Will at Work Learning

MOOC's are Ineffective--Except for One Thing!

MOOC's don't have to suck. The 4% to 10% completion rates may be the most obvious problem, but too many MOOC's simply don't use good learning design. They don't give learners enough realistic practice, they don't set work in realistic contexts, they don't space repetitions over time.

But after reading this article from Thomas Friedman in the New York Times, you will see that there is one thing that MOOC's do really well. The get learning content to learners.

Really, go ahead. Read the article...

 

Why is "Exposure" one of the Decisive Dozen learning factors?

Many people have wondered why I included "Exposure" as one of the most important learning factors. Why would exposing learners to learning content rank as so important? Friedman's article makes it clear in one example, but there are billions of learners just waiting for the advantage of learning.

I got the idea of the importance of exposing learners to valid content by noticing in many a scientific experiment that learners in the control group often improved tremendously--even though they were almost always outclassed by those who were in the treatment groups.

By formalizing Exposure as one of the top 12 learning factors, we send the message that while learning design matters, giving learners valid content probably matters more.

And yes, that last sentence is as epically important as it sounds...

It also should give us learning experts a big dose of humility...

 

MOOC's will get better...

Most MOOC's aren't very well designed, but over time, they'll get better.

 

 

Cammy Bean Interviews Me -- On E-learning Design Flaws

Cammy Bean interviews me in regard to the three most important e-learning design flaws in today's e-learning. I discussed three---and then two more!! Five design flaws in all.

How's your e-learning?

Check out the interview here.

You can also download the segments as podcasts.

Effective E-learning with only Audio and Photographs

Is this effective e-learning?

Click here to see e-learning using only audio and photographs.

Sure, it's missing interactivity, retrieval practice, and a focus on application; but it does hint at the emotional power that can be created with good simple design.

We are Professionals, Aren't We?

Last year I was asked by Michael Allen--one of our industry's most influential creators and most successful entrepreneurs--to contribute a chapter to his first e-Learning Annual, which Pfeiffer had urged him to manage and edit.

Michael introduced my chapter as follows:

"In this article, one of the learning and performance field’s leading
visionaries looks back on his twenty-two years in the field with both love
and regret, while looking forward to the future by challenging all of us in
the field who see ourselves as learning-and-performance professionals.
Dr. Thalheimer’s challenge is simple. He asks every person in the field
to understand the forces that control their thinking and influence their
decision making. It’s as if the author wants to say: the unexamined
profession is not worth having." 

I'm still thrilled to hear Sir Michael call me a visionary--though I'm sure he was talking about hallucinations of some sort. Because the article still resonates for me, I thought I'd share it with you.

Download We_Are_Professionals_by_Will_Thalheimer_

I encourage you to take a look at the whole book. Michael Allen’s 2008 e-Learning Annual does a great job covering the historic and institutional foundations of the learning-technology field--with chapters from more than 20 luminaries who have been at the heart of the learning field for a long time, including folks like Thiagi, David Merrill, Allison Rossett, and Greg Kearsley, and so many more.

Here are some of my conclusions in the chapter:

1. Our graduate schools prepare
   technicians, not thoughtful
   scientist-practitioners who
   understand learning, think
   critically, and build wisdom over
   time.
2. We don’t measure the outcome of
   our work in ways that enable us
   to build effective feedback loops
   and make improvements that will
   lead to better learning, on-the-job
   performance, and business results.
3. The work pressures we face
   (for example, Internet-induced
   information overload and business
   demands for cheaper, faster
   results)—combined with our
   tendency toward professional
   arrogance—don’t predispose
   us to keep learning, to test our
   conjectures, to build a rich and
   complex knowledge base over time.
4. Our trade associations, magazines,
   and conferences provide us
   with information that sells, not
   information that necessarily tells
   the truth of how we should better
   design our products and services.
5. Our consultants and vendors are
   a large source of our information,
   and we tend to think uncritically
   about their offerings.
6. Learning-and-performance
   research is not utilized when it
   might provide substantial benefits.
7. Industry research is severely
   flawed, but we rely on it anyway.
8. Contests, awards, and best-of lists
   grab our attention and distort
   our thinking about what is most
   important.

Okay, those were the list of our failures. I also add a list that begs for hope for our profession.

What do you think of our current practices?

Of our future?

New Fonts Coming to the Web...

This article in Slate suggests that new fonts are coming to the web.

This opens up new territory for web designers and perhaps e-learning designers as well. Many e-learning designers think of web design as the default design for e-learning. Maybe the new web will usher in a new era of e-learning design as well.

One thing to watch out for: Do you or your team have the aesthetic training/empathy to know how to use fonts to set a mood, convey a meaning? Ahhh, something more to build.

The Pluses and Minuses of Social Media and User-generated Content

At the recent eLearning Guild conference in Orlando, I was asked to lead an Espresso Cafe roundtable discussion on a topic of interest.

My topic: The Pluses and Minuses of Social Media and User-generated Content.

I promised folks from my three sessions that I'd post all the results. Here they are:

Plusses:

1. Users engaged.
2. Relevant to the users.
3. Not-distracting, real-world.
4. Enables learning when training experts not available.
5. Can augment online courses.
6. Can capture water-cooler talk (that would have happened anyway).
7. Opportunity to debunk inaccuracies.
8. Capture institutional knowledge.
9. Enables the use of internal experts for informal learning.
10. Because informal, can be more comfortable to use for people of different languages and/or cultures. Or different socio-economic groups as well.
11. More of an equal exchange. Leveling the playing field. Creating more democratic or egalitarian organizations.
12. Novel, interesting.
13. Quick feedback on what doesn't work.
14. Not corporate-down, so more likely to be attended to without skepticism, jadedness, etc.
15. Opportunity to connect with customers.
16. Keep up with younger workers coming in.
17. Headquarters experts may not be as trusted as those who work on the ground.
18. Timely, instant updates.
19. Get details from someone who actually does the job.
20. Emotional connection.
21. Convenience.
22. No geographic boundaries.
23. RSS feeds enables more targeted info.
24. Employees may be able to affect policy.
25. Could make us improve our policies for fear of law suits. (Like this: stuff that's posted can be used in court. Organization then has impetus to make changes quickly).
26. Questions coming first is a good learning design.
27. Can give organization more of a sense of what's going on in the field.
28. Cheap.
29. Builds community if people are tackling serious issues together.
30. Feeling engaged.
31. Employees have instant access to experts.
32. Another data source.
33. Develop connections. Know who knows who AND who knows what.
34. Enables virtual relationships.
35. More reflective--learners have to reflect to write, to learn deeper.
36. Wisdom of the crowd.
37. Opens up links to other things. Sets agenda, letting people know that there are other things.
38. Generate buzz.
39. Smile sheets shared. (Rate my teacher. Rate my professor).
40. Best practices are distributed.
41. Will make things easier. Info at fingertips.

Minuses:

1. Might have to get used to it.
2. How do you make it usable?
3. Duplicate information.
4. How to make pertinent information instantly accessible.
5. Opening up floodgates.
6. Cultural hurdles and disconnects.
7. Competes with other channels of information.
8. Perhaps top-level buy-in is required.
9. A big distraction. Time user.
10. Productivity drain.
11. One more thing to do.
12. We are still learning how to utilize wisely.
13. May need support, maintenance, and the resources thereof.
14. Information may not translate to behavior without directed support.
15. How to confirm validity of content.
16. Info can be used in lawsuits.
17. Is the time beneficial?
18. Danger of noise. Hard to get to best information.
19. Time to create.
20. Hard to measure. Maybe we're fooling ourselves.
21. Could be incorrect/bad information.
22. Could be offensive information.
23. Must bring people up-to-speed on technology.
24. Can create cliques.
25. Time suck--filling up on candy.
26. Dangers of giving censors power.
27. Do these media self-select different types of people, biasing information gathered?
28. Time is our most limited resource. The key organizational-productivity leverage point.
29. Often implemented without planning, no marketing, no preparation, etc.
30. Sometimes systems have no purpose. So costs/time not parlayed to maximum effect.
31. Unnatural groups may not work, may have difficulties.
32. One or a few can take over.
33. Example: General in military told story of how soldiers posted how to defuse an IED. Info was wrong. 2 died. Enemies can use information too.
34. Many see this as the be-all end-all, creating big blind spots, overzealous implementation, poor planning, poor focus.
35. Potential permanence of information and/or systems.
36. Personal vs. work issues may arise.

Thanks to all the folks who contributed to my discussions. It was kind of hard to hear, but here are the names to thank: Nancy, Leslie, Terra, Pat, Sonya, Betsy, Michael, David, David, Ann, Joyce, Nancy, Chris, Chris, Richard, John, Susan, Paula, John.

Generating Interest at the Beginning of Learning

Robert Gagne's 1st event of instruction was "Gain Attention." Michael Allen's company, Allen Interactions, has been saying for years, "No More Boring e-Learning." We've all heard the stories of how often e-learning turns learners off. And yet, there is still a whole lot of boring e-learning out there.

An article from the eLearning Guild helps us avoid the trap, specifically by helping us start our learning interventions in ways that grab attention. Paul Clothier interviews Carmen Taran, author of the book Better Beginnings.

Dan Balzer and Susan Manning offer an excellent Podcast on the topic. You can find the link to the Guild article at their web page as well.

Eye Movement Studies. Should we be using them for learning design?

Google has a nice blog post out on its use of eye movement research.

I remember getting a tour of Fidelity a few years ago and learning that their eye movement studies on web browsing showed that people were beginning to ignore big dark chunks of graphics because they thought they were advertisements.

My dissertation advisor, Ernie Rothkopf did a classic study (with Billington) in 1979 using eye movement data to test whether learners actually paid more attention (had more and higher-quality eye movements) toward information in the learning material that was targeted by learning objectives than to information that was not so targeted. It turned out that learning objectives worked to boost learning because they prompted learners to pay more attention to the objective-relevant material and less attention to the rest of the information.

See: Rothkopf, E. Z., & Billington, M. J. (1979). Goal-guided learning from text: Inferring a descriptive processing model from inspection times and eye movements. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 310-327.

To answer the question I posed above. Yes, more of us should be using eye-movement research to support us as we do e-learning design.

And by the way, as web pages change their strategies to gain our attention, our learners may change their strategies to avoid things deemed irrelevant. Moreover, as our learners see more and more of our company's e-learning, their eyes may learn where to go...In fact, a lot of them already have a well-learned capacity to find the NEXT key through a swarm of bees.

Adobe E-Learning Suite

As predicted, Adobe is on the march to monopolize the e-learning development world.

Their new suite.

Have they really integrated intelligence about human learning in there? Not sure, but I'm skeptical. If you're a competitor, that's probably your only path to success. If you're Adobe, that may be your only weak link.

My services are available.

Virtual Conference on Teaching Science in Immersive Virtual Environments

On January 30th, there will be an online conference, costing only $65, hosted in Second Life (so you can learn about Second Life as well), and it sounds intriguing with some solid speakers/hosts.

Check it out. It's called Stepping Into Virtual Worlds.