eLearning Rebel

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.