eLearning Rebel

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.

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