An ah-ha moment -- Learning Theories

I'm taking an introduction to sociology class at the moment, and in yesterday's class I had one of those ah-ha moments. Back when I was studying learning theories (as part of the Master of Arts in Distributed Learning program) I had a hard time grasping the relationship between the different theories. I was trying to analyze learning theories as a "natural scientist" rather than a "social scientist". With a background in computer science and physics, I suppose that isn't too surprising ... however, a paradigms shift was definitely necessary for me to grasp learning theories.

In sociology class we are exploring the different ways in which socialists attempt to describe culture (specifically western culture). Each of the sociologists do their analysis using a different theoretical framework. It is within the confines of their frameworks that they are able to describe how people interact with the society. Reasons for a given behavior can be describe in many different ways, based upon the framework used for the description.

This concept also applies to learning theories. For example, behaviorist learning theory is not an attempt to describe absolutely how everyone learns: rather, it is an attempt to describe how learning occurs within the constraints of the framework. In the case of behaviorist learning theory, the constraint is the stimulus-response framework. The cognitive learning theories use the framework of the brain as an empty vessel, and learning is the process of filling the vessel. The constructivist learning theories use the framework of building learning through social interactions.

Each learning theory is an attempt to describe how learning occurs given the specific framework. Learning theories are not absolutes. As an educator, my job is to alter the frameworks as necessary to ensure that learning occurs.

Today, I got of my bike and said Hello

For the last several weeks, I have been riding my bike along the Ottawa river parkway at least twice a week. Each time I come to this one section, I observe with wonder the stone sculptures. I take a brief pause and watch the artist do his work.

Today, I choose to get off my bicycle and read the sign. The artist was standing near the sign adding some sculptures to the platform with the sign. I said "hello" and we had a delightful conversation. He has been creating these sculptures at this location for over 20 years. For the last 7 years, the National Capital Commission (NCC) has been contracting him to maintain the sculptures throughout the summer.

The main sculpture (the one to the right in the photos) is the signature sculpture. The sculpture appears on the information plaque. The artist mentioned that he is drawn to recreate that sculpture every year. One year, he consciously tried to not create it, but found himself constantly drawn back to that area. The center-piece has the same concept every year, but with slight modifications each time it is re-created. It will be interesting to compare next years with this years :).

The artist uses just stones to create the sculptures. The larger stones are balanced and "wedges" of smaller stones are used to ensure the balanced rocks stay in place. They are very easily disturbed. The artist commented that the seagulls will often knock over sculptures when they take off (landing is often down with enough elegance that the sculptures remain undisturbed, until the bird decides to depart).

Another passer-by asked the artist about what happens to the sculptures in the winter. The artist said that he allows them to go the way of Zen ... that is, back to nature, such that new creations can be built the next year.

Will rapid e-learning tools go the way of PowerPoint?

When the magic rapid e-learning tool comes out, will it suffer the same negative fate at PowerPoint? That is, will the tools be misused to create bad e-learning? Of course! It will just like PowerPoint, a tool that is often mis-used and abused. Making e-learning easy makes it so that anybody can create e-learning. It doesn't mean that anybody SHOULD make e-learning.

How do we get people and the various industries to understand that good e-learning is not as simple as the tools used to create it. When the cost of production goes down, more of the money should be transfered to effective design.

My view of the future is a lot more bad e-learning. I hate bad e-learning, it gives all e-learning a bad reputation. It is just like PowerPoint. Too many people create too much bad PowerPoint, such that the tool gets a bad rep. My prediction: E-learning made easy will make for more bad e-learning! How do we change the priority from rapid development, to well designed development?

How do we change the world such that people and organizations learn to appreciate the skill involved in designing good e-learning? Or will the speed always trump quality? When creating e-learning, we should be asking ourselves, "for this presentation, what's more important time-to-market or learning experience?".

Good and bad reasons for product training

Throughout my years as an instructional designer developing product training for software companies, I have seen both good and bad reasons for product training. It is often the case that the need for training is not clearly understood, but the desire to have something developed is. Here are my thoughts as to when you should and shouldn't develop product training.

Bad reason number 1: Inadequate product documentation
When the product documentation is not adequate, often there is a higher demand from customers for product training. Customers need to be trained on how to use the product because the documentation does not tell them what they need to know when they need to know it. Creating an excellent training program will not solve your customer's problems. A good training program will cause the lack of quality documentation to be emphasized, and will create less satisfied customers. The better solution to your program is to create better documentation. That is, documentation that meets customer requirements. Good documentation tells the customer more than how to do something, it tells the customer when and why to do it as well.

Bad reason number 2: The product is too complicated
If customers need training in order to understand how to use the product, you need to ask yourself if the product is too complicated. That is, is the interface not intuitive and user friendly? Again, developing training for a product that has a poor user interface is a bad investment. Your customers will be much happier if you spent the time and money on improving the interface design rather than creating fancy training packages to compensate for poor design.

Good reason number 1: Training is money
If your product is has an excellent user interface and good documentation, but your customer still want training (typically, they want to be shown concrete examples on to use the product and they want opportunities to play with the features in a safe environment), and they are willing to pay for the training, then this is an excellent opportunity to make some money. Profit is an excellent reason for developing product training!

Good reason number 2: To increase sales
Sometimes, increasing the product knowledge within your customer base increases the speed in which your product gets deployed into the field. When increased deployments equals increased sales, then providing training is a great pro-active way to speed up the process.

Really good reason number 3: A product marketing tool
One of the best reasons to develop a good product training program is that training is a product marketing tool. Training can help you gain product advocates at the working levels within your customer's organization. When the workers feel they can't do there jobs without your product, that translates into sales. So, a good training program is a good grass-roots marketing tool. That being said, a poor training program is NOT a marketing tool at all. So, you need to invest in the design and development of a good program when you are using training as a marketing tool.