I launched a new blog this week for showcasing e-learning examples. The plan is to provide a centralized location for examples of e-learning courses and details about the instructional design process used in creating them. I also hope to share specifics about the logistics of the courses. Anyone is welcome to submit an example using the submission form.

After spending so much time investigating the positive aspects of learning through social media, I wanted to start looking at the possible negative aspects. Here’s one that’s possibly problematic:

Our ability to show admiration and compassion may be declining due to our fast-paced digital culture.

Neural correlates of admiration and compassion is a study that explores the social emotions that define humanity – admiration and compassion. Brain scans show it takes longer to respond to admiration and compassion than to respond to signs of something like physical pain. There is greater cognitive processing involved in feeling compassion.

Does our fast-paced media culture (fueled by social media) mean we are becoming indifferent to the emotions of human suffering? Is it redefining our humanity? For instance, we flock to YouTube over and over again to view the death of a luger at the Olympics and say OMG! and then share that on Twitter so someone else can ‘re-tweet it’ and say OMG! and repeat it to the point that it spreads like a cancer. Or it ‘trends’. But are we ‘there’ long enough – in the moment – to display compassion? Do we allow enough time?

In the study, the researchers say:

The rapidity and parallel processing of attention requiring information, which hallmark the digital age, might reduce the frequency of full experience of such emotions, with potentially negative consequences.

This made me think of a highly emotional e-learning course about palliative care. (You can see a marketing demo of this course if you register.)

The course elicits strong emotions. In the demo you get an idea of it but I actually ran through the  course and it made me cry. E-learning that made me cry (for the right reasons).

Feeling emotions was something I previously would have said “no, that’s probably not good for self-paced e-learning.”

I think this course allows time to process feelings. The course guides the learner to assess situations on their own using various resources like charts, glossaries, video, etc. Learners don’t just pull out a mobile device and watch a video or YouTube clip of a suffering patient  and then go into the room to provide care (and there’s a process to that care).

So I guess what I’m saying here is that content that needs to tap compassion may need to be designed without rapid digital exchanges common to social media. I’m not stating fact. I’m putting it out there for consideration based on this one study.

Our ability to show admiration and compassion may be declining when it comes to rapid digital exchanges.

Don’t rule out e-learning for emotional content. Perhaps we just need to consider the time we’re allowing for a learners response.

I haven’t read a lot of research in the area of culture and instructional design – especially integration. Here’s a good one.

Patricia Young, Ph.D. did a literature review on the topic of  integrating culture in the design of information and communication technologies (ICTs). The definition of culture used in the article is from Geert Hofstede:

Culture is the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the member of one human group from those of another. Culture in this sense is a system of collectively held values.

Young notes that “in ID, definition of culture are more broadly based to include sociological, anthropological, and educational perspectives.” She writes about integrating culture in design through internationalization (eliminate culture; homogenous technological product that is usable across cultures) and localization (specialize; make acceptable to target group).

One “model of culture” she mentions is Hofstede’s five dimensions:

• Power, distance
• Uncertainty avoidance
• Masculinity-femininity
• Individualism-collectivism
• Time orientation

Methods to integrate culture in the design of ICTs are cultural variation (design specification to accommodate for variations in learners, characteristics of learners and the tasks for learning and content – like the use of graphic symbols vs. text) and cultural research (describing the target audience in terms of learning strategies and contexts for learning, e.g. humor).

Young suggests that the design has not caught up with technology and that the future of integration in design lies in changing mindsets first and design practices second.

To follow Young’s work in this area, refer to her website about her future book here.  The book describes a framework to integrate culture in design.

The Culture Based Model (CBM) is an intercultural instructional design framework that guides designers through the design, development, management and assessment process. This model works in constructing custom development, adding on to existing designs, re-engineering off-the-shelf products, and providing diagnostic evaluations. CBM has 8 areas consistent with the acronym: ID-TABLET. These areas include Inquiry, Development, Team, Assessments, Brainstorming, Learners, Elements and Training. CBM’s ID-TABLET focuses on project management and project design. The areas under project management include: Brainstorming, Team, Development, Learners, Assessments, and Training. The project design focuses on monitoring and content development. The areas under project design include: Inquiry and Elements. These areas operate simultaneously and maintain an interactive relation. As a model that seeks to meet culture based design decisions, CBM is a comprehensive tool for the design process.

Young, P. (2008) Integrating Culture in the Design of ICTs, British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 39 No 1 p. 6-17.

Googley design…worth thinking about in the context of instructional design.

1. Focus on people—their lives, their work, their dreams.
2. Every millisecond counts.
3. Simplicity is powerful.
4. Engage beginners and attract experts.
5. Dare to innovate.
6. Design for the world.
7. Plan for today’s and tomorrow’s business.
8. Delight the eye without distracting the mind.
9. Be worthy of people’s trust.
10. Add a human touch.

The principle flows from Google’s Corporate Philosophy
“Ten things Google has found to be true:”

1. Focus on the user and all else will follow.
2. It’s best to do one thing really, really well.
3. Fast is better than slow.
4. Democracy on the web works.
5. You don’t need to be at your desk to need an answer.
6. You can make money without doing evil.
7. There’s always more information out there.
8. The need for information crosses all borders.
9. You can be serious without a suit.
10. Great just isn’t good enough.

Applied to Instructional Design, and corporate learning in general, these lists seem to be a pretty good jumping off point.

I had a conversation by email with someone I really care about that probably came off a bit bitchy, a bit holier-than-thou…it you can have just “a bit” of either of those traits.  And, I’m probably about to come off the same way here. That’s not an apology. I yam what I yam. And, no doubt I’ll piss off some people for my opinion of rapid e-learning tools.

My email conversation came at a time when I saw the tweet (below) from Clark Quinn on Twitter so I felt some sort of validation of my opinion (don’t you love serendipity?). Clark said:

[I] just advised SME on converting to elearning, recommended Clive’s 60 mins, Cathy’s Action Mapping, and my own 7 Step program (of course)

The person that I wrote the email to was questioning his ability to really create sound e-learning (using a rapid development tool); how to ‘lay it out.’  I told him there are a lot of people who share his struggle. A lot.

My response went something like this:

We wouldn’t expect a layman to design a bridge given an IKEA set of instructions.

She’d need to know the strength of materials, type of materials, math, physics, etc. She’d need to be an engineer.

Same holds true for our field. Those who know how to design instruction soundly are the ‘engineers.’

Without ID skills, you end up being guided by the rapid e-learning tool. They are the IKEA of ID. Cheap and fast but not likely to show up at the antiques show 150 years from now (or to go down in your most memorable training book IMHO). You trade speed and low cost for flexibility and richness. With rapid e-learning tools, you don’t necessarily need to know the ID equivalent of engineering (learning theories, human psychology, instructional science) to create the course. That’s why people love them. That’s why people love IKEA. Fast and inexpensive.

Think of most rapid e-learning courses. They are, by design, built around limiting theories. You mostly end up using them to create knowledge-building content (novice-level) or to create courses to track something (compliance, etc.). Or they are used to create something that is the equivalent of a text document. But novice-level/ knowledge-building and mandatory-type courses are a fraction of what people need to do their jobs.

This is why training in how to (really) design instruction is so important (for e-learning, classroom instruction, and informal learning). Although someone can show you how to make the most of a rapid e-learning tool, you won’t become the ‘engineer’ without advanced training (and not necessarily formal).

I think our field is littered with people like you and I that came from a different background and were thrown into an L & D position expecting to just apply our own past experience with schooling and teaching into e-learning. So that’s what we do. I can see that safely from a distance now. I did little more than create novice-level knowledge-building courses, compliance courses, and ‘text documents’ spread out in a linear fashion with some questions thrown in before I was “trained” in ID.

Rapid e-learning tools serve their purpose, I hope without sacrificing development. To illustrate what I’m trying to say, I’m outlining a case study. See where the rapid e-learning tool fits into the bigger picture. See what the role of L & D is. It’s a beautiful thing. It’s sound.

Here are the highlights from the actual case study:

The organization’s L & D group created what they called a “Web 2.0 Community” which was built on SharePoint architecture. (Imagine a graphic with “Web 2.0 Community” in the middle and blogs, wikis, discussion board, social bookmarking, and user-generated content surrounding it.)

The blogs were everyone’s – novice, expert, course vendors, and Learning & Development. People used audio, video, images, text and followed updates using RSS.

The discussion board was a place where people shared knowledge and experiences. L & D facilitated discussions including getting unanswered questions directed to internal and external experts. Many of these discussion flowed from monthly webinars.

L & D provided tools & instructional design support for users wishing to create their own ‘content.’ (The rapid development tool used was Articulate. They referred to this as user-generated content.)

The wiki was built the same way Wikipedia is. (Not surprisingly, they used their company name + ‘pedia’). Social bookmarking was on its own server. This moved ‘favorites’ from individual PCs so all could share their best resources.

L & D measured the effectiveness of the Web 2.0 community by looking at participation, quality of discussions, usage statistics, anecdotes of the community, and interviews with users. L & D identified three primary benefits: common language, productivity, and time & cost savings.

Did they need to know how to use rapid e-learning development tools? Yes.

One of the ways we identify rapid e-learning development tools in our Authoring Tool KnowledgeBase is by identifying who the tool is best suited for. If the primary use is this…

Subject matter experts with no page design, authoring, or programming experience

…then it’s a rapid e-learning development tool. If you’re in L&D spending all your time creating content using tools designed for SMEs then you probably won’t learn how to create much more than novice-level/knowledge building courses.  In the case study above, no one in L&D was creating content. Everyone was creating.

Last thing- if you’re not spending a couple hours of week studying ID in situ then you are only going to build IKEAesque stuff. Just sayin’.

Here are the slides from an online session I did yesterday on Multi-Generational Learning in the Workplace.  This was the first time I presented on this topic and the first time I led a session using Saba’s Centra platform. Great questions, great crowd, no big tech issues. Cammy Bean took some notes and graciously posted them on her blog. Funny it was also the first time Cammy “heard” my voice (other than in it’s written form). (From her Tweet:  listening to @jclarey She’s actually a real person! ) Cat’s out of the bag now!

I guess there were some people that couldn’t join because the registration number was exceeded so I’ll be presenting the session again in the near future and we’ll beef up the registration numbers for all of our future events. Also, we moved to a new server so you Mac folks should be able to play nicely with the platform.

I’ve promised a couple of things post-presentation, so look for them here shortly and add what I’ve missed in the comments section if you don’t see something you were interested in getting more info on:

• Additional details on Millennial’s and critical thinking and reflecting skills (future post)
• Bibliography (below)

In a nutshell, my main points:

• The “younger” generation (“millennials” born in the 80s-90s) are not [automatic] masters of technology and often use a limited range of technologies (i.e., Google, Google Scholar, and Wikipedia for homework, the school’s VLE/LMS, instant message, text, profile on a social networking service like Facebook or MySpace.)
• When the “younger” generation goes to work, their expectations are influenced more by prior educational experiences than use of technology outside an educational setting. (i.e., To learn, I sat in a classroom for years, so it would be normal to expect to sit in a classroom to learn at work. Because I watch YouTube videos, have a Facebook, and text doesn’t mean I expect you to use those to train me at work).
• The “younger” generation does not have a high level of use of collaborative knowledge creation tools (“2.0”) and don’t adopt radically different patterns of knowledge creation and sharing.
• Don’t ground transformation of education arguments around “younger” generations’ expectations and patterns of technology use. (Ground it in this: to address the changing nature in the way we all handle information (create it, retrieve it, interact with it), the way we communicate information, and the way we, as humans, interact with each other.)
• As IDs we need to use educational technology to gain wisdom FROM it and we need to enhance our capabilities of our understanding so we can use it IN our learning activities.
• Ditch the digital native / immigrant thing. It’s served its purpose – a catalyst for conversation.
• Regardless of age, heavy tech users have similar characteristics. (I therefore label myself a “Baby Boomer/ Gen X ‘cusper’ a.k.a. “Jones Generation,” with millennial tendencies possibly caused by high exposure to technology.”  But “Janet” works too.)
• Your exposure to technology defines how tech savvy you are, not your age.
• While we can identify different traits of generations, we can’t – and should not – make broad brushstroke statements. There are simply too many variables (workplace culture, exposure to technology, socio-cultural differences, gender, geography, socio-ecomonic, etc.)
• Designing instruction based on a person’s age is not grounded in solid research.
• Keep your own bias in mind.
• My arguments primarily revolve around the knowledge worker – those who work with information.
• If you’re only ticket to getting resources is to ride the hype wave of “generational learning styles” then OK. (but don’t design instruction to it)
• Know the learning theories behind your craft damn it!

I mean really saying, “Janet, you’re ‘old’ (46), you go take that self-paced e-learning course where you just click the next button. And you, Marie, 28 year-old, you go create an avatar of yourself and enter our virtual world…” WTF! Don’t do this!

Multi Generational Learning

View more presentations from jclarey. (tags: generations learning)

References all hodgepodge and not APA because I’m not getting graded for this post:

Baird, D.E. & Fisher, M. 2005-2006. Neomillennial User Experience Design Strategies: Utilizing social networking media to support “always on” learning styles. J. Educational Technology Systems, Vol. 34 (1) 5-32, 2005-2006.

Bonwell C.C & Eison, J.A., 1991. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ERIC Digest, ERIC Digests. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/23/6e/bd.pdf

Brown, J.S. (2002). Growing Up Digital: How the Web Changes Work, Education, and the Ways People Learn. Education at a Distance. USDLA Journal. http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/FEB02_Issue/article01.html

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid. (1989). “Situated cognition and the culture of learning.” Educational Researcher 18(1): 32-42.

Chinnery, G.M. (2008). You’ve got some GALL: Google-assisted language learning. Language Learning & Technology, February 2008, Volume 12, Number 1, pp. 3-11.

Codrington, G. (2008). Generation comparisons. ? @tomorrowtoday. Blog. http://www.tmtd.biz/2008/05/10/generation-comparisons/#more-1562

Debard, R. D. (2004). Millennials coming to college. In R. D. Debard & M. D. Coomes (Eds.). Serving the millennial generation: New directions for student services (pp. 33-45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass in Reeves, T.C. (2006). Do Generational Differences Matter in Instructional Design? Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology (EPIT).

Dede, C. (1996). Emerging Technologies and Distributed Learning. The American Journal of Distance Education.

Dede, C. (2006). Neomillennial Learning Styles: From Websites to Distributed-Learning Communities. Innovations in eLearning Symposium 2006. distance.nmsu.edu/faculty/presentations/dede01.ppt

Dede, C. (2005). Planning for Neomillennial Learning Styles. Educause Quarterly. http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/PlanningforNeomillennialL/39899

de Kort, L. (2004). White Paper: Generations at Work. Australian Institute of Management. http://www.aimnt.com.au/ntatwork/generations_at_work.pdf

Dzuiban, C. & Moskal, P. (2007). Assessing Student Success. Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness, University of Central Florida. http://www.educause.edu/aascu07

Dzuiban, C., Moskal, P., & Hartman, J. (2006). Higher Education, Blended Learning and the Generations: Knowledge is Power – No More. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftlc.ucalgary.ca%2Fdocuments%2Fchuck.doc&ei=0TTFSJbwNoeWec6b6fsH&usg=AFQjCNHugUwz10NMKeE7dVap5HUhNMlU1Q&sig2=FafgboQsE6OFfwZFNIaZmQ

Gee. J. P. (2003). What Video Games Have To Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Goldman-Segall, R. (1998). Points of Viewing Children’s Thinking: A Digital Ethnographer’s Journey, Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey, 1998.

Henry, J. (2007). Professor pans ‘learning style’ teaching method. Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/29/nteach129.xml

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York: Vintage Books.

Johnson, S. (2005). Everything bad is good for you: How today’s popular culture is actually making use smarter. New York: Riverhead Books in Reeves, T.C. (2006). Do Generational Differences Matter in Instructional Design? Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology (EPIT).

Jonassen, D. H., McAleese, T. M. R. & Duffy, T. M. (1993). A Manifesto for a constructivist approach to technology in higher education. In Duffy, T. M., Lowyck, J. & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.) The design of constructivistic learning environments: Implications for instructional design and the use of technology, Heidelburg, FRG: Springer-Verlag in Moallem, M. (2001). Applying Constructivist and Objective Learning Theories in the Design of a Web-Based Course: Implications for Practice. Educational Technology & Society. http://ifets.fit.fraunhofer.de/periodical/vol_3_2001/moallem.html

Jonassen, D. (1998). Designing Constructivist Learning Environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.) Instructional theories and models. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Klopfer, E. & Squire, K. (2004). Environmental Detectives—the development of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations. Journal of Educational Technology Research and Development, Volume 56, Number 2. Springer Boston.

Lambropoulos, N. (2005). Neomillennial eLearning Environment for Open Universities at the Age of Ubiquitous Computing. Presentation.

McLester, S. (2007). Technology Literacy and the MySpace Generation. techLEARNING from Technology & Learning. http://www.techlearning.com/showArticle.php?articleID=196604312

Moallem, M. (2001). Applying Constructivist and Objective Learning Theories in the Design of a Web-Based Course: Implications for Practice. Educational Technology & Society. http://ifets.fit.fraunhofer.de/periodical/vol_3_2001/moallem.html

Oblinger, D.G. (2007). Growing Up with Google. EDUCAUSE 2007 Conference Presentation. http://www.educause.edu/aascu07

Oblinger, D.G. (2007). The Next Generation of Courses. EDUCAUSE 2007 Conference Presentation. http://www.educause.edu/aascu07

Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, Gen-Xers, & Millennials: Understanding the New Students. July/August 2003. Educause review.

Oblinger, D. &Oblinger, J. (eds.) (2005). Educating the Net Generation. Educause. http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen

Palfrey, J. & Gasser, Urs (2008). Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon. NCB University Press, Vol. 9 No. 5, October 2001. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marcprensky.com%2Fwriting%2FPrensky%2520-%2520Digital%2520Natives%2C%2520Digital%2520Immigrants%2520-%2520Part1.pdf&ei=7j3FSMD_DYjkesrlvYkI&usg=AFQjCNEUHeiX8ghPYUPXKPWbM4xzAljIpg&sig2=pJTxWPUpcqm-4sMLe-K3_Q

Reeves, T.C. (2006). Do Generational Differences Matter in Instructional Design? Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology (EPIT).

Reid, A. Writing in the Digital Age. Retrieved from http://mfeldstein.com/669

Slator, B. M. and Associates. (2006). Electric worlds in the classroom: Teaching and learning with role-based computer games. New York: Teachers College Press in Reeves, T.C. (2006). Do Generational Differences Matter in Instructional Design? Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology (EPIT).

Suave, E. (2007). Informal Knowledge Transfer. T&D. March 2007. www.learningcircuits.org/2007/0307sauve

Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled – and More Miserable Than Ever Before. Free Press. New York, NY. http://www.amazon.com/Generation-Americans-Confident-Assertive-Entitled/dp/0743276981/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207665559&sr=1-1

Wilen-Daugenti, T. (2007). The 21^st Century Learning Environment: Next-generation strategies for higher education. Cisco internet Business Solutions Group, Global Education.

Wilson, B. & Cole, P. (1991). A review of cognitive teaching methods. Educational Technology Research and Development. Volume 39, Number 4, Springer Boston.

Developing the Generations: Is there a difference?
HR Spring Forum, May 7, 2007 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jobs.sc.gov%2FOHR%2F07hr-forum%2FDevelopingtheGenerations.ppt&ei=_S3FSPPgMqawevXa8IQI&usg=AFQjCNH_wGZAcwx4kMpLCzqLBgqZg3DGDw&sig2=pOJh5OLqb-xHIfZ1Hm4JRA

And, very recent publications:

Sue Bennett, Karl Maton, Lisa Kervin
The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence.
British Journal of Educational Technology
Vol. 39 No. 5 2008 p. 775-776
http://www.cheeps.com/karlmaton/pdf/bjet.pdf

Anoush Margaryan and Allison Littlejohn
Are digital natives a myth or reality?: Students’ use of technologies for learning.
December 11, 2008
http://chartingthelabyrinths.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/are-digital-natives-a-myth-or-reality-students%E2%80%99-use-of-technologies-for-learning/

OUR NEXT FREE WEBINAR:
Using Second Life for Workplace Learning

Tom Werner
Registration
Description:
Overview of this important immersive environment, discuss its advantages and disadvantages for corporate training, and show examples. He will also point to key resources that are available for those starting to use Second Life in training.

Al Moser trashes voice over PowerPoint in this blog post about using multimedia in eLearning. He feels audio is a weak solution because it reduces knowledge retention, reduces productivity, reduces accessibility, and removes searchability. He concludes by saying recorded VIDEO sucks. (I think he means boring videos suck not all videos).  I believe Al is making this about the tool (PowerPoint + audio) when he should be talking about the method and the quality of instruction. The simplest tools, in the hands of an artisan, can make a masterpiece.

On issue one: does audio in e-learning reduce knowledge retention? I turn to Ruth Colvin Clark and Richard Mayer’s book “eLearning and the Science of Instruction.”

Clark and Mayer found that “people learn more deeply from multimedia lessons when words explaining concurrent animations or graphics are presented as speech rather than onscreen text.” They call this the modality effect. The study is not one of reading text from PowerPoint slides but the study included (among several comparisons) an iteration where narration and onscreen text were identical. In short, the researchers recommended the use of spoken rather than printed words in multimedia messages containing graphics with related descriptive words. The animation and narration groups generated between 41 – 114% more solutions than the animation and onscreen text group, evn though both groups received identical animation and words.

On issue two: does audio with eLearning reduce productivity? Al compares the time to read vs. the time to listen. I have to wonder if he’s just measuring ‘seat time’ vs. value. It’s like saying I should only communicate via text message vs. phone call because it’s faster.  I’m baffled by this reasoning.

On issue three: does audio reduce accessibility? The point being made here is that a course that is linear in nature does not give the learner opportunities to explore other areas. I think a case can be made for both the value of a linear path and the value of a more learner-controlled environment. If I’m step-by-step fixing the gazillion dollar Hubble telescope, I want a step-by-step tutorial damnit. A job aid. An expert on the other end of the phone. Video. Better. A simulator. I digress.

On issue four: audio removes searchability. I think Al is saying here that ppt to flash courses may not be searchable due to the limitations of the software.

On issue five: Putting boring video on-line doesn’t make it any less boring, it just makes it easier to turn off. I agree!

Perhaps I’m just a match waiting to get lit today but this just doesn’t hit the mark on the use of multimedia in e-learning.

My own experience – once you have been exposed to proper use of multimedia in a course, you want it always and once you design it that way, they’ll always want it.Hats off to the crafters and artisans.

Tonia writes about a the digital/native immigrant concept and suggests we should speak more in terms of digital maturity. Her thoughts arise out of frustration around the rate of adaptation of various age groups. She asks, “is this concept of natives and immigrants absurd or just a [too] broad generalization?” My take is that partitioning people is like one-size fits all shirt – it fits no one. However, I am glad that I can claim maturity in at least one area of my life. ; )

More on generational learning and design…

Sarah Boehle interviewed David Blair, Aetna’s learning head of curriculum design, about their study of five generational groups (Silent Generation, ages 62-77; Baby Boomers, ages 52-61; Late Baby Boomers, ages 43-51; Generation X, ages 31-42; and Generation Y, ages 18-30) and their reactions to training. Blair noted that most training designers at Aetna are Baby Boomers (so training seemed to reflect that groups experiences). Changes they made to appeal to a multi-generational mix of employees included more games, simulations, performance support tools, choices, stories as objectives, and the use of Thiagi Group’s Four-Door approach to e-learning (registration required). See Blair’s tips for designing their courses with multiple generations in mind at the end of the article.

And another take on generational issues comes from Sarah White who surveyed ( I can’t see the sample size and suspect it’s just an informal survey) 26-30 year olds in healthcare, manufacturing, consulting, and they service industry (small business and mid size) and concluded

“1/3 of the boomers seem to be checked out and coasting through until retirement, 1/3 seem to be putting in the effort and continuing on like they aren’t retiring in the next 10 years, and 1/3 seem to be clinging on to everything so tightly they will never retire because it may give one of those snotty nose Gen Y’ers a chance to succeed.”

This is accurate based on my own experience. White says Gen Y’ers should “approach the boomers differently so you don’t come off like a know it all.” I imagine hope this is a “how to” for dealing with coasters or cling-ons. (I’m pretty sure they’re not reading this so I’m OK picking on them). I’m a “continuing on” boomer. A digitally mature snotty nose boomer who thinks Aetna’s design practices are just good sound instructional design.

I have been watching an unhealthy amount of Law & Order lately. You know it’s at an unhealthy level when you’re not sure if you’re watching the one you started watching originally or the next one,or the next one…

Yes, I know what you’re thinking. Either (1) what is Law & Order? Or (2) have you considered adding a tag “get a life?’” here on your blog. (I have. Numerous times.)

For those not familiar, Law & Order is a popular American drama TV series and series of spin-offs about the New York City criminal justice system. Fictional plots often mirror real life news. I believe there have been adaptations in other countries.

Because everything I see eventually ties to learning & training, I thought hey, this is actually work-related TV watching. Yes. I’m talking about Law & Order: Instructional Design Unit.

1. The voiceover – Law & Order starts with a voiceover. It puts everything in context. Applied to a compliance-type sexual harassment e-learning course it may go something like this: In our organization, sexual harassment is considered especially heinous. The dedicated human resource staff who investigates these vicious allegations are members of an elite squad known as compliance officers. These are their stories.
2. The hook: Law & Order dives right into the story; the problem. In an e-learning course, it may be a video or scenario that illustrates a particular allegation of sexual harassment.
3. The theme music: great for consistency among modules a common theme is great. It doesn’t have to be music. It also gives the learner time to get ready & comfortable for the activities that will follow. For me, the Law & Order theme music incites a Pavlovian-type response.
4. The characters: In Law & Order, you’ll see images of a semi-attractive man, a very attractive young woman, an unattractive older man, another very attractive young woman, various shots of investigations, another image of much older unattractive man, and another very attractive young woman! (content for another post!) It finishes with a group shot of all the characters we are about to meet in the stories. [In the e-learning course, I would not follow the Law & Order/American media practice of only using young attractive women. I’d go with a mix of real employees. Not always a pretty bunch but believable. (BTW, why would one investigate a gory crime scene in high heels and a white blouse?)
5. The stories : Here’s where we break it down. In Law & Order, you’re trying to figure out what’s happened with some assistance from the characters. This is action-oriented TV viewing. So in the course, we’re not just reading about “something’ and answering questions, we’re figuring out what led to the “problem” and, we’re solving the problem by being fed little bits and pieces.
6. The test: In Law & Order, this is where we figure out if we’ve done a good job in investigating. In our sexual harassment e-learning course example, this is where we can assess – formally or by ourselves.

If ADDIE doesn’t rock your world, try my Law & Order model. It’s an instructional design model that makes use of a successful TV show.

Implosion is a process in which objects are destroyed by collapsing in on themselves. The opposite of explosion, implosion concentrates matter and energy. An example of implosion is a submarine being crushed from the outside by the hydrostatic pressure of the surrounding water.

Another is my self-inflicted implosion (or self-inflicted implosion syndrome…because I’m sure there is a prescription drug in the US for it) of being crushed from the outside by the pressure of a perfect storm – moving a family, working full-time, and taking two graduate classes.

Um, hello? What were you thinking? (I know, I know, it’s all fully within my control). Big crybaby. Can you imagine living with this? My husband is a saint. Or insane. One of the two.

I recall my last “professional” perfect storm back when I was working in a training department. It involved a three-phase LMS implementation. While the LMS phase went off perfectly, I simply wasn’t ready for the LCMS (the second phase). It came along too quickly. When I was being trained on how to use the LCMS I was totally saturated with the stuff you think about when implementing an LMS – I could hear nothing, see nothing, understand nothing.

I am reminded of two things – Ruth Clark’s books on e-learning and building expertise (based on her cognitive research) and Karyn Romeis’ post How Does She Do It?. I have found Ruth’s strategies for avoiding overload as applied to instructional design valuable. (I grabbed these from Wikibooks since my books are packed somewhere in a sea of boxes).

• talk less and turn key learning points into brief reference notes
• do less and make learners do more
• chunk training appropriately and dispense it over time
• design workbook pages and computer-training screens so that they aid memory during practice
• design job aids to aid memory and transfer after training
• build automaticity
• provide “training wheels” for new learners
• detect and remedy while the training process is in session

Ruth Clark has also done work in the e-learning field. This is her DVEP model (Define, Visualize, Engage, and Package):

• Define – articulate business goals and the knowledge skills needed to achieve them, choose the instructional methods needed to achieve the stated learning objectives, and select the delivery media that best delivers the instructional methods identified.
• Visualize- select and/or design the various types of visuals that will best promote learning. (i.e., designers select visuals for learning functions, and not just because they look good).
• Engage – Design frequent, meaningful learner interactions with the content with frequent, job-related interactions.
• Package – Deal with technical issues, state any course objectives and assignments, establish a social presence, design working aids for handouts. (Done during the planning phases of design and linked to content, i.e. made relevant).

I recommend her books.

I have found KarynRomeis’ strategies for getting a lot accomplished in work and life equally valuable. (Karyn is a learning professional, wife, mother, blogger, and student). I am not nearly as together as she is but I think I’ll implement some of her strategies and a few more like hiring professional movers even though I’m only moving across town (the cartoon below reminds me of what I felt like moving my own stuff during our last move several weeks ago…).

Many of Karyn’s strategies can be applied to the workplace…I probably would’ve gotten more out of LCMS training I had delegated more, took advantage of conveniences, and taken a superficial approach to the LMS stuff that didn’t matter right then and saved it for a later time. And it would’ve been good if there had been a greater time lapse between system.

So it is possible to avoid personal and professional implosion. And, it’s possible to avoid putting your target audience in a state of information overload when designing instruction.

l