Wrapping Up: Metacognitive Blog

Most of us have successfully made it to the end of this course (get better soon, Nettie!!), and oh what a ride it's been. As stressful as it's been this past month juggling work responsibilities, and 2 classes... I can honestly say that I have really enjoyed this class.

Thinking back over what I've learned this semester, I realize I've learned a lot. I actually have been able to understand a lot more of the information we went over in TSTM 444 because of this course. Through the project and other assignments in 544, I was able to apply the concepts in a way that was a little more rewarding. The application of the concepts and reflection I had time to do has made a huge difference in my understanding. I've come to realize that the whole instructional design process is backed by science. You can experiment and get different results, but for the most part, if you follow the steps you will get a quality product in the end. This realization is a product of the past month... as I remember thinking how ridiculous the process seemed when I learned of it last semester (just being honest...).

Another thing of note that I will take away from this course is an increased awareness of the many different options there are for delivering training. It's interesting to see the result of pairing psychology and learning, and coming up with a system that takes each into account.

Overall, the class has been very rewarding. From the assignments, my classmates, the professor, and the knowledge gained.. it's been well worth it!

Week 4: E-Learning Demo Derby

If you've read any of my latest blogs you've probably picked up on the fact that I've been pretty interested in the concept of using games or simulations in e-learning. This interest also extends into general multimedia to include interactive graphics and video content. Through the assignments in the class, we've heard about these concepts and maybe have even read some articles... but have yet to experience some of them.

I recently came across a blog called "Making Change: ideas for lively elearning" written by Cathy Moore. The blog contains some really good information and is worth a look. There was one post in particular that has been hanging out in my set of firefox tabs for days now... waiting for a time when I had time to dive into its links.

This post in particular is a list of links to e-learning samples on the web. It has the samples broken up into categories, and though there are a few dead links, the list is quite diverse.

I'll go over a few of the listings from the blog post here:

Laptop Ports Interactive
This is one of the samples that SuddenlySmart has on their website. SuddenlySmart is the developer of SmartBuilder - a flash authoring tool for creating effective and customized e-learning. This sample in particular is a tutorial on different ports on a laptop. There is an image of a laptop and you click on different ports to get information on that port. Pretty neat... and it might be something the intro to TSTM class could use.

The Mouse Party
This is an interactive learning tool on the University of Utah - Genetic Science Learning Center website. It is intended to educate visitors about the effects of drugs on the brain. The interface is pretty snazzy... it lets you explore to find out information.

Peter Packet
In this web based learning game from Cisco, you play the part of Peter Packet. The player completes missions (based on helping people in developing countries) while avoiding hackers and viruses. Though it's meant for a younger audience, I'll admit to having fun AND learning a few things while testing it out. :)

The Great Flu
This is a simulation in which you try and prevent a flu virus from becoming a worldwide pandemic. Who doesn't want to be the hero in a global health crisis? The graphics and concept of this game are of high quality, but I actually could not figure out what to do... and ended up losing the battle. I had to abandon the world once it reached "epidemic" level. Right about now I'm thinking it's probably a good thing I decided to drop the bio/healthcare major and go back to geek-related endeavors. I can handle computer viruses...

The Story of Stuff
Though it is not a game or simulation, what this website offers is equally impressive. The Story of Stuff is a extremely well put together video based learning tool that teaches about economics - focusing on production and consumption patterns. Very interesting.

These are some really good samples of what you can do with multimedia in learning systems. I only wish I had time to look at ALL of them! Guess the website will have to reside on my firefox tabs for just a bit longer...

Week 4: E-learning Anarchist or Trailblazer?

Before I started doing more research on the subject, my idea of e-learning was more of a standard blackboard-type format. Some discussion, some blogs, and other assignments thrown in there. I had seen other e-learning designs but never really thought much of it... until this course.

How did all of this come about? What was the evolution of e-learning? How did we end up where we are today, and what is to come in the future of e-learning?

It would take way more time than I have to answer these questions, but I've put pieces of that puzzle together over the course of this semester (the edges, maybe?) that will fall into place over time I'm sure.

While going through articles for the annotated bibliography, I saw aspects of e-learning that were really intriguing. I wrote about one of them previously - medical students using simulations in their training. It's fascinating really, and one of the articles I found most intriguing was one about Clark Aldrich and his career - his realization that what was going on with e-learning just wasn't cutting it, and what he decided to do about it. The article was titled, "Simulation insubordination: How simulation games are revolutionizing e-learning". I highly recommend reading it.

Week 3: Found on the Web

In doing research for assignments over the course of the semester, I have come across a ton of websites and articles that I was not able to use for the particular assignment, but nonetheless found interesting. As a result, my bookmarks list has grown considerably.

I'd like to share a few of these resources here.

The 10 commandments of e-learning - This is a blog post by Cathy Ellis that has a really good list of "commandments" for e-learning. While many of the resources I have come across seemed too scientific, her post contains information that is more "real world" and applicable.

Free and Open Source Movements - Part 1 and Open Source Content in Education - Part 2 - Part 1 of this two article series covers the history of the Open Source revolution. Part 2 focuses on the philosophy and history of Open Source and its use in Education. Quite an interesting read!

Games / Simulations / "Immersive Learning Simulations" - This is a blog post by Jenna Sweeney, the president of CramerSweeney instructional design. I particularly liked the end of the post where she points out:

When we think of games, we think of fun: Games = Fun
When we think of learning, we think of work: Learning = Work

Games show us this is wrong. In a word, games allow us to “fool” learners into learning. Under the right conditions, learning is biologically motivating and pleasurable for humans, and games can trigger deep learning.

The Learning Circuits Blog - "The Big Question" - Learning Circuits is an ASTD publication. In their blog, they feature a question of the month on topics for learning professionals. They have some interesting posts and responses to these questions.

Week 3: Games and Simulations... not just for kids anymore.

Last week, we turned in our annotated bibliographies. I had a hard time figuring out what topic I wanted to base mine on, but the more I dug into e-learning, I began to be drawn to the concept of games and simulations in e-learning.

While researching, it seemed there was a trend in e-learning that was a bit concerning. Much of the first generation of e-learning was just not cutting it. Whether it was due to poor design, lack of engagement, or a host of other issues... e-learning has experienced its share of "growing pains."

As I read about these issues, one thing became clear: the focus for what's to come in e-learning is definitely on a more learner centered, active approach. What was needed was something to keep the learner more engaged in the learning process, and something that might offer a more hands-on approach in order for the objectives to be applied to their jobs.

It seems that for many organizations, the answer (for now) is the use of games and simulations.

I tended to focus more on simulations in my annotated bibliography, simply because I find this part of the trend more intriguing. In an educational application, you have future medical professionals practicing their skills in a virtual world on virtual patients. In more business oriented applications of simulations there are examples of a hotel chain using a simulation to train new employees. When you look at all the examples of how simulations are being used, you can't help but be excited!

Week2: Goldilocks and the Target Population

As some of you may know, we are in the process of forming a student chapter of AITP at the University of South Carolina. We're nearing the home stretch now, and in August we will be starting the new semester with a new student organization for TSTM students - something the major has been lacking (since we all know that a TSTM student is one that is just too social to be a CS major!).

In going through the process of filling out applications, writing bylaws, and diplomatically deciding the roles for the 5 of us who are founding the chapter, I've often thought of the first Technology Professionals meeting I attended. I had always wanted to attend, but I had a scheduling conflict that did not allow it. This past semester, the meeting time just happened to be right after the ending time of a course I was taking in a room just down the hall. With the exception of nights I had entirely too much schoolwork to do, there was no reason to miss it! As an added bonus, we were able to earn extra credit for TSTM 444 for attending! This was a no brainer. As I settled in and took in my surroundings I had no idea what I was about to be in for... 2 hours of utter confusion with the requisite (as I've learned from other events with college students) free pizza meal. John Long gave, as far as I could tell, a very good presentation about the Erlang programming language. By the time the meeting was over, I felt like I didn't know anything about anything. It was as if all existing knowledge of anything had vanished due to the force of the effort I had just expended trying to "get" Erlang. I left feeling a bit defeated and lobotomized. In speaking to other students after the fact, I came to realize that I wasn't alone. They weren't as dramatic about it... but we agreed - we understood bits and pieces, but overall it was above our heads.

This wasn't the first time I've been in over my head (re: CHEM from my days as a BIO major)... and it certainly won't be the last. The only thing I have to remember is that when it comes to this type of situation, well, I'm average. For every time I've been in a course/meeting/seminar that is out of my reach, there's a course/meeting/seminar that has been below my level... with a few that are just right thrown in the mix.

As I type this, I am realizing just how relevant to Training Systems (and life!) the story of Goldilocks is...

I know it's a stretch, but just humor me.

...just replace the porridge, chair, and bed with different aspects of training sessions. And Goldilocks? Well, she's the target population or intended audience of the sessions. How do we as training professionals figure out what her needs are? How do we know what will and will not work for her?

Two words: Audience Analysis.

All of the front-end analysis tools are important, but I feel like without Audience Analysis... there's no point!

This is something I should have considered in a previous post when I asked my mother (via blog):

So I wonder - how do people (like my mom) who have been in the training industry for years feel about the technological advances we have made? Is the increase in analysis worth the almost instant availability of subject matter data?

In hindsight, posing this question through blogger was not the best option for my Mothers needs and experience. Ever since she popped up on facebook a couple of months ago (and proceeded give daily status updates and actively use all of the tools facebook has to offer)... well, lets just say I have had to re-evaluate Mom's technical skills and abilities. ;) Since I see her facebook accomplishment as no small technological feat, I assumed that the blog response wouldn't be much of a problem. This further supports the importance of Audience Analysis and the necessity of learning not what YOU think the audience is capable of, but what THEY believe they are capable of. To support this, here is my Mom's reply, which was e-mailed to me after a failed attempt at commenting on blogger:

One of the points I tried to make in my response was that things are just not as intuitive to us “older” learners so having to learn new applications takes a lot of my time...I wrote the comment and then when I tried to post it asked for a profile....I don’t know what that means and tried Google but it said I couldn't use that...tried another and lost my comment, retyped it and lost it again. What’s up with that?

So the overall lesson here is that it is too easy to just assume that you know what is suitable for your audience. You'll get lucky sometimes, but without completing an empirical audience analysis... you might be on the wrong track completely!

Week 2: We've been world wide webbed!

Technology is everywhere. It always has been. Even though these days we may not give something as commonplace as a light bulb a second thought, at one time it was considered a HUGE technological advance. Most of us wouldn't consider a light bulb "tech" in the current sense of the word, but if it were 1879 I'm sure we'd think differently. I couldn't even imagine what it would be like to rely on gas lamps as the only source of interior light. Then again, I am prone to bouts of extreme clumsiness... for everyone's sake it's good that I don't have to rely on a flaming fuel powered accident waiting to happen!

Much like Edison's light bulb in the 19th century, The past couple of centuries have also brought technological advances and inventions that have changed our world forever - the personal computer, hybrid car, microprocessors, cell phones, fuel cells, the artificial heart, the Internet - the list goes on and on. We rely on so many inventions from the past every day and rarely give any thought to how things used to be.

While reading the first section in the book, one paragraph in particular stuck out. On the subject of E-learning, the author made a point about how technology (and specifically the Internet) has changed instructional design.

Before multimedia was so common, subject matter experts (SME's) were relied on very heavily while developing courses. If a SME was not available, it was common to spend a huge amount of time at the library researching. Now, instructional designers have an enormous amount of information readily available on the web.

Not only has multimedia affected how instructional designers do their research and analysis - it has opened the door to many options for course delivery. Options for e-learning have created a whole new ball game for the training industry.

While reading this section, I originally thought that it made the trainers job a whole lot easier. Having all that information, readily available, indexed and searchable must have opened up a lot of time in their daily jobs. Having access to all of this data is nice, but what I failed to realize (until I read later sections of the book) is that more time must be spent doing technology analysis and media analysis. There is no doubt that multimedia has helped the industry make progress, but I guess it has also complicated the process of instructional design.

So I wonder - how do people (like my mom) who have been in the training industry for years feel about the technological advances we have made? Is the increase in analysis worth the almost instant availability of subject matter data?

This is definitely something I need to ask my mother about to see what her take is. Then again, she does have the link to this blog... and with the topic at hand being multimedia, it seems appropriate that I pose this question to her via blog. Mom - your take?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just for fun - links found this week on the topic of technology in instructional design and e-learning in general:

• Jenna Sweeney's Corporate Training and E-Learning Blog:
  Today's Instructional Designer
• E-Learning Guild's Learning Solutions Magazine (login required):
  The Next Generation of Instructional Designers
• Tony Karrer - E-Learning Technology:
  Business of Learning
• The Learning Circuits Blog asks it's readers what workplace training will look like in 10 years:
  The Big Question (note: lots of interesting replies to this one!)
• Jay Cross - Internet Time Blog:
  E-Learning is Not the Answer

Week 1: Accidental Learning

If Tuesday's class were a newspaper article and I had to give it a title, it would most likely be something like this: "Accidental Learning Runs Rampant: Students Unaware".

This "headline" is based on a conversation we had about one of the courses in the TSTM program - what we learned, and what we didn't (or so we thought...). One of the tasks for the day was to download and install Windows XP on a virtual machine in order to install the open source software for our upcoming training sessions. While we were supposed to wait for the ITS representative to walk us through it, many of us went ahead and installed it on our own. Those of us who had taken the advanced networking course had already done this once to create a server environment, and knew what to do. While explaining that we were already done with the install, the entire subject of discussion turned to this particular class and how many of us in the major do not feel like we learned anything about advanced networking. After listening to us talk about our experiences in the course, Dr. Keane asked something along the lines of "What did you learn in the course?". To which much of the class responded with an emphatic "Nothing!". She pointed out that we already knew what to do with the install - so we must have learned something...

...and this is when I learned that Dr. Keane has an uncanny ability to take the most banal conversations (like the ones students have while in class waiting on software to install), apply a training/learning objective, and throw it back at us as if she had put it in the lesson plan for the day. She has either mastered the art of mind control in order to produce conversation to which learning theories can be applied, or she's just THAT good . Considering the likelyhood of the former option, I'm guessing it's the latter. I thought it might have been a fluke, but this has happened multiple times in the past few weeks:
Step 1: banal conversation.
Step 2: application of learning philosophy by Dr. Keane.
Step 3: realization that it IS all connected - that our experiences really do reflect the theory.
Step 4: repeat step 1.

For the record, I AM IMPRESSED... and not just because she will most likely read this (haha!). There is something to be said for a professor that can align student experiences and the theories of their expertise together in a way that seems so down to earth and, well, relevant.

But I digress... Dr. Keane was pointing out that learning happens in unexpected ways, and much of what we learn is through self-directed learning. For the sake of this blog, I'd like to call it "Accidental Learning." During this exciting adventure we'll call "Laura goes to college a decade too late," I've noticed a trend to the contrary in the mindset of students. In general, they seem to believe that:
1. learning must be intentional, and/or
2. it is preferred that ideas are given rather than discovered.
When faced with the notion that knowledge might have been gained by a more natural process, students seem surprised.

I don't want to seem judgemental or age-ist... so I'll try and clarify this observation. I think the idea of "intentional learning" is simply a product of primary and secondary education. There are times that a more cognitive or constructivist approach is taken in primary and secondary education, but it rarely is the case (with the exception of the science realm). The majority of the knowledge is presented in a more structured way - common pedagogical methods that require endless lectures and memorization of facts without applying them to the bigger picture. Students are not often encouraged to take the initial exposure to information and explore to discover/gain more knowledge.

Not too long ago, a friend mentioned in frustration that most Americans know who won American Idol, but cannot tell you the name of the first president of the United States. A little while later, I came across an article on the Science Daily website titled Rote Memorization of Historical Facts Adds to Collective Cluelessness. The article makes the same point as my friend, and mentions that many students find history to be boring, resulting in the "collective cluelessness" described in the title. History is boring if all you are looking at is memorizing dates and events without exploring the context surrounding them.

When I was much younger, I HATED history. I couldn't remember the dates, and without context to make the events relevant - I was totally uninterested. I didn't enjoy history until I "experienced" it, until I found interest in the context of all the events that led to where we are today. I am now a reformed "history-hater". I didn't realize how much I loved history until returning from a trip to Rome 4 years ago. For three days I walked around Palatine Hill, The Forum, and the Colosseum with permanent goosebumps from being in the presence of the magnificent ruins there. I've always been a bit of an architecture freak, and I especially love buildings that are remnants of forgotten times/places. Every building has a story (a history!) and when I returned from Europe, I wanted to know what the stories of the structures in the forum were. It took me at least six months to post the pictures from my trip because every time I would start to sort and upload them I'd be distracted by another building or column that intrigued me. This always resulted in hours of internet research on roman history, and the history of that spot that I stood in months earlier.

It wasn't until I began to experience history first hand that I found it interesting. That is why a constructivist approach works so well - the knowledge affects you and becomes relevant. It is this relevance that allows you to learn, even if it is "accidental".

Week 1: In the Gray

The first day of class, we were asked what we thought "training" and "learning" meant. I found this exercise quite interesting. I wasn't quite sure why at the time, but after giving it some thought it came to me: this was not a black and white question... this was a question of that "gray" area of personal interpretation that is mostly ignored in a structured educational environment.

As students, we are accustomed to memorizing definitions of terms and regurgitating those definitions to make a grade. My experience in school has been that when asked what a concept means, personal opinions or interpretations have no place. The definition in the text is what is accepted, and that is that. This model of learning is good for factual knowledge, but what happens when you need to apply that knowledge? A memorized definition can only take you so far in life...

I believe that the true test of the knowledge we have gained comes when we have to define a concept in our own words, or apply those concepts. Being asked to give our own definitions of "training" and "learning" was an eye opening exercise - and one that helped me connect the dots between the definition and the concept.

In class, we were first asked what our idea of "training" was. I defined training as learning or acquiring new skills through various means. Examples of these means could be (but are not limited to) lecture, technology, activities, or exploration. Then we were asked what we thought "learning" was. This definition didn't come to me quite as quickly, but I decided that my idea of learning was absorbing the information gained during training, to be able to put the information to use.

After the exercise, I noticed that in my definitions for both concepts I used the other term. Since the word "learning" was used in the "training" definition and vice versa, I wonder...

...is there really such a huge difference between Training and Learning?

Like any good TSTM student would, I turned to the web for advice. There, I found a good bit of discussion on the topic - and many of the articles ask the same question: What is the difference?

An article from the Fast Company website, titled "Education vs. Training vs. Learning" makes some interesting points about the concepts, such as whether we would want a surgeon to be well educated or well trained. In the end, the author admits to using the terms interchangeably and suggests that the difference between them does not make for a productive argument.

Another opinion I found was on a blog called "Library Bites." The post was in response to another article, and her argument was valid. On training and learning, she thinks "Training gets done to you. Learning is something an individual does themselves." She maintains that the terms are indeed two separate concepts and adds something that I think is quote-worthy:

The best learning happens by self-discovery, when two very important elements are present. In order for anyone to truly learn, they must be

a) engaged in their own discovery process and
b) be motivated to learn.

and neither of these really require a "trainer." :)

After reading some articles and thinking about my definitions, where do I stand on the training versus learning argument? Well, the answer is... in the gray. The terms seem to have a cyclical relationship to each other, making them hard to define. However, I'll try anything once... so here's what I think:

1. Overall, I believe that "training" and "education" are closely related concepts. Their use depends on the context.
2. "Training" and "Education" are often (but not exclusively) the catalyst for "learning".

What do you think? Is learning dependent on training? Is it simply the by-product of training, or something that has to be cultivated?