The Distance Newsletter: Good stuff including Learning2.0

Harold Jarche points us to a newsletter written by Camille Jensen.  The newsletter is a great collection of commentary around Learning2.0.

If you are looking for PDF to hand your manager for weekend reading and getting her/him up to speed on all this *2.0 stuff, then this is a good one.

Google 3D via Sketchup

I love this little tool.  It’s the greatest tool to hit the 3D market.  Now, it’s FREE!

Google announced it here yesterday.  Interactive 3D that is immersive is so incredibly powerful as a training tool.  I don’t understand why all basic entry level business process training is NOT done using these tools.  The frustrating part for me has always been the formatting issue.  I never could export my objects into the .W3D format that is supported by Director3D.  I also don’t know if you could export to a format that you could simply import into SecondLife.  The multitude of formats is simply killing the usability of 3D in the corporate space.  There are many great free tools, and many great inexpensive tools, as well as outstanding expensive tools.  But if I can’t get a cheap tool to work in my chosen environment then I am out of luck…I sit…and I wait for the next one.

 

Hey, SUPERSCAPE!  Will you ever resurrect the VRT?  You had the greatest tool going 10 years ago.  I still haven’t found anything as simple to use and just plain cool.

Wiki videos - These are GOLD!

Elearningpost directs us to Cnet videos about wikis in the corporate environment.  These are the smartest ultra-alpha geeks talking about wikis at work. This is GOLD for those of us trying to evangelize about wikis and Learning2.0.  Watch all 3…awesome!

Rip, Mix, and Feed Learning

Alan Levine, the CogDogBlog, is blogging live from a conference keynote and references some wired articles I have forgotten about until today.

 

Great quote - “Today’s audience isn’t listening at all - it’s participating” — William Gibson

 

The article is called God’s Little Toys:  Confessions of a cut & paste artist. 

 

Rip, Mix and feeding learning content is going to be what learning is all about.

What Web2.0 has in common with the invention of electric motors

From the Harvard Business School blog comes Digital Motors, Digital Factories: IT and the Internalization of Complements

So now I remember why I didn’t go to Harvard, but this post from Andrew McAfee is fabulous. You absolutely MUST read the entire article but here are some money quotes.

“Network IT platforms like blogs, wikis, Wikipedia, flickr, del.icio.us, prediction markets, etc. also internalize the complements listed above, but they do so in a very interesting way…They don’t impose new workflows or decision rights up front; they instead let them emerge over time as a result of interdependencies and preferences among users.”

“an ERP system is not great for eliciting tacit knowledge, and a wiki is a lousy way to ensure Sarbanes Oxley compliance.”

It’s fascinating to read about Web2.0 with historical perspective and gaining a greater understanding of McAfee calls complementarities.

It’s a great little historical perspective on what McAfee calls Function IT, Enterprise IT, and Network IT. Since I am a big proponent of all the goodness of all the 2.0 stuff going around I found the build to Network IT well worth the wait at the end of the post. This may be a great way to start the Learning2.0 conversation within your organization’s IT department. It doesn’t hurt that it comes from Harvard either.

Can Video Games Win Points as Teaching Tools?

Here's a nice article from The Association for Operations Management.  One clarifying point to make is that my 25 step factory simulation was created while working at SGS-Thomson Microelectronics.  I built similar simulations for the Logistics and Transportation division at Intel.

 

I think a key point for corporate training departments to understand is that for knowledge transfer to occur the simulation does NOT need to be of high fidelity.  One of the objects in my 3D space was simply a cube that I called the "notch alignment tool" and EVERY last one of the trainees could transfer that part of the process to the real world "notch alignment tool".  Corporate training departments have small, if not zero budgets for this kind of stuff and we are mostly interested in the knowledge transfer occuring and getting the learners back on the job asap.  So high fidelity like world of warcraft is overkill and simply not necessary.  Actually, I would think that it might be distracting and actually degrade the learning potential slightly. 

 

Also, when I speak of games in corporate training I am actually referring to the use of game engines to create process simulations.  These would most likely have NO true gaming element.  The power is in the 3D environment and allowing learners to fail repeated at a task over, and over again until they get it right and can do it in their sleep.  Interactive 3D simulations created with these gaming tools can give us that.  The gaming elements can be used for higher order thinking training for floor managers and ground controllers.  These folks are the trouble shooters and their job requires problem solving skills, not just memorizing a process.

Business Week: My Virtual Life II

A journey into a place in cyberspace where thousands of people have imaginary lives. Some even make a good living. Big advertisers are taking notice and corporate training professionals see this as a opportunity for performance improvement in the workplace.

read more | digg story

Virtual Worlds in Businessweek

BusinessWeekMayfirst
Originally uploaded by Brent Schlenker.

Check out the May 1st cover story of Businessweek. There are some fabulous stories around the amazing growth of virtual worlds and what people are doing with them and inside of them. Training and Learning is mentioned as well.

Most Important Questions about Learning

I found this via e-Clippings.  It’s the kind of stuff that makes me wonder why I even got into this business of Instructional Design, eLearning, or simply Learning.   I think the questions posed are awesome, but more importantly they expose the simplistic nature by which the ISD community approaches training and learning development.  We currently give lots of lip service to Objectives, but who as a learner really cares about anyone else’s contrived objectives?  I have my own objectives, my boss has his own objectives and additional expectations of what MY objectives SHOULD be (in his eyes).  We are arrogant to think that just because a project is given to us and the content owner states what the user should know that we, the almighty ISDer, can craft the perfect objectives, and layout the perfect pages, and the perfectly shaped pill-shaped NEXT button that will induce learning.

I am becoming more and more convinced that at our best we are KNOWLEDGE BROKERS.  Our job is to get just the right amount of information from just the right person who has it to just the right person who needs it.  We do that by supporting platforms that enable the connectivity of people, and collaboration between people.  We can craft simulations that simulate the REAL work learners need to accomplish.  We compress time with these sims and offer many more “experiences” (quests) in a shorter amount of time: more hypothetical problems to solve.  We can encourage, and support users in creating their own “stories” delivered via media such as audio (podcasts) or video(Vodcasts).

From Click2Death to Systems Thinking

Kathy Sierra has a great new visual on the hierarchy of data/information and thinking/learning.  Actually 2 graphics, and the second is a great visual for supporting improved learning systems:  From click-next online learning that normally teaches How and What, to higher order thinking skills necessary to understand WHY and IF & WHEN that is best learned from experience, collaborating, connecting, trying and failing.  She makes some great points as well…a great read.

This is your Brain on Games

So, I’m a big proponent of Games for Learning, but I also enjoy putting my self on the flip side of my passions just for a reality check.  Cognitive Daily has this article This is Your Brain…On violent video games.  Okay, I’ll bite.  Here’s the best part…

“Weber's team points out that it's possible to have the same brain activity, but still be conscious of the fact that a video game is not real behavior. It's not necessarily true that die-hard video gamers are rewiring their brains to behave aggressively in the real world. However, what can be said is that the fear and fight responses are strikingly similar to those found in real-world aggressive and antisocial individuals. We know from other studies that the rewards system of video games is highly effective, and while this experiment does not prove the case that violent games cause aggressive behavior, it's certainly another piece of evidence which supports that contention. The team also points out that the levels of brain activity they have observed here are much more intense than what is observed in other experiments, such as biofeedback. There's no doubt that these games have a powerful influence on the brain.”

Wait…let’s say that last line again… “There's no doubt that these games have a powerful influence on the brain.”

I’d like to just start with that from now on in my gaming discussions, because it seems to be the only common ground for both sides of the debate.  Maybe if we all start here, THEN we can start to ask ourselves what are the positive aspects gained from these and other games.  I’m sorry for being such an optimist, but if there is ANY tool out there that has “a powerful influence on the brain”, positive OR negative, shouldn’t we at least look at it?

The New Media Creators are us

ZDNet has a good article on the creators of new media.  This content creation “at the edges” is disrupting the normal media channels that have traditionally delivered content to the masses.  If you haven’t heard, media consumers are “ripping” media content(Saturday Night Live, etc.) and posting it to blogs and YouTube, etc.  Ripping, remixing, and feeding is becoming the standard of media creation “at the edges”.

 

I believe this will have a huge impact in corporate learning as we begin to feel safe with users creating content.  Corporate cultures need to change in order to take advantage of the new media creators.  Internal systems need to be upgraded to support the increased amounts of bandwidth intense media distribution.  Once the culture and the infrastructure begins to changes you will begin to see the explosive adoption, and movement of creation towards the learners. 

 

The ISD community and corporate training departments must learn to see and adapt accordingly.  We will not completely delete the work we have done but it will slowly be phased out.  If we do not support these fundamental changes, over time our traditional elearning course offerings will become obsolete as people will find what they need through informal channels, sharing with their peers.

 

Games in Learning EXPLODES in 2010!

The bold prediction from explanazine. 

 

“Currently, my prediction is that this phenomenon will begin manifesting itself overtly in late 2007, with a transformative explosion occurring in 2008-2009. By 2010, I expect gaming (or experiential learning through play and discovery) to be an accepted and primary paradigm for education in the K-20 markets.”

 

I am eagerly anticipating the remaining posts in this series from the explanazine folks.

Learning planning, organization, leardership...in WoW?

Want to be a CEO?  Then you better master the leadership of your online Guild first.

(via Mark Oehlert).

Wired had a similar little article on how being a Guild Master can actually put you in a better position for getting that next management position.

 

eLearning Technology: Business Process Management instead of Learning

eLearning Technology: Business Process Management instead of Learning

I agree...completely. I've often asked software developers to "put me out of a job". Most of the software application training is needed because of poor design. If there is a bug in the system or something doesn't work just right they say..."let's just train to it". What the heck does that mean anyway?

If business processes were well designed then the supporting software would be easier to design and there would be no need for training.
Then we could actually focus our time on creating learning interventions that support tacit workers. We could create simulated environments that give these workers "experience" in a compressed time, and within a safe environment: higher order thinking skills training that supports the context of the job.

Enterprise eLearning is all about IT

Corporate training departments have struggled for years with implementing eLearning, LMS, LCMS, and other solutions because of IT as the technology gatekeeper.  Successful Learning departments have very close relationships with IT, frustrated eLearning managers do NOT.  I’ve often told audiences that a critical part of development (and implementing ANY new technology for that matter) requires that you have an “IT buddy”:  someone that can help cut through the red tape, get you a little server space when you need it for testing, etc. 

I’ve also been thinking a lot about how the learning industry, over the years, insists on creating its own enterprise software.  Read my last post, and then reconsider why you would spend millions of dollars on a system that supports .4% impact on possible behavior change…hmmm.  I’ll tell you why, because it covers the collective corporate butt.  Being able to say that everyone in the company is “ethical” because they took the course connected to the LMS that printed the report that says it is so must be right.  Sexual Harrassment probably never occurs in your company either because the OTS course you purchased plugs into the LMS that printed the report say everyone took the course.  So, it can’t possibly happen, right?  Okay, so you get the idea.

Training in the form of click2death learning is great for one thing…compliance.  And the systems that support that are well worth the money considering the consequences of NOT complying with Federal Regulations, or NOT being ISO certified, or NOT having a good safety record, etc.

But if you want to talk about Learning and Performance, we do ourselves no good trying to create our own enterprise tools.  Enterprise 2.0 is going to take care of that for us.  But we better be savvy enough to participate, support, and take advantage of these tools as IT departments begin to implement.

Our job scope will begin to change and part of our new job will be monitoring the “learning environment”, providing support by helping the connections between people happen.  The learning environment will be a collection of information fed via RSS containing all of the collective knowledge, troubles, issues, gossip, and the like.  By monitoring the learning environment we keep our fingers on the pulse of the operation and can support when actual training interventions are TRULY required.  In the early days we will also be seen as the early adopters that help facilitate the onramping of other employees into the learning environment.

We don’t create the tools, IT does.  We leverage them as another tool in our tool box for supporting the corporate goals and objectives.

Formal Learning = 0.4% impact on the learner

I love this from Jay Cross...

Formal training programs are not the only learning game in town. CLOs who
spend the bulk of their time improving the development and delivery of training
might be optimizing the insignificant. Consider this:

• According to Tom Gilbert and Peter Dean, training only accounts for 10.5
  percent of the total potential change in worker behavior. Clarity of objectives,
  working conditions and other factors are more important.
• According to the Institute for Research on Learning, at most, formal
  training only accounts for 20 percent of how people learn their jobs. Most
  workers learn their jobs from observing others, asking questions, trial and
  error, calling the help desk and other unscheduled, largely independent
  activities.
• According to Robert Brinkerhoff and Stephen Gill, people who do attend
  formal training never apply 80 to 90 percent of what they learn back on the job.
  They forget the bulk of what they’re exposed to in a matter of days.

So, formal training accounts for 20 percent x 20 percent x 10 percent of the
possible improvements you can make to worker performance. That’s 0.4 percent.

I love this from Jay Cross...

Formal training programs are not the only learning game in town. CLOs who
spend the bulk of their time improving the development and delivery of training
might be optimizing the insignificant. Consider this:

• According to Tom Gilbert and Peter Dean, training only accounts for 10.5
  percent of the total potential change in worker behavior. Clarity of objectives,
  working conditions and other factors are more important.
• According to the Institute for Research on Learning, at most, formal
  training only accounts for 20 percent of how people learn their jobs. Most
  workers learn their jobs from observing others, asking questions, trial and
  error, calling the help desk and other unscheduled, largely independent
  activities.
• According to Robert Brinkerhoff and Stephen Gill, people who do attend
  formal training never apply 80 to 90 percent of what they learn back on the job.
  They forget the bulk of what they’re exposed to in a matter of days.

So, formal training accounts for 20 percent x 20 percent x 10 percent of the
possible improvements you can make to worker performance. That’s 0.4 percent.

Web2.0 Logos

LOGO2.0 part I
Originally uploaded by Stabilo Boss.

Totally off topic, but interesting.
Thanks the DesignGeek Newsletter for this one.
http://www.senecadesign.com/designgeek/

Learning = emotional impact of shapes

In the early days of this blog I made reference to the little things that we overlook when designing online courses. I often make the point that DESIGN is EVERYTHING (via Tom Peters). That means visual design, NOT instructional design. I've blogged about smells that effect learning, colors that effect learning, and now The emotion of Shapes.
There is much more going on in our subconscious than the superficial, cookie-cutter, learning systems and solutions promoted by the ISD community can address. Sure we chunk our material into modules with a click Next navigation button and multiple choice test that supports our objectives, but what else do we consider?
Do you really spend the time to consider the shapes of the graphics you choose, the color, or the smell of the classroom?
If your graphics are subconsciously annoying your users, or even making them angry, then maybe your learners are less likely to learn. Or perhaps the opposite is true. Maybe creating shapes that evoke unconfortable emotions will in fact engage the learner even more on a subconscious level. Maybe they engage to say how mad they are...but at least they are engaged.
We DO know that learning cannot occur without reaching learners on an emotional level. I just can't remember where I saw the data to link to it. But I do believe it.

Google + Sketchup = Realworld Second Life

Sketchup is a fabulous tool. I have an old version that I picked up a couple years ago with the hopes of "easily" creating models for use within Director3D training simulations. No luck because they do not export to .W3D. But the tool is incredible and simple and fun. It's the kind of app I would normally associate with Apple...like it should have been called i3D.
So now they have been Googled (acquired by Google) and I'm just now hearing about it...Google Blog. Okay, so again I'm a month late to the party. But the sad thing is that I didn't see this blogged by the usual learning community suspects either. This may not seem like a big deal to non-technical ISD folks, but this has some incredible potential for the learning community and corporate training development especially.
Simulations, virtual environments, or whatever you want to call them, all have the 3D element in common. The creation of 3D models has always been what stands in the way of a reasonable ROI for development in the corporate training world. But now, armed with a simple, usable tool we will begin to see that wall crumble.
I've been asking for just such a tool for quite some time knowing that it would be the turning point in our quest for cost-effective immersive 3D training simulations. Second Life is awesome, but if the public school teacher turned corporate trainer can't figure out how to build something then it ain't happenin'. Simple tools have always been the key.
In the early days of CBT, and WBT it was brutal working with coding interactive exercises...today...it's all drag and drop and ANYONE can whip out a multiple choice quiz, a few modules with text, and graphics, and that ever present NEXT button, and wrap it in an LMS skin and publish "elearning".
This is just the beginning. As soon as someone figures out how to take those models and Google earth into an immersive environment like SecondLife, then the virtual reality simulations we created 10 years ago with Superscape VRT will finally be ready for primetime acceptance.
Even if you don't think you can use it. I recommend buying a personal copy. It's just a darn cool AND fun little app. Maybe Google will create an online Web2.0 version that will be available for free someday...wink, wink :)

WIRED Will Wright Gaming and Learning

While at the GDC, Mark Oehlert showed me the latest edition of WIRED with Will Wright. The next day I heard Will give his keynote then I bought it and read it myself. What a great issue for the learning community. Lots of good stuff. I was ready to blog it, then I caught up on my blog reader and noticed this from Dave Warlick on Video Games commenting about the Will Wright issue of WIRED. So I'm late to the party. But the best story is online here called Dream Machines. I've been excited about the possibilities of games as much as the rest of you but Will does a great job of putting it into words. Here are the money lines for learning...

"As children, we spend much of our time in imaginary worlds, substituting toys and make-believe for the real surroundings that we are just beginning to explore and understand. As we play, we learn. And as we grow, our play gets more complicated. We add rules and goals. The result is something we call games."

"It turns out that we don't use computers to enhance our math skills - we use them to expand our people skills."

I'm so tired of the negative publicity that games get in the mainstream media that I'm going to do a workshop at my children's school for parents on Games and Learning. I don't expect to change too many minds, but maybe enlighten a few. The WIRED mag articles give great ammunition, and much of the blogosphere, books, and research should suffice.

Any ideas from you all in the education world would be greatly appreciated.