My own goals for next year include keeping up on some of the new authoring tools, PPT tips and tricks, HTML 5, Excel, and upping my game in survey design and analysis (been working on a graduate survey stats and analysis certificate with the University of Illinois at Chicago Survey Research Methods Program).

I value sharing because it allows our gifts to multiply. By sharing with others our own gifts grow as well. Terrence personified this.

I knew Terrence mostly through Learning Solutions Magazine (see all of his LS articles here: http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/authors/329/terrence-wing) and the eLearning Guild and finally got to meet him at DevLearn 11 just about a month ago. We had been talking on Facebook and Twitter for a while and I was moved by his spirit of generosity. At DevLearn, we spoke about things we could do together. But mostly, I just enjoyed his company. He was one of the good guys and is going to be remembered for a long, long time.

If you didn’t know him, you can learn a lot by reading his articles.Then share something with someone who needs it.

My top 10 tools for 2011:

1. Hootsuite http://hootsuite.com/ and Twitter http://twitter.com/ as a personal learning network
2. Articulate Suite http://www.articulate.com/products/studio.php for narrated PPT for faculty and for building async online lessons
3. Adobe Captivate http://www.adobe.com/products/captivate.html/ for building application demos and simulations as well as
4. VoiceThread http://www.voicethread.com for collaborative commenting and sharing
5. SnagIt http://www.techsmith.com/snagit.html for screen capture and basic image editing
6. FormSite http://www.formsite.com/ Online form and survey tool
7. Google Docs https://docs.google.com/ for collaborative writing
8. Google forms http://www.google.com/google-d-s/forms/ for creating forms to collect data
9. YouTube http://www.youtube.com/ for finding videos
10. PowerPoint 2010 – What a great update!

Here’s my concern. Why hire someone who has a certain level of education or expertise and then not use that level of education and expertise? I don’t handle this situation very well, to be honest. I try to convince my clients that there’s a really, really good reason for not locking down the navigation on their e-learning courses and making learners feel like they’re six years old, not adding silly graphics, not building an expensive course when a job aid will do, not keeping a too complex process and building a course to explain it when simplifying the process would make everyone happier, and so on.

Imagine telling your lawyer how to practice law or your child’s orthodontist how to put together a treatment plan. But our stakeholders have no problem telling us how to do our work. That’s because (I think) our stakeholders think they only sort of need us. They know they can’t do it themselves but I think they don’t get what we bring to the table beyond the tools we use. Otherwise they’d value what we suggest more, wouldn’t they?

We let stakeholders treat us like doormats. We don’t say no. We too often build training instead of solving real problems so stakeholders don’t expect more from us. We also don’t sell what we know and can do. We don’t market what learning is about and how important it is to organizations. We don’t make it clear what the downsides are when people can’t perform, even though those downsides are plainly felt around us every day. We’re scardy cats.

Bottom line is I think we’re doing something(s) wrong. Explaining ADDIE isn’t part of fixing it… of that I’m sure.

What’s your reaction?

Just had this quick interchange with Patti Shank on twitter:

This is a totally fair comment on Patti’s part — you can’t force someone to be motivated (and undoubtedly some of our disagreement stems from semantics – not that THAT ever happens on twitter).  A lot of the conversation around gamification (for a heated throw down on the topic read the comments here) is about the dubious and likely counterproductive effects of extrinsic rewards as motivators.  According to Alfie Kohn in his book Punished by Rewards, a big part of the problem with extrinsic motivators is that it’s about controlling the learner, not helping or supporting them.

So that I totally agree with – you can’t control your learner, or control their motivation.

But design decisions do have an impact on human behavior.  For example, this chart show the rate of people who agree to be organ donors in different European countries:

In the blue countries, choosing to be a organ donor is selected by default, and the person has to de-select it if they do not want to be a donor.  In the yellow countries, the default is that the person will not be an organ donor, and the person has to actively choose to select organ donor status.

Now it could be that some people aren’t paying attention, but at least some of that difference is presumably due to people who do notice, but just roll with the default (you can read more about it here – scroll down to the Dan Ariely section).

So the way something is designed can make a difference in behavior.  Of course, that’s not a training example, so let’s take a closer look at how training might come in to play.

Is it a training problem?

Robert Mager used this question as a litmus test:

“If you held a gun to the person’s head, would they be able to do the task?”

He further discusses this in his book on Analyzing Performance Problems but later uses the less graphic “could they do the task if their life depended on it?” question (Thiagi advocates for the version “Could they do it if you offered them a million dollars?” if you prefer a non-violent take).

So basically, if someone could do the behavior under extreme pressure, then they clearly know how to do it, and it’s not a knowledge or skills problem, and therefore outside of the domain of training (could be up the person’s specific motivation, could be a workplace management issue, etc.).

Here’s where I disagree

I think the way you design learning experiences can have an impact on the likelihood of people engaging in the desired behavior, and that it is part of an instructional designer’s responsibility.  I don’t think you can control people, or force the issue, but I do think the experience they have when they are learning about something can make a difference in the decisions they make later.

There are a couple of models that influence my thinking on this, but the two I use most often are the Technology Acceptance Model, and Everett Rogers Diffusion of Innovations.

The Technology Acceptance Model

The technology acceptance model is an information systems model that looks at what variables affect whether or not someone adopts a new technology.  It’s been fairly well research (and isn’t without its critics), but I find it to be a useful frame.  At the heart of the model are two variables:

It’s not a complicated idea – if you want someone to use something, they need to believe that it’s actually useful, and that it won’t be a major pain in the ass to use.

TAM specifically addresses technology adoption, but those variables make sense for a lot of things.  You want someone to use a new method of coaching employees?  Or maybe a new safety procedure?  If your audience believes that it’s pointless (ie not useful), or it’s going to be a major pain (ie not easy to use), then they will probably figure out ways around it. Then it either fails to get adopted or you get into all sorts of issues around punishments, incentives, etc.

I keep TAM in mind when I design anything that requires adopting a new technology or system or practice (which is almost everything I do).  Some of the questions I ask are:

• Is the new behavior genuinely useful? Sometimes it’s not useful for the learner – it’s useful to the organization, or it’s a compliance necessity. In those cases, it can be a good idea to acknowledge it and make sure the learner understands why the change is being made – that it isn’t just the organization messing with their workflow, but that it’s a necessary change for other reasons.
• If it is useful, how will the learner know that? You can use case studies, examples, people talking about how it’s helped them, or give the learner the experience of it being useful through simulations.  Show, Don’t Tell becomes particular important here.  You can assert usefulness until you are blue in the face, and you won’t get nearly as much buy-in as being able to try it, or hearing positive endorsements from trusted peers.
• Is the new behavior easy-to-use? If it’s not, why not? Is it too complex? Is it because people are too used their current system?  People will learn to use even the most hideous system by mentally automating tasks (see these descriptions of the QWERTY keyboard and the Bloomberg Terminal), but then when you ask them to change, it’s really difficult because they can no longer use those mental shortcuts and the new system feels uncomfortably effortful until they’ve had enough practice.
• If it’s not easy to use, is there anything that can be done to help that? Can the learners practice enough to make it easier?  Can you make job aids or other performance supports?  Can you roll it out in parts so they don’t have to tackle it all at once?  Can you improve the process or interface to address ease-of-use issues?

Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations

There is obviously some crossover with TAM, but If I’m designing a learning experience for a new system, I use this as a mental checklist:

• Are the learners going to believe the new system is better?
• Are there compatibility issues that need to be addressed?
• Can we do anything reduce complexity?
• Do the learners have a chance to see it being used?
• Do the learners have a chance to try it out themselves?
• and, How can they have the opportunity to have some success with the new system?

Now, if somebody really, really doesn’t want to do something, designing instruction around these elements probably isn’t going to change their mind (Patti’s not wrong about that).  And if a new system, process or idea is really sucky, or a pain in the ass to implement, then it’s going to fail no matter how many opportunities you give the learner to try it out.

But here’s the thing – I can design a training intervention that can teach a learner how to use a new system/concept/idea, which could meet the Mager requirement (they could do it if their life depended on it), but I will design a very different (and I think better) learning experience if I consider these motivation factors as well.

I don’t want to take ownership of the entire problem of motivating learners (waaaaaay too many variables outside of my scope or control), but I do believe I share in the responsibility of creating an environment where they can succeed.

And bottom line, I believe my responsibility as a learning designer is to do my best to motivate learners by creating a learning experience where my learners can kick ass, because in the words of the always-fabulous Kathy Sierra kicking ass is more fun (and better learning).

—————————————

References

Davis, F. D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology”, MIS Quarterly 13(3): 319–340

Johnson, Eric J. and Goldstein, Daniel G., Do Defaults Save Lives? (Nov 21, 2003). Science, Vol. 302, pp. 1338-1339, 2003. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1324774

Mager, Robert and Pipe, Peter, Analyzing Performance Problems: Or, You Really Oughta Wanna–How to Figure out Why People Aren’t Doing What They Should Be, and What to do About It

Rogers, Everett Diffusion of Innovations

http://www.articulate.com/community/blogdemo/fuzzy_thumb/player.html

If you hire or work with e-learning developers, this blog post may creep you out. It’s about manipulating e-learning stakeholders in order to move e-learning projects along. But it’s diabolical brilliance is what has me calling for Tom Kuhlmann, the author of the The Rapid E-Learning Blog, to run for President of the United States. Here’s the premise:

• Stakeholders often nitpick unimportant things in e-learning projects, such as changing the walks in scenario images from white to light green.
• They often don’t understand that the large ripples caused by these supposedly minor changes.
• These ripples can get the project off track, which can waste time and resources.
• The team is normally ineffective at pushing back about these types of changes.

Stakeholders are often frustrated at the fact that projects take longer and cost more than they want and don’t see the relationship between their nitpicking and these results. So Tom recommends intentionally putting in some errors for stakeholders to nitpick, rather than trying to make the project as perfect as possible. For example, he shows an example of this egregious “main character” that is inserted precisely for stakeholders to complain about (screenshot above).

The Fuzzy Thumb Technique is technique number 7 in Tom’s 7 Proven Techniques for Keeping Your E-Learning Customers Happy blog post. Manipulative? Sure. Useful sometimes? Uh, yeah.

Some stakeholders don’t need this and it’s important to know which ones don’t. But for the ones that do, the technique may reduce time and wasted resources. As for Tom, there’s no doubt in my mind that this type of brilliance could be used to overcome some intractable world problems and the world needs his skills on a much wider scale. I think an exploratory committee is in order.

What do you think? Compelling? What does it communicate to you?

I am thinking about how and where to use something like this. And how to do it with music and images (since I am not expert at developing complex animations).

Below is a list of the reports and the URL for each of them.

• Getting Started in e-Learning: Technologies, Tools, and Media for e-Learning http://www.elearningguild.com/research/archives/index.cfm?id=138&action=viewonly
• Getting Started in e-Learning: Rapid e-Learning http://www.elearningguild.com/research/archives/index.cfm?id=139&action=viewonly
• Getting Started in e-Learning: Asynchronous e-Learning http://www.elearningguild.com/research/archives/index.cfm?id=140&action=viewonly
• Getting Started with e-Learning: Mobile Learning (mLearning http://www.elearningguild.com/research/archives/index.cfm?id=142&action=viewonly
• Getting Started with e-Learning: Synchronous e-Learning http://www.elearningguild.com/research/archives/index.cfm?id=143&action=viewonly
• Getting Started in e-Learning: Simulations and Games http://www.elearningguild.com/research/archives/index.cfm?id=144&action=viewonly
• Getting Started in e-Learning: Measuring Success http://www.elearningguild.com/research/archives/index.cfm?id=145&action=viewonly
• Getting Started in e-Learning: Learning Management Systems http://www.elearningguild.com/research/archives/index.cfm?id=146&action=viewonly
• Getting Started in e-Learning: Learning 2.0 http://www.elearningguild.com/research/archives/index.cfm?id=147&action=viewonly

As the game opens, here’s what appears, one line at a time, on a stark black background:

          Your savings are gone.

          You’ve lost your house.

          And you're down to your last $1,000.

          Can you make it through the month?

Maybe they weren’t trying to create “lessons,” but the game is lesson intensive, in a very impactful way. The game puts you in a realistic situation and asks you to make realistic decisions. You start by choosing from a variety of jobs (top screenshot: click to enlarge). I chose temporary worker (admin work) at $9 an hour and was presented with a typing test (middle screenshot: click to enlarge). Uh-oh. They say my typing skills are insufficient so I wasn’t hired. I applied next to be a warehouse worker and got that job. Now it’s time to find a place to live. Every option takes up more than 75% of my salary. And I have too much junk and can’t afford to rent a storage unit so I ask a friend to store my stuff (bottom screenshot: click to enlarge).

Here are some of the things that we can adapt for engaging learning.

• You are personally involved in a real situation. It’s far less engaging to read about or interact with someone else’s situation. Or worse yet, be told stuff that is divorced from any specific situation.
• The choices are real. And they are messy.
• You aren’t given unrealistic guidance. In a lot of learning scenarios, you are given guidance about how to proceed OR the options are written so that the best way is obvious. How do we actually learn? Not from guidance but…
• You learn from consequences. The game lets you make decisions and then you experience the consequences, like in real life. The right approach often isn’t apparent until the consequences are felt.

The purpose of Spent is to help you understand what their clients are going through but it is also an effective learning experience.