Designing Learning Technologies to Impact Behavioral Change

0 comments

Posted on 9th March 2010 by Brian in Cognitive Science | Instructional Strategies

In an earlier post I discussed the question, “can e-learning change behavior?” The answer is yes, when designed correctly. Let’s expand that out a bit to all learning technologies and ask the question, “how do we design our learning technologies to increase the probability that behavioral change will occur?” Dr. Ruth Clark and Dr. Michael Allen have provided us with excellent practical ways to apply learning theory to the design of asynchronous self paced e-learning. For example, Dr. Michael Allen provides several design strategies to improve learning motivation. (Allen, 2003). Clark and Mayer (2008) provide practical design guidelines for increasing learner retention. Skinner provided us with the fundamental principles of external stimuli and it’s impact on behavior and created the first cognitive technology tool referred to as the teaching machine. Skinner’s teaching machine provided quizzing with immediate feedback which is the principle employed in most e-learning courses today. The scene in this video below was a future vision to the use of computers in the classroom to facilitate self-paced learning.

Triadic Reciprocal Determinism (Bandura, 1986)

For this article I would like to take a look at Bandura’s (1986) model for explaining behavior and consider how this model should influence the design of learning technologies, not just asynchronous self paced e-learning alone. Bandura (1986) developed a model that combines two competing models. Researchers and philosophers going back to Plato, have argued as to whether our actions are directly influenced by the internal person, our thoughts, emotions, and our soul as oppossed to Skinner who felt that our behaviors are primarily influenced by our external environment. “Triadic reciprocal determinism” suggests that both the internal and the external influence our actions or our behaviors. In addition, each side of the triad influences the other.

What this model suggests is that our internal self, (e.g. our personality traits, preferences, cognitive abilities, emotional intelligence) not only impact our actions but they also impact the environment. The environment includes spaces, objects and social networks. In turn, not only does the external environment influence our actions or behaviors but it also impacts our internal self. We learn from both our social networks and from the things in our external environment.

Some Real Life Examples

Let’s consider the action of purchasing a home. What influences behaviors in home purchases? The few things that come to my mind are, good schools, a quiet neighborhood, and proximity to family, friends and employment. My personality traits as well as my cognitive abilities influence these decisions. Someone else might prefer a warm climate or a lake side view. Listening to one of my favorite radio shows yesterday, “Car Talk”, a woman explained that she has just purchased 12 acres of rain forest in Panama and planned to build a home there with her children. That decision is a behavioral action that was clearly influenced by her personality, cognitive abilities, and by the environment itself.

How do behaviors reciprocally  influence the environment? In a former job I traveled on business to Mexico. I love to return to this one old town about 3 hours north of Mexico City, called Querétaro. I love the old historical city. On a return trip to Querétaro I was shocked to see on the drive from the airport to my hotel, a Walmart. The environment had changed because of purchasing behaviors of the people. That’s an over simplification of how retail stores pop up but you get the point. I am sure that you can consider many examples of how your home town has changed over time as a result of the changing behaviors in your community. Both Chicago and New York City have changed for the better over the past 20 years as a result of changing the environment. When streets were cleaned, buildings repaired, criminals arrested, behaviors change and personalities even change. People are happier.

Impact on Design

How should triadic reciprocal determinism influence the design of learning technologies? First, we should add to our language the term “learning environments.” What are we doing as learning and knowledge management professionals to take the learning environment into consideration? I am going to guess, that for many of you, the first thing that came into your mind was a corporate training facility. How has the corporate training room changed over the years? You know the answer. It has hardly changed in a century. The students sit in chairs either in rows or in a circle and look forward at a facilitator presenting at a white board, or a chalk board in our academic institutions.

If we consider environment (E) as a variable in the behavioral equation, how is learning impacted by keeping this variable constant? Now consider learning management systems. Do you have the picture in your mind? It is a lesson plan or syllabus posted on the web. That’s all it is. Rather then a paper based syllabus, we now have a web based syllabus. We are keeping the environment (E) constant. However, social systems like other systems will adapt on their own in order to reach equilibrium. If the environment (E) remains constant while the person (P) is changing, then the person will seek out ways to change the environment. We buy books on our own, not included in the syllabus. We decorate our office or cubicle (don’t get me started on this ridiculous technology) to conform to our personality. We use tools like Google and Wikipedia to customize our information search. We join formal and informal social networks to expand our ability to engage in dialogue and seek out expert advice. And we blog and contribute to wikis to exercise our minds and contribute to the body of knowledge in our new global environment.

As a result, what we should be considering is how can we as learning professionals, assist our learners to create an environment that is as flexible and changing as a person’s actions, in addition to their cognitive and emotional development. We need to take ourselves out of the old mental model of the classroom and the linear syllabus and start to create learning environments that allow for ongoing change. We need to merge social networks with learning objects while still providing guidance through coaching, mentoring and instructional design. I am not an extremist on this topic. We still need well designed learning objectives aligned with organizational objectives. Learner guidance is needed for the novice. However as the learner moves towards competence, their environment should change as they change.

Here’s one very practical thing you can do. Rather then design your curricula down to the specific task, take it up a level to a competency. Help people make the connection between the competency and the task but allow people to expand their learning to adjust to their unique environments and individual cognitive and emotional intelligence levels. For example, rather then teach a step by step tasks for writing a business proposal, teach the competency of how to design a business proposal based on best practices. Then allow people to apply the learning in their own way. What I am suggesting is a merging of behaviorism and constructivism. That sounds like a good title for my next blog entry.

References

Allen, M. W. (2003). Michael Allen’s guide to e-learning building interactive, fun, and effective learning programs for any company. New York: John Wiley.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Selecting Authoring Tools Begins with a Design Strategy

4 comments

Posted on 26th February 2010 by Brian in Instructional Strategies | eLearning Development

In a recent discussion board, a reader asked the question, “How do I select the right e-learning authoring tool?” Several answers were posted which I suspect caused the person posting the question a great deal of confusion because it is obvious that there is little agreement on which is the best tool to work with. However, it’s not just the tool but how you plan to use it. All too often people start developing before they formulate a design strategy.

Effective e-learning courses require good design. That’s were most people fail in their pursuit for the design of effective online learning applications. When I refer to good design, I am not referring to the artistic layout, although that is important as well. However, aesthetics is not as important as good instructional and cognitive design. We are developing learning applications which mean that they profess to support learning. So why am I beginning with the topic of good design when the title is about selecting the right tools? For anyone that likes to work around the house or on your automobile, you probably have a collection of tools. You know that you need the right tool to match your project. So it goes with the selection of an e-learning development tool. You need to first know what you are designing and what you want for the outcomes. So if you want your learners to be motivated learners, retain the learning, and change at least one behavior on the job then you need to seriously consider both the tool you select and how you use it.

The science of motivation, learning and behavioral change is not trivial. There are mountains of research on all three of these topics. Dr. Michael Allen (2003) has done an excellent job of bringing the research and practice into everyday language in his books on e-learning design. I highly recommend them. Dr. David Merrill (2009) on the other hand has clearly demonstrated that motivation alone is not sufficient. You can have a very motivated learner but if that learner enters a boring online learning application, all the motivation in the world is not going to promote learning. Dr. Ruth Clark and Richard Mayer have contributed much to the design of online learning providing the industry with practical ways to improve learning. For example, according to cognitive load theory your audio narration should never read onscreen text (Clark & Mayer, 2008). So I am going to assume that you have read the research and the industry best practices and you want a tool that will allow you to create courses that will promote learning and behavioral change.

There are different categories of tools on the market today. I am going to break down each category for you. By the way I have used various examples of the tools in these categories over the past 15 years. So what I am writing in this post is based on personal experience as an e-learning developer and manager of an e-learning development team. All of these tools will output a package that you could post to a learning management system.

  • Authoring tools with built in scripting languages
  • PowerPoint conversion tools
  • Screen capture tools
  • Template based tools
  • Graphics tools with programming languages

Authoring Tools with Built in Scripting Languages

This is oldest category of tools used to develop computer based learning applications. These began to emerge in the mid-80s with Hypercard on the Macintosh and Toolbook on the early Windows based PC. The basic premise for these tools is that you can create an learning application without the need for knowing complex programming. In the early days computer based training was developed with a standard programming language like C++ or Visual Basic. Then when the internet emerged, people built courses in HTML, Javascript, Java and XML. Some people still built learning applications from scratch like this. However, the instructional designer, trainer or teacher, wanting to develop an online learning application will likely not have the programming skills needed to work directly with programming languages.

These tools generally provide a very similar metaphor of the book, chapter, and page design. They provide reusable objects to insert media and quizzing. However the problem is the book metaphor used in these tools. This metaphor influences bad behaviors for developing “page turners.” Drucker (1993) refers this as simply doing “old things better”. We are taking a common metaphor of a text book and lecture and doing it a little bit better. In order to make these tools really deliver on instructional design you need to learn the built in scripting languages. Some of them use standard languages like C or Javascript and others have created their very own scripting language. If you are not a programmer or web developer, you will be very limited in what you are able to do.

PowerPoint Conversion Tools

These types of tools have been become very popular very quickly. This is understandable because everyone knows how to use PowerPoint, sort of. Not everyone knows how to use PowerPoint correctly. We have all sat through slide presentation with images and text so dense that you can’t even read it. The presenter reads from the slide. Wake me when it’s over. So what many people are doing now, is taking these dreadfully boring slide decks, narrating them and putting quizzes at the end and calling them e-learning. This is just wrong. Again we are doing old things just a little bit better by making it available just in time to the masses. If you read the research on good design, you can use these tools to create engaging learning but you will not use PowerPoint in the same way that you would use it to present to a live audience. I do not like these tools because they are going to cause a flood of really bad e-learning to hit the networks very rapidly. Trainers love them because they can become e-learning developers virtually over night. However, they need to be told my someone that if you do not take design into account you will not get the desired learning outcomes.

Screen Capture Tools

These tools are also quite popular and I recommend having one in you toolbox. The ability to quickly take screen shots of an application and turn it into a linear step-by-step or branching interaction is a very powerful to have. These tools normally allow you to export to a SWF (Flash) format which you can in turn place into other development tools. Some of these tools even come with quizzing now and can be exported as a stand-alone learning application ready to be deployed to your LMS, as is. Get yourself one of these.

Template Based Tools

These are great for rapid development and truly require no programming skills at all. They don’t even require layout skills because the tool takes your content and places into a pre-configured design layout. These are great for in-house development teams. Most of the self-contained authoring tools have templates. However, now there are online hosted template based development tools which I highly recommend for small in-house development teams. They are very inexpensive and in some cases are free. Nothing is free of course. The companies that offer online development tools for free want to sell you their design skills. The tool that I like best in this category allows you to take the templates and revise them yourself or in partnership with a Flash developer.

Graphics Tools with Programming Language

Ok, there is only one tool that fits into this category, Adobe Flash. You might be able to put some of the 3D technologies like Maya and 3D Unity into this category but 3D development is still relatively young. Adobe Flash has changed the way websites are developed. It combines tools for the graphic artist with tools for the programmer. The latest version of the Flash programming language is object oriented and allows for very rich development. Any e-learning vendor that is not using Flash is not a vendor you want to do business with. This is truly the standard tool for professional online e-learning development. However, this is a professional tool. This requires advanced skills in graphic arts and programming to use. Adobe Flash even comes packaged with quizzing templates and an LMS packaging tool.

So what’s my recommendation?

Well, I rather not advertise for specific vendor solutions on my blog. I will say this. First read the research on design strategies. If you can afford it, invite an expert from the field of instructional technology to come and speak to you, or attend a conference on learning with an e-learning track. Once  you have your learning strategy, which I hope includes: improving motivation to learn, increasing learner retention and changing behaviors, you will ready to select your development tools. I recommend: a hosted template based authoring tool, a screen capture tool and either one in-house Flash developer or a partnership with a vendor with high end Flash competencies.

References

Allen, M. W. (2003). Michael Allen’s guide to e-learning building interactive, fun, and effective learning programs for any company. New York: John Wiley.

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post capitalist society. New York: HarperBusiness.

Merrill, M. D. (2009). Finding e3 (effective, efficient and engaging) Instruction. Educational Technology, 49(3), 15-26

The ol’ question again … Can online learning change behaviors?

4 comments

Posted on 22nd February 2010 by Brian in Cognitive Science | Instructional Strategies

I must have answered this question a  million times but when presented with the question today I drew a blank. The argument goes something like this. In order to get true behavioral change, you have to engage your learners in a live classroom with live people and live instructors. Help me to understand how online self-paced learning can impact behaviors in the same way that live classroom instruction impacts behaviors.

I generally give this answer. It’s not the modality, it’s the design and the delivery. We have all sat through very poor classroom instruction, poisoned by 100 slide presentations. Most people have only experienced poor e-learning design and as a result it’s their point of reference. Most e-learning asks you to read, or listen or watch and them take a memorization based quiz. The skeptic is absolutely correct. You will not get a behavioral change from poor design.

Whether you deliver instruction online or face-2-face you have to apply sound instructional design principles. You need to ensure that you first define measurable behavioral learning objectives. Then you have to provide demonstration of the desired behaviors followed by realistic practice and feedback. When I say realistic feedback, I mean what would happen in real life if you were to take the wrong actions or behave incorrectly. Finally the complexity level of the practice has to match the competency level of the learner and adapt as the learner progresses.

In a cognitive apprenticeship you want to provide high levels of demonstration and coaching on the first practice round and as the learner becomes more competent, you need to remove the coaching. This builds expertise.

These principles apply for both live instructor led training as well as online self-paced or multi-user based cognitive technologies. The research of Skinner’s operand conditioning,  Merrill’s (1994, p. 55-56) push-down principle, Kolb’s experiential learning model, and Keller’s ARCS model can be applied in both modalities. There are several other design principles and strategies to consider but these are sufficient to make the point.

When online learning is designed properly it can impact and change behavior. The first step is to (a) identify the performance gaps both at the individual as well as the team or organizational level. For example, are you trying to increase productivity, efficiency, quality? What are the gaps in skills and knowledge? Next, you need to articulate these gaps into (b) measurable behavioral learning objectives as well as business impact objectives. What change in behavior do you want to observe in the learners, following the instruction? What impact to you want to see in the business organization or on the team as a result of the learning intervention?

Now that you know what the goals are you have to design the appropriate instructional strategy in the form of an (c) adaptive challenge. By adaptive challenge I am suggesting the challenge presented to the learner has to provide realistic problems that get increasingly difficult as higher levels of competency are achieved. According to Merrill’s (1994) push-down theory, you have to keep the instructional challenge at the appropriate level of complexity. This also supports learning motivation theories. The challenge should as realistic as possible and presented in the right context. As the learner is going through the challenge they should have appropriate support in the form of (e) demonstrations and (f) supporting media. Cognitive apprenticeships require coaching at the right time. Behavioral operand conditioning (Skinner, 1971) suggests that immediate feedback is needed for conditioning the desired behavioral change.

Finally and this is something missed quite frequently and has been referred to as “informal learning” although I never understood the term “informal”. Learning is learning. Following a challenge we tend to discuss the experience with others, swap war stories, and even record our lessons learned in some format. This helps to solidify the experience in our long term memory.

Now can we please stop trying to compare the modalities and get to work on designing good instruction!

References

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Merrill, M. David. (1994) Instructional design theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Educational Technology Publications, Print.

Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Bantam/Vintage Books

Systems Thinking and Simulations: Part II

1 comment

Posted on 19th February 2010 by Brian in 3D Virtual Worlds | Experiential Learning | Learning Objects | Simulations

“We learn best from experience, but we never experience the consequences or our most important decisions. How then can we learn? (Senge, 1990)”

We all work and live in complex systems. However we learn how to interact with segments or parts of these systems as opposed to learning the whole. For example in an end-to-end product development system, the end user or client places the demand on the system. Clients are spread out over large areas and their reasons for placing demands on the system vary. Product development systems normally are fragmented and spread out over the globe in some cases.

Consider a modern development process where the marketing research occurs in one location, design and prototyping occur in another location, production at an over seas manufacturing facility and finally it enters the global sales and distribution network. Normally the way we learn about these systems is with information centric “system overview” presentations followed by each team or group learning their respective roles in segmented training courses or curricula. There is a problem with this approach. What people do not learn, as Senge (1990) suggests, is how all the parts and processes interact with one another over time and distance.

Most of the systems that we work in are now very global. As a result of this larger distribution of the segments, the system becomes ever more complex and it becomes more difficult to understand how our actions will impact some other part of the system. Some of these added complexities include: local culture, language, policies and regulations. To make matters worse, the systems that we work in also include environmental and global economic impacts. So how can someone learn how the entire system works and how their small actions impact the larger system? The answer suggested by Senge (1990) is through the use of simulations which he refers to as “microworlds”.

“Microworlds will, I believe, prove to be a critical technology for implementing the disciplines of the learning organization. And they will accomplish this by helping us rediscover the power of learning through play. (Senge, 1990, p. 315)”

In 1990, Senge presented screen shots of simulations developed on a Macintosh, probably developed in Pascal. Pascal, named after the scientist and philospher Blaise Pascal, was a very early object oriented programming language which is needed to develop object based simulations. What do I mean by object based simulations? Let’s consider a very simple system like the heating system in your home.

The system has a thermostat used to adjust the desired temperature which is the setpoint. The thermostat also has a temperature sensor to receive feedback from the system, your house, in terms of current temperature. What the thermostat does is determine if there is a gap between the current temperature and the desired temperature (setpoint). If the temperature is below the setpoint, a switch is closed and your heater motor starts up, blowing hot air throughout the house. Once the air temperature around the thermostat reaches setpoint, the thermostat switch opens and shuts down the motor. If we were going to develop an object based simulation for this system, we would create several objects in a programming language.

  • House
  • Windows
  • Air
  • Thermostat
  • Switch
  • Blower Motor
  • Person 1
  • Person 2

What the programmer would do is create a representation of each one of those objects and program into the object the variables and functionality for each. The house might be the object that connects all the other objects. If a window is open, then temperature of the air in the house goes down, if the air outside the house is colder then the temperature inside. Why did I select two persons as objects? Because we all know that people have different preferences for what is a normal temperature in the house and person 1 might walk up and drop the setpoint on the thermostat or open a window if he or she is too warm. Now once you have your single house simulation up and running you can make duplicates or instances of it and change some of the variable on sets of house instances. For example you can set the variable for 1000 homes that have poor seals on their windows. Make 100,000 instances of the homes and provide outputs of what is going on in the 100,000 homes to the power generation system. Now you can start to see what is going on in your system. For anyone that has every played SimCity, this might sound familiar. However SimCity is missing a critical component, live social interaction. Human nature is extremely complex and nearly impossible to fully simulate. So what if we take complex simulations like SimCity and now add live people into the environment and let them make decisions and take actions at a micro-level as well as a macro-level.

One of my favorite science fiction shows, Stargate Atlantis played out this scenario in one of their episodes. In Season 3, Episode 16 called “The Game”, two of the shows characters, Sheppard and McKay discover what they believe to be a simulation game on the Atlantis computers of two societies. McKay controls the one society and Sheppard controls the other. What they find out is that the game that they have been playing is connected to a real world with real people on it. What they learn when they finally meet the people on these worlds is that the game gets a bit more complex when real people are involved.

3D virtual live environments like Second Life have the potential to provide for these sorts of complex simulated worlds with the added dimension of real people with all the complexities that humans bring into a complex system including emotion and complex cognitive processing within the human mind.

So why would this sort of simulation be important? It is important not only for systemic learning but large scale decision making.

Let’s say that congress is considering ways to save energy and in turn save the environment. Someone in congress suggests a tax break for replacing old doors and windows. This seems like a good program but how will it actually impact the system? How will a law like that impact the economy and the environment. Only with complex interconnected system simulations can we begin to understand the impact of a decision like that.

Or what if a CEO and her executive staff are considering moving the manufacturing division to another country. How can they really know what is going to happen in year, two years or even ten years forward in time. Simulations could help to drive this kind of visioning. In fact if the team wanted to understand different impacts from how different cultures react to the system, they could place people from the different locations around the globe into the simulation and allow them to act as they normally would act when presented with a complex problem such as a spike or steep decline in demand.

Now what we need is to gradually build objects on a standard platform and gradually begin to interconnect them until we have a mirror image of the Earth’s systems. This would allow government and corporate leaders to “play” things out before making decisions to develop a product, outsource, go to war, or change a major policy. It’s an intriguing and also scary thought.

What do you think?

References

Senge, Peter M. (1994) The Fifth Discipline. New York: Currency. Print.

Book Review: “Learning in 3D”, Kapp & O’Driscoll, 2010

1 comment

Posted on 16th February 2010 by Brian in 3D Virtual Worlds

The new year brings with it a new hot topic and new book for learning technology professionals ,which I have written about in several posts, 3D live virtual learning environments.

In the Spring of 2009 I attended the 3D Training, Learning and Collaboration (TLC) Conference in Washington D.C which was hosted by one of the authors of this book, Dr. Tony O’Driscoll from Duke University. I left that conference with the impression that we are on the tipping point of using this technology more prolifically in corporate training and higher education. The second author of the book, Dr. Karl Kapp from Bloomsburg University, I have known for a few years. Over the years, Karl and I have had a few intellectual and fun conversations regarding the art and science of instructional design and technology.

Learning in 3D is an excellent primer for corporate training managers, educators or instructional designers and technologists wanting to get a better understanding of the why, what and how of using 3D virtual live environments to support learning and collaboration.

Why
Learning technology gurus like Dr. David Merrill, Dr. Michael Allen, Kevin Kruse and many others, have been preaching to a deaf audience for decades that information centric e-learning page turners are not going to change behaviors. O’Driscoll and Kapp (2010) begin the book with a discussion on the topic of old paradigms of instruction that simply do not work. Tony and Karl, welcome to the podium of evangelists. So many of us have been preaching this same thing for many years now. It is true that “chalk and talk” instructor led courses are not designed to impact business objectives, normally. Most e-learning and online 2D live web-cast events are boring and not designed to provide sufficient demonstration, practice and motivation to learn. However, it’s not so much the technology as much as it is the design.

In the early 90s I worked for a manufacturing company. I needed to learn about something called “ladder logic” which is a programming language for industrial computers used to run machinery. I was handed a stack of floppy disks. For you youngsters those are sort of like CDs but smaller and much more flammable. Anyway, I loaded up this computer based training course that not only provided me with information on how “ladder logic” works but it actually provided in black and white, a fully functioning simulation. I was able to move switches and lights around my ladder and toggle the switches to see what was happening. It was a fully experiential learning activity running on DOS off of a bunch of floppy disks. My point is that it’s not the technology, it’s the design and implementation stupid. Driscoll & Kapp (2010) give us a nice deep understanding of the importance of good design throughout the book.

Kapp & O’Driscoll &  (2010, p.55) present an equation that I believe is missing a few variables. The equation states that when interactivity and immersion are multiplied they result in engagement in motivation. If you have ever played a game that was highly interactive, highly immersive but not sufficiently challenging or too complicated, you probably quit playing the game. We can not forget this key variable in the equation and that is challenge (C). The other part of the equation that is critical is relevance (R). Referring to Keller’s ARCS model, the R standing for relevance; if the learning is not relevant, motivation will be negatively impacted. Tony, Karl .. sorry my undergraduate studies in physics forced me to challenge your equation.

What
Every good academic book and executive presentation has to have a model which is normally a pyramid or a series of circles. O’Driscoll & Kapp (2010, p. 83-84) do not let us down in this book. In fact they developed a multi-level model of concentric circles. If Dilbert had to present this slide to the VP he would be sent out of the room for sure. I get it because I’ve spend the past 15-20 years studying instructional design and technology but this is not a model for the novice.

The book outlines eleven “archetypes” or “building blocks” for 3D virtual immersive environments. I have to admit I first thought that the archetypes were a list of instructional strategies. However the term “building blocks” is a better way to describe them. For example “avatar persona” is an attribute of 3D virtual worlds. “Role play”, “Scavenger Hunt”, and “Guided Tour” are examples of how to use 3D virtual environments. “Co-Creation” is a more of a function of some 3D virtual environment software packages (e.g. Second Life allows for co-creation functionality). I think I would have organized these a bit differently into the same “types” or categories. A table is presented (p. 117) that aligns instructional domains with the archetypes. This is nice job for getting started.

Kapp & O’Driscoll  (2010) present in Chapter 6 a nice series of case studies. Everyone loves sample case studies and you will not be disappointed by the rich sampling of real world examples which lots of nice screen shots. If you are getting hung up on the learning principles and models, you might want to skip the case studies to get a “feel” for what’s it all about and then go back and re-read the descriptions of the model and archetypes. And please join 2nd Life and explore the various spaces there. You can also search on YouTube for visuals of some of the examples presented in the book.

How
In addition to describing the principles and practical examples presented, training managers and learning technology evangelists are presented with a set of recommendations on how to move your organization into the 21st century.

So, do we need a new cognitive technology like 3D virtual live environments? Kapp & O’Driscoll  (2010) present a series of solid arguments that have convinced me that we do need to add this to our tool bag but, we need to ensure that we design it and implement it correctly. This technology is going to provide us with opportunities to implement social learning theories presented by Bandura (1977), situated learning and “legitamate peripheral participation” presented by Lave & Wenger(1991) and distributed cognition of Hutchin’s (1995) research on the Palau. In my next post we will be discussing how we can implement Senge’s (1994) “microworlds” in order to teach systems thinking inside 3D virtual learning environments.

Thank you Dr. O’Driscoll and Dr. Kapp for a very nice addition to our cognitive technology library.

Reference

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognitions in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kapp, K. M., & O’Driscoll, T. (2010). Learning in 3D, Adding a New Dimension to Enterprise Learning and Collaboration. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning, Legitamate Peripheral Participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Merrill, M. D. (1994). Instructional design theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Educational Technology Publications.

Senge, P. M. (1994). The Fifth Discipline. New York: Currency.

System Thinking & Simulations: Part 1

2 comments

Posted on 15th February 2010 by Brian in Experiential Learning | Simulations

When learning professionals consider Senge’s book (1990), “The Fifth Discipline”, the first thing that comes to mind are the terms, “systems thinking” and the “learning organization”. However for anyone who has made and attempt to read the entire book, you probably walked away with the thought, how do you implement this grand vision? Senge (1990) suggests that computer based simulations are an excellent way to provide the type of experiential learning needed to develop the disciplines or the competencies outlined in his book.

Peter Senge (1990) presents five disciplines or competencies that he suggests are required in order for an organization to truly become a “learning organization.”

The disciplines include:

  • “Personal Mastery” which Senge (1990) defines as, “approaching one’s life as a creative work, living  life from a creative as opposed to reactive viewpoint.” In essence we need to accept that we are constantly learning and developing. We need to take an introspective look at ourselves from time to time, look at where we are and where we want to go and constantly adjust the path to get there. This does not refer to gaining more knowledge although it is part of the process. Personal mastery refers to improving ourselves, and aligning our behaviors with our personal vision. Personal mastery includes “personal vision” which Senge (1990) explains is much more than goals and objectives. A vision comes from deep within. It’s something you are truly passionate about. Guy Kawasaki (2004) refers to this as having a desire to “make meaning”, which Kawasaki suggests is a critical attribute for successful entrepreneurs.  Personal vision is not driven by the desire to gain money or power. It’s the sort of thing that drives social entrepreneurs.
  • Second, we need to learn how to manage the “Mental Models” that we all have. A mental model is the way in which we view the world. It is developed throughout our life and is frequently a result of cultural evolution, handed down through generations. Organizations have mental models that are also developed over time. It is what many organizations refer to as it’s corporate culture. Social learning theories suggest that our culture evolves through the generations but with much greater speed then genetic changes. (Flinn, 1997) We need to first recognize that these deep rooted ways of looking at the world exist in an organization so that we can address it when developing learning and change management initiatives. Mental models are generally based on assumptions. An organization that is not willing to question those assumptions can be crippled from learning.
  • The third discipline is “Shared Vision.” When I think about the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team and why they won, I believe it had a great deal to do with achieving a shared vision. The team members first had to accept that they were not part of distinct colleges but were now part of single team. In fact the shared vision that was established by their coach, was not only about winning the gold medal, but it was much about becoming one. It was more then talent and skills. If you have never seen the movie, please watch the 8 minute clip below. It serves as an excellent metaphor or developing shared vision.
  • The fourth discipline is “Team Learning“. Probably the best example for team learning is a symphony orchestra. Each musician needs to master their own instrument but they also need to play in unison with all of the other musicians. If all of the musicians do not play in unison the music is not complete or full. All of the musicians need to learn together as a team. You can’t have one stand out. Another important aspect of team learning is recognizing that diversity in team members, strengthens the outcome of the teams. (Leonard, D., & Straus, S. 1997)

You need to watch the entire 8 minutes to fully understand the concept of shared vision as well as team learning. This is a true story and it was a culminating moment for this team. Think about the messages that the coach gives the team members with every suicide run. In U.S. team sports, we call these suicides. You will understand why when you watch the video.


Systems Thinking

All of these disciplines, Senge (1990) argues, must be integrated with the fifth discipline of systems thinking. However there is a challenge with learning systems thinking. Not only do you need to understand how the system is functioning and what feedback loops exist, but you need to learning through experience how your actions and behaviors impact the system. This is very difficult because our actions and their subsequent impact can be separated but significant distance and time. Senge in 1990 introduced the concept of “microworlds” which are essentially computer based simulations that allow one to change the variables in the environment and see what the impact will be on the system. Remember this was 1990. The screen shots in Senge’s book are from a Macintosh, probably developed in either Basic or Pascal. In my next post we will explore different cognitive technologies both old and new for addressing the challenge of teaching systems thinking and integrating it with the other four disciplines.

References

Flinn, M. (1997). Culture and Evolution of Social Learning. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 23-67.

Kawasaki, G. (2004). The Art of the Start The Time-Tested, Battle-Hardened Guide for Anyone Starting Anything. New York: Portfolio Hardcover.

Leonard, D., & Straus, S. (1997). Putting your Whole Company’s Brain to Work. Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 110-121.

Senge, P. M. (1994). The Fifth Discipline. New York: Currency.

iPad .. Steve .. It’s not just for reading the NY Times …

0 comments

Posted on 9th February 2010 by Brian in Cognitive Science | General

I sat down to watch the keynote address from Steve Jobs for the introduction of the new iPad. Steve demonstrated how one could read the New York Times on the iPad. I just went to Apple’s website and they are even using the NY Times as a screen shot on the iPad. So when did Apple start advertising for the NY Times? When the first Mac came out in 1984, I recall one of the ads read “It’s not just for Word Processing.” I can attest to that because I have the original 1984 Macintosh and it did some amazing things to support instructional technology, all on a floppy disk. I had a program called “Molecular Editor” which allowed you to create molecules and rotate them in 3 axises. You could point and click at the bonds between the atoms to get bond angles. And you could put the Mac into a bag and carry it around … as long you didn’t mind carrying around a 15 lb. computer. I also have one of those bags.

So Steve, here’s the new ad for the iPad …

“iPad …. It’s not just for reading the NY Times.”

Is the iPad a cognitive technology, or simply a web, email, photo and ebook browser? It can only become a true cognitive technology if we use it as such. The size and agility of the iPad will change the way we think about mobile devices. Developers of e-learning can no longer say that we can not effectively deliver e-learning on a mobile device. With the iPad we will be able to deliver high quality e-learning with as much learner engagement we need to. There is no excuse for creating boring page turners that do not engage the mind. And as long as it supports 3D, you can learn in immersive multi-player environments like 2nd Life. I would have liked to have seen Steve Job’s avatar on 2nd Life and a demonstration of constructing new worlds on the iPad. But I suppose that Apple is not supporting Linden Labs in the same way they are supporting NY Times.

Let’s take a closer look at some definitions of cognitive tools and technologies and see how the iPad fits into the definitions.

Jonassen provides us with a definition of cognitive tools and explains that cognitive tools can be used to support either “instructivist”, behavioral objectives for learning or constructivist learning. (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996)

“Cognitive tools and the goals, tasks, culture, resources, and human collaboration integral to their use enable learners to engage in active, mindful, and purposeful interpretation and reflection. In traditional instruction, active refers to stimulus, response, feedback, and reinforcement conditions that help students mirror accepted views of reality, whereas in constructivist learning environments, active learners participate and interact with the surrounding environment to create their own interpretations of reality.” (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996, p. 695)

As a result, what are we doing when we search Google, Wikipedia or the NY Times archives? Are we constructing knowledge and creating our own reality? I think it depends on the context for the search. If we are in the midst of analyzing a complex problem and an internet search is providing us with a piece of information to assist with the problem solving process then results of the search query become an input of data into the problem analysis and synthesis of the newly constructed solution. If we are constructing a new Blog entry or Wiki article or a Mind-Map while searching the web to gather information then we are in the process of constructing new knowledge. It’s not the tool but how we use it.

What we need is a cognitive tool or set of tools to help us “create interpretations of reality” based on our own experiences, knowledge and culture. So how can a tool like the iPad facilitate that process? Let’s take a trip over the Apple App store to see if there are any cognitive tools out there? I just spent a few minutes browsing through the Apple App store and what you find are tools for retrieving and organizing information but there are very few tools that allow you to take the information and build new knowledge constructs. I did find a few flash card apps for helping with memorization tasks but not  higher level cognitive processing.

However here is a good example of a tool that allows for the process of synthesis. There are many mind mapping tools on the market that allow you to break ideas about, connect them, and re-organize them.

Let’s consider this definition provided by Dascal & Dror (2005) and ask ourselves if the iPad is approaching their definition of a cognitive technology.

“Cognitive technologies, in this sense, can be characterised as those systematic means created by humans and used by them for the achievement of cognitive aims, including either cognitive states or cognitive processes that lead to such states or help significantly to reach them. As these technologies are used in our cognitive processes, as they cognize with us and for us, they influence and impact the very way we think and affect the very nature of cognition. As cognitive technologies advance, they shift from being mere tools that aid cognition to having constitutive roles in shaping cognitive processes themselves. (Dascal & Dror, 2005)”

I suppose it would depend on the applications that developers create for the iPad in the near future but this tool does have the capability to “shape cognitive processes themselves.” What do you think? What makes the iPad different from other mobile devices? I have to admit that I believe that Apple has done it again and introduced something into the market place that will change the way we interact with information. It becomes a portal to the world, thanks to the evolution of the web. You can do virtually everything you need to do to support your day to day activities with one single device. The device becomes a technological extension of ourselves.

References

Dascal, M., & Dror, I. E. (2005). The Impact of Cognitive Technologies. Pragmatics & Cognition, 13(3), 451-457.

Jonassen, D. H. & Reeves, T. C.  (1996). Learning with Technology: Using Computers as Cogntive Tools. (1996). In , Handbook of research for educational communications and technology a project of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 693-719). New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA.

Peter Drucker was an Advocate of Cognitive Technologies

5 comments

Posted on 5th February 2010 by Brian in 3D Virtual Worlds | Cognitive Science | General

“Such subjects – whether reading and writing, arithmetic, spelling, historical facts, biology, and even such advanced subjects such as neurosurgery, medical diagnosis, and most of engineering – are best learned through a computer program. (Drucker. P., 1993)”

Did I read that correctly? Peter Drucker, the “MBA type”, management and leadership guru, is saying that neurosurgery is best learned through the computer? Peter Drucker (1993) writes about how computers will be a solution to improve education by providing opportunities for experiential and self-directed learning. Who would have thought that Peter Drucker was an advocate of self-paced instructional technologies?

One key principle that Drucker points out is that we need to utilize technology to help improve achievement and performance in the workplace (Drucker, 1993). What we typically do is use technology to do the same things we currently do with a slight bit of efficiency. Let me give a few examples in the field of cognitive and instructional technology.

Computer based training has been around since the 60’s but e-learning has only become mainstream since the mid-1990s. The reason for the slow adoption is that e-learning development tools, up until the 1990s, were very difficult to use. You needed to be a computer programmer to use them. Once tools like “Lectora Publisher” and “Toolbook Instructor” began offering simple template based tools to built e-learning quicker, the use of e-learning began to take off. However the technology was not used correctly and is generally not used correctly today. What we do is convert what we do in the training room and convert that to an online lecture and quiz. This is what Drucker refers to as simply doing “old things better”.  When what we should be doing, and some do this well, is looking for ways to use online self-paced learning technologies to teach and learn in ways that we can not do otherwise. This is what Drucker refers to as proper “exploitation” of knowledge. We have the knowledge to create experiential learning experiences in online learning but we simply use the technology for information centric didactic instruction.

I will give you another example regarding the use of 3D virtual live environments for learning. The first thing trainers asked 3D virtual artists to create was a virtual classroom that looks like a classroom. We took the image that we are so familiar with and know is sub-optimal instruction because it does not provide for contextual realistic experiential learning and converted it into a virtual version. This is what Drucker refers to when he said, ” The technology will still be significant, but primarily because it should focus us to do new things rather than because it will enable us to do old things better.” (Drucker, 1993)

Disclaimer: I am not making a negative statement about this software application just the use of it in this particular instance. Having a 3D virtual classroom with students from around the world sensing as if they are in same room does add value and is very cool. However, to address the vision of Peter Drucker we have to find ways to use this cognitive technology to teach and learn in ways that are not possible in the traditional classroom. We want to provide kids in this environment (pictured below) with opportunities to learn in ways not otherwise possible for them. Likewise, in the corporate world, we want to take knowledge workers out of the cubicle and into a space that allows them learn in ways not otherwise possible.

Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post capitalist society. New York: HarperBusiness.

Distributed Cognition … Science Fiction or Reality

1 comment

Posted on 4th February 2010 by Brian in 3D Virtual Worlds | Cognitive Science | Collective Intelligence

Can we observe distributed cognition in multi-player online virtual environments?

In Star Trek the Next Generation the Borg are a race of part machine and part human which makes them cybernetic life forms or cyborgs. They are interconnected by something that they refer to as the “collective”. The “collective” is a network that allows the Borg to work together in unison  at all times no matter where they are. They are part of a network that acts like a neural network in the brain. The other attribute of the Borg is that they are loaded with really cool technologies. The only problem is that they can not put them away when they go to sleep at night because they have been surgically implanted. I think if my 14 year old doesn’t stop texting non stop, his cell phone will eventually be permanently linked to his hands. There’s an idea for an innovation. Who needs a keyboard to text when you can surgically implant the ability to text right into our finger tips.

This sounds a bit like “distributed cognition” described by Edwin Hutchins in his book “Cognition in the Wild” (Hutchins,1995) Edwin Hutchins worked for the U.S. Navy as a Research Phychologist in the early 1980s. Edwin Hutchins decided to spend time on a naval vessel observing how the men on board worked together in unison. He gathered both quantitative and qualitative data using numerous data collection techniques. In the first 5 chapters of his book he takes you through an excruciating tour of that data collection process. If you happen to be in Navy or ex-Navy and in the learning and development profession, this book will have you riveted. For the rest of us, read Chapter 1 and then jump to Chapter 6 where he talks about situated contextual learning and the concept of distributed cognition.

“It (Hutchins’ research) is about locating cognitive activity in context, where context is not a fixed set of surrounding conditions but a wider dynamical process of which the cognition of an individual is only a part.” (Hutchins, 1995)

So Hutchins selected a Naval vessel as the context and the dynamic process that he observed was the myriad of interconnected activities involved with navigating a large Naval vessel. While Hutchins was on board, as luck had it, the ship had a power failure and the teams on board had to spring into action to resolve a life threatening situation. He was able to observe a unique dynamic of multiple individuals working as if they were one distributed cognition. Now he does not suggest anything metaphysical going on here. This is a very well designed research study. The basic premise is nothing new. Dewey (1938) talked about learning through experience. Bandura (1977) talked about learning in a social context through observation. Lave and Wenger emphasis the concepts of situated learning. Hutchins merged these theories into general systems theory (Bertalanffy, 1969) and observed all of it, in the context of a closed and very complex system. And this is were we start to look at learning both as the individual cognitive learning  and the social context for learning, both being part of the learning process.

“In reality, however, participation in social practice – subjective as well as objective – suggests a very explicit focus on person, but as person-in-the-world, as member of sociocultural community. As an aspect of social practice, learning involves the whole person; it implies not only a releation to specific activities, but a relation to social communities – it implies becoming a full participant, a member, a kind of person.” (Lave & Wenger, 1991)

Now consider how corporate and public education manage learning. We sit people in seats in rows and columns and have them face forward, and please hold your questions till the end. So why don’t we listen to near 70 years of research and practice and consider how we could apply these principles with today’s cognitive technology capabilities? Ok, so not all training courses look this bad. In fact there are quite a few excellent hands-on experiential training courses out there. I used to teach a few of them when I worked as a technical stand up instructor.

However, is there a cognitive technology that can get us to where we want to be? The obvious technology that can integrate all of these concepts and what Hutchins (1995) observed on board the Palau, is through 3D live virtual environments which consequently are build on an object oriented model to allow for another learning theory to be introduced, which is Instructional Transaction Theory (Merrill, 1996). Although I will also mention that not all 3D virtual software packages are created equal. It is important to understand the back-end technology, down to how the system is coded, to ensure that it will be able to support the theory. However, this is a topic for a future post.

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Bertalanffy, L. V. (1969). General System Theory Foundations, Development, Applications. New York, NY: George Braziller.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc.

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognitions in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning, Legitamate Peripheral Participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Merrill, M. D., & ID2_Research_Group. (1996). Instructional transaction theory: instructional design based on knowledge objects. Educational Technology, 36(3), 30-37

“Information is Not Instruction”, Dr. David Merrill

2 comments

Posted on 23rd January 2010 by Brian in Instructional Strategies

Dr. David Merrill is one of the true founding fathers and visionaries of effective instructional technology design with over 40 years in academia, research and consulting in the field of instructional technology. He is the true evangelist for well designed instruction, both instructor led and e-learning. I have met Dr. Merrill and heard his lectures on several occasions and consider him to be a mentor from afar. I remember watching Dr. Merrill in the mid-90s at one of first ASTD technology conferences in Orlando. I was hooked on his message and have been an follower of Dr. Merrill’s message ever since. I am also an alumni of Dr. Merrill’s summer instructional technology institute at USU. I remember being a bit star struck as I stood at the sign-in booth at the conference and started to meet the experts and theorists in the field who were signing in. We were even invited to Dr. Merrill’s home to see his incredible train set and enjoy some ice cream and lemonade which is about the strongest drink you will get in Dr. Merrill’s home.

The problem is that our instruction in the training industry is still very information centric after all these years. Drucker pointed out that knowledge that does not improve productivity simply becomes information (Drucker, 1993). If we create new knowledge and then simply drop it into a searchable database, we have lost the productive yield of that information.

Please watch this video and make it your goal and mission to develop effective instruction and not just “good looking fancy” instruction. We also need to focus on designing instruction so that it leverages knowledge in such a way that it will improve performance and productivity in the workplace.

Motivation alone is not sufficient. Students can get excited about going to a course or taking an online course but if the instruction has been poorly designed, all the motivation in the world is not going to improve the instruction. Listen to Dr. David Merrill’s frustration with the current state of instructional effectiveness.

References

Papers written by Dr. Merrill

Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post capitalist society. New York: HarperBusiness.

« Older Entries