time for me to practice what I preach. This blogging effort is in conjunction with an effort to create and experiment with a website, so we'll see if I've bitten off more than I can chew!
For now, I'm planning on using this site as a means to capture my thoughts on a variety of topics, but probably mostly regarding technology-based learning and leveraging storytelling (business narratives) as an effective tacit knowledge transfer technique. I'm figuring if no one else ever reads these entries, it'll serve as an "idea net" for me, at a minimum. With any luck, a few items will catch others attention and they'll be kind enough (provoked enough?) to post comments that'll help to further expand/solidify my thinking.
So... here goes nothing!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)