Does Subject Matter Expertise Help Instructional Design?

Well, like most things, it is both an advantage and a disadvantage.

Advantage, because if you have expertise in the content, you can focus on how to present it, rather than on understanding it. You will be more confident of creating innovative learning designs for the content. You will also be able to bring out nuances and insights that only come from content expertise.

Disadvantage, because if know a subject well, it will be difficult for you to imagine not knowing it. Since you yourself don't go through the process of understanding the content, you may not be able to visualize the learning process. It will hurt your ability to create an effective learning design.

Metaphors and Learning

Do metaphors aid understanding or hinder it? Well, metaphorically speaking, they can be a double-edged sword.

The point of a metaphor is to help us see things more clearly. For example, the phrase “time slips through our hands like sand” helps us connect something intangible and abstract, such as time, to a physical experience, such as sand trickling through our fingers.

Further, metaphors offer novel insights; they help generate creative thoughts.

On the flip side, metaphors can be traps if we end up taking them too literally; that is, if we read too much into the supposed likeness.

Sometimes they can also hide the parts of a phenomenon that don't fit into the ruling metaphor.

Thus metaphors can mislead us in two ways - by revealing what is not real or by hiding what is real.

Strive to Develop Automaticity in Learners

Automaticity can be defined as “the status of any knowledge or skill that has been used so many times that it can be activated from long-term memory and applied using minimal working memory resources.” (Clark, Nguyen & Sweller,   Efficiency in Learning: Evidence-Based Guidelines to Manage Cognitive Load, 2006).

Skills become automatic after repeated rehearsals of the activity. Multiple instances of performing a task helps learners develop automaticity with tasks and skills.

In other words, Drill and Practice actually works. In our world of “accelerated elearning” and “faster is better”, we often forget that it takes time, as many as two thousand times to actually “learn” to do something effectively and without thinking. So the next time you are wondering whether or not you should add a little extra practice time in your learning design…the answer is yes!

Source:
Kapp Notes (http://www.kaplaneduneering.com/kappnotes/)

.

Name It to Tame It

If a language provides a label for a complex concept, that could make it easier to think about the concept, because the mind can handle it as a single package when juggling a set of ideas, rather than having to keep each of its components in the air separately. It can also give a concept an additional label in long-term memory, making it more easily retrivable than ineffable concepts or those with more roundabout verbal descriptions.

- Steven Pinker, The Stuff of Thought

Excellently put by the author what I have always believed.

Also, this underlines the advantage of academic training which provides you with so many terms/concepts that are useful for understanding, remembering and analyzing ideas.

Instructional Design is about Adapting Instruction to Brain’s Ways

The Learning Circuits Blog from the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) asks “The Big Question” on a topic related to eLearning each month and invites replies from learning professionals.

The Big Question for July is:

Does the discussion of "how the brain learns" impact your elearning design?

My answer to that is an unequivocal yes. The eLearning design choices I make are definitely informed by my knowledge and experience of how the human brain learns. And I am sure this holds true for every eLearning designer.

Take the example of multimedia. eLearning is almost always designed with multimedia. This is obviously not done just for aesthetic or recreative reasons, but to support and improve learning. Research has shown that people learn better from words and pictures together than from either words or pictures alone. Multimedia enhances learning by stimulating multiple senses simultaneously. The Cue Summation Theory also states that learning increases as the number and types of cues increase.

Further, learning is enhanced when the instructional material provides or simulates real-life experience. This also is realized by making use of multimedia. Multimedia (such as 3D animations, video, graphics, etc.) removes the layers of abstraction and brings the instructional material closer to reality, thereby aiding the learning process.

Another learning theory that is relevant for eLearning design is the Cognitive Load Theory (John Sweller). The theory states that the capacity of our working memory to process information is limited. According to George Miller the working memory can hold only “seven plus or minus two chunks” of information. If the learner's working memory is bombarded with too much information, cognitive overload occurs, which hampers encoding of information and learning.

Once the learner is overloaded, frustration and demoralization inevitably set in. And people can’t learn when they’re frustrated and demoralized. One key to teaching, then, is to avoid overloading the learner’s working memory.

- Ruth C Clark and D. Taylor, The causes and cures of learner overload, Training, 1994

What implication does the Cognitive Load Theory have for eLearning design? We always design eLearning objects with small chunks of content in order to prevent cognitive overload. We also often use the “progressive disclosure” or “layered” design technique to present the content, so that the learner does not have to process a lot of information at a time.

Further, we know from experience that it is difficult to learn if one has to read text and listen to audio at the same time, as it causes cognitive overload. Therefore we design eLearning instruction keeping in mind such propensities of the human brain.

I can provide more examples, but I think the point is made. That instructional design is about adapting the instruction to brain’s ways. Ruth Clark is spot on in suggesting that Instructional Technology practitioners must incorporate an understanding of how cognitive and memory systems work during the learning process.

Conversation Matters

On the Linkedin Q&A channel, someone posed a question: How do you learn? My answer was as follows:

Nothing works better for me than conversations - face-to-face or online. They work wonders for both comprehension and retention.

Talking about the value of conversation in the learning process, learning expert Jay Cross said:

Conversation is easily the most important learning technology ever invented.

Conversation also breeds and crystallizes ideas. Charles Dudley Warner, an American novelist, wrote:

The chief effect of talk on any subject is to strengthen one's own opinions, and, in fact, one never knows exactly what he does believe until he is warmed into conviction by the heat of attack and defence.

The Cutting Edge of eLearning

To have an overview of the current debate and innovation in the field of eLearning, I would make a distinction between the area of eLearning design and that of eLearning delivery and deployment, even though the two areas significantly influence each other.

In the area of design, eLearning designers are now increasingly using media such as video and 3D animations to create authentic, life-like learning experiences, called immersive learning. They are also becoming more conversant with designing learning games.

In the area of eLearning delivery and deployment, I think the following four technologies represent the state of the art:

• Social learning (Informal learning; Learning 2.0)
• Mobile learning
• Embedded learning (learning embedded within applications, EPSS, job aids, process documentation, or reference)
• Context-aware learning

It is to be noted that the above categories do overlap; for example, mobile learning or embedded learning can also be context-aware.

Is eLearning 2.0 Going to Replace eLearning 1.0?

Definitely not.

eLearning 1.0 (WBT/CBT) and eLearning 2.0 (social/informal learning) are two different solutions for two different workplace learning requirements. The former addresses specific performance-based learning objectives, whereas the latter caters to broad, unspecified learning needs. Although eLearning 2.0 has become crucial in the constantly-changing knowledge environment of today, it is certainly not going to replace either synchronous training (ILT) or asynchronous training (eLearning 1.0). There will always be certain learning needs in the workplace that would be best met through training interventions.


In a recent blog post Kevin Jones described training and social learning as subsets of a broader category, namely, workplace learning. Each of these subsets has a unique and irreplaceable role. Kevin's post has a nice graphic too.

As I see it, eLearning is a subset of Training is a subset of Learning is a subset of Performance Improvement is a means to the end: Accomplishing goals – in this case business goals, but more often personal goals.

There are many ways to learn. Training is one way. Whether that be eLearning or ILT (instructor led training). Other ways? Social learning (of course), job aids, experiential discovery, mentoring and a thousand other subtle ways.

Trendy Terms

Time for some trivia. I present here the people who coined some of the most widely-used terms in the fields of information technology, eLearning, and knowledge management.

Tim O'Reilly	Web 2.0
Stephen Downes	eLearning 2.0
Andrew McAfee	Enterprise 2.0
Jay Cross	Informal Learning
George Siemens (along with Stephen Downes)	Connectivism

Value of Questions

No… this post is not about the question of values, just in case you are reading this post sleepy-eyed, but about the value of questions for knowledge creation.

As I was scrolling through the earlier posts in this and other blogs of mine, it dawned upon me that nothing springs my brain into an active mode better than an interesting question. Many of my blog posts were actually triggered by some thought-provoking question, posed online or offline.

...questions are the engine, the driving force behind thinking.

- Linda Elder and Richard Paul, The Foundation for Critical Thinking

I think question-answer forums and interviews are the two most effective tools for capturing tacit knowledge (or “knowledge harvesting”, if you like).

To give you an example, I tried so many times to find out which of the two expressions is correct - "a book titled..." or "a book entitled...", but never found an answer. I finally got the answer in a discussion board on the Internet. No book will give you this information - you can get it only in a question-answer format.

Another point worth noting here is that it is the way a question is framed, and not just the intention of the question, that determines whether it will get your neurons firing and elicit a good answer.

If, for example, someone asks you what (not who) is dearest to you, chances are that you will not be able to decide. But if the same question is posed as “What would you grab, if you could, if your house was on fire?”, most people would be able to give an exact answer.

Apin Talisayon, an online friend from the Philippines, has written an excellent post on the value of questions.

Technology is Game Changer

I have always considered technology to be the most potent agent of change in various fields of human affairs - administration, communication, entertainment, learning, etc.

Answering a question about the impact of technology on learning at Linkedin, I wrote:

I disagree with the suggestions that technology is just a tool that aids learning, and that learning would always primarily consist in teacher-student interaction in classrooms.

That is of course true for children’s education, but, hey, children’s education is not just about learning; that is about the broader process of socialization.

I am a big believer in the impact of technology on learning or, for that matter, on most arenas of human affairs. When the technology of 'writing’ was developed in the remote past, it revolutionized not only learning but the whole human civilization. The arrival of calculators rendered rote learning of number tables unnecessary and anachronistic. I have no doubt that computer and web 2.0 technologies are going to completely transform learning, especially adult learning.

As I was reading George Siemens’ article on Connectivism, I realized that many of the processes previously handled by our brain (such as memorizing, number crunching, data analysis) can now be outsourced to, or supported by, technology. Thus, in George Siemens' words, “Technology is altering (rewiring) our brains.”

Isn’t it revolutionary?

Education-Training Distinction

Learning objectives are something I first encountered when I entered the world of corporate training. During my academic life I never learned anything carrying the 'GPS navigator' of learning objectives. But in the world of corporate training, everything starts and ends with learning objectives.

As I was reading a blog post of Supriyo Chaudhuri, an online friend, it dawned upon me that actually it is learning objectives that distinguish training from education.

Supriyo's post posits this distinction, though without bringing in the phrase ‘learning objectives’:

…in my mind, education still remains distinctly different from training. Education is about broadening the perspective and preparing the learner with a wide variety of knowledge, so that s/he is prepared to meet the world half way and with an engaged mind. Training, on the other hand, needs to be narrower and deeper, focused on a specific skill, based on the assumption of certainty - we know what's needed - and the learner, in the end, should be equipped to carry out the specific task/ role that the trainer had in mind.

There are obvious overlaps. Like Management Education, where the whole thing revolves around an assumption of certainty of knowing what's needed. On the other end, this whole discipline of Leadership Training, which I am trying to get involved into, aims to prepare the learners with the uncertain, the unknown and the fuzzy.

In short, in another blogger's words, 'training' should ideally be aimed at immediate, performance-based use, while 'education' more broadly and abstractly is aimed at some unspecified future use. Yet another blogger says, "Training is outward performance focussed with measurable outcome and immediate applicability."

An old post by Harold Jarche also brought out this difference. He said that informal learning, facilitated by Web 2.0 tools, follows the educational approach, which is distinct from the training approach. These two approaches are complimentary, and both are required in today's work environment.

Blogs, wikis, aggregators, social networking software, etc. are great tools for informal learning. They help in the creation of personal knowledge repositories and communities of practice. They enhance "learning", in the social-constructivist sense that I always believed our education system should. Given their decentralized nature, these informal learning technologies do not provide the kind of data that a formal system, like an LMS or performance management system, would give.


I think that one of the problems with our education system is that there is too much of a focus on getting quantitive data, like testing. These functions are more suited to a "training" system, where the performance requirements are clear, measurable and observable. In education, the performance requirements are fuzzy. There is nothing wrong with either a training focus or an education focus; each one has its merits. The problem is when you try to mix the two. The arguments that I hear over testing or the adoption of blogs in the classroom seem to be the result of mixing a training systems design approach with a general educational approach. Water and oil.


If your organisation, be it a school or a company, has clear performance expectations, then you should use proven performance technologies, such as drill & feedback, performance support, or a wide variety of other interventions. On the other hand, if your objectives are educational in the broad sense, then forget about testing and controlling, and allow learners to explore and construct their own knowledge.


Informal learning, facilitated by the likes of blogs & wikis, works well for general education, and for continued learning outside of the "classroom". Informal learning (education in the broadest sense) is messy by its very nature. Training, such as how to drive a car, can use a more scientific method to optimize training time, achieve the desired performance and reduce the risk of accidents. Training and education can even use the same tools, like simulations, but not the same approach. Education and training are complementary, but distinct.

Geetha Krishnan also had a good post on this distinction: Education versus Training

The Curse of Knowledge

The Curse of Knowledge... Lots of research in economics and psychology shows that when we know something, it becomes hard for us to imagine not knowing it. As a result, we become lousy communicators. Think of a lawyer who can’t give you a straight, comprehensible answer to a legal question. His vast knowledge and experience renders him unable to fathom how little you know. So when he talks to you, he talks in abstractions that you can’t follow. And we’re all like the lawyer in our own domain of expertise.

- Chip Heath and Dan Heath, authors of Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die, in an interview

Experts don’t know how they do what they do, by and large... expertise implies becoming so practiced that the process is inaccessible to conscious thought.

- Clark Quinn in a blog post

This is why experts (or SMEs) often do not make good trainers or instructional designers. They have a hard time putting themselves in the shoes of novice learners.

In training development, not knowing the content is actually an advantage because you have the "beginner's mind."

Are Organizational Learning and KM Converging?

Yes, organizational learning and knowledge management are indeed converging and getting integrated. Can you really distinguish between KM 2.0 and eLearning 2.0? Both have the same objective of creating an enabling environment for learning and knowledge sharing.

The University of Hong Kong recently launched a journal titled Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal "to publish latest and quality research articles in the multidisciplinary area of knowledge management and electronic learning". Further affirmation of convergence of the two disciplines.

What's Hot and What's Not

Many experts have expressed their views on the likely trends in the eLearning sphere in 2009. Following are the top three trends that emerge from their predictions:

• Web 2.0
• Mobile learning
• Educational games (sometimes called ‘serious games’)

KM and Organizational Learning

Nadejda Loumbeva posted the following question in Linkedin Answers:

What would be, according to you, the link and linkages between organisational learning and knowledge management?

My answer:
I see knowledge management as the platform and facilitator for organisational learning.

In the past organisational learning followed a top-down approach, that is, an expert would deliver a body of content to learners. The latter were more or less passive recipients of knowledge.

This model of organisational learning is hardly relevant and useful today when knowledge is getting updated at a very fast rate.

Therefore the ‘constructive’ model of learning is more useful in the organisational context today. According to this model, learners construct knowledge through active exploration and collaboration.

In this scenario, knowledge management (especially in its 2.0 avatar, that is, KM armed with Web 2.0 tools) has a much bigger role in facilitating organisational learning.

ROI of Training

The other day I commented on a blog post by Atul Rai on the topic of ROI of training:

A training program is aimed at achieving some business objectives, such as increase in sales, improvement in quality, etc. These business results, however, do not usually accrue from training alone. In most cases there are other contributors to these business results, for example, some financial incentive to workers, technology upgradation, changed market conditions, etc. Therefore it is difficult to calculate the contribution of training alone for the business results, and thus the ROI of training.

Atul Rai replied:

Quite agree with you Rakesh ... it is so difficult to isolate this, that the next step of measurement must be an exercise in futility.

Whither SCORM

It was way back in 2002 that I first heard about SCORM, as I got to attend a presentation on SCORM by an IIT academic. At that time SCORM was not widely-known among eLearning professionals in India. But before long it became a buzzword in the eLearning industry. Six years down the line, however, this eLearning standard seems to be going out of favor among eLearning experts. There is a growing opinion that the standard has failed to deliver on its promise of promoting collaboration and reuse in content development.

See some answers in response to a question from Mark Friedman on the future of SCORM at Linkedin Answers:

I believe that SCORM has to demonstrate the ability to achieve it's promise of content and media searching and finding that can produce training mashups from various sources. This was a big deal for SCORM in the beginning with the idea that "Training resources would be able to be reused"...

- Trevor Bollers

In my work, SCORM is already outdated. It was developed for the Federal Government 10 years ago. The individual sco's in the standard include both display and content. The purpose is to allow each SCORM compliant course or module to transfer tracking information no matter which LMS platform you are using. I work with multiple LMS systems and come across many problems with compatibility. It's not efficient to re-publish a course for every end user display platform.


To be truly useful today, a standard built around keeping content separate from display is needed. There are so many different devices to which we can deliver content. My suggestion is an XML component for the content and a display properties component. With that we can publish content with varying display properties, so that more learners can be reached.

- Jacqueline Monroe

In short, while SCORM does have its utility for ensuring interoperability (compatibility with any LMS), it has failed to promote reusability and collaboration.

Learning 2.0

I answered the following question about Learning 2.0 at Linkedin Answers:

How does Collaborative Learning support/extend existing formal learning? (Asked by Mark Friedman)

My answer (Incidentally Mark selected it as the best answer):

Mark, I am not sure if your question pertains to learning in school/university or learning in the workplace. I'd assume the latter for my answer. Lately I am myself deliberating on this issue: how useful are Web 2.0 collaboration tools in the context of workplace learning, especially in situations where the learning objectives are very specific. Though a sceptic earlier, I am becoming more and more convinced that collaboration can indeed support learning.


Workplace learning always has a performance focus. It is useful only if it is transferred to work. It is here that collaboration tools like discussion boards, blogs and wikis can play a very useful role. After training, when learners go back to their workplace and apply the newly-acquired knowledge and skills to their work, they may have queries, feedback, and comments that they would want to discuss with a subject matter expert or fellow learners. Such discussion may be relevant to other workers as well. Moreover, the comments and feedback from learners may trigger revision of the learning material. The potential of such collaboration for workplace learning is really high.

Pitfalls of Crowdsourcing

Following the Crowd - This article in The Economist brings out the pros and cons of Crowdsourcing quite well. While the potential of Crowdsourcing is well-known, thanks to Wikipedia, the pitfalls may not be so clear:

In fact, as the idea spreads, its limitations are becoming apparent. Once the initial excitement fades, some firms are realising that crowdsourcing can be more expensive than doing things themselves. Ask the internet crowds for a new product design, for example, and you may find that submissions have also been sent to rival firms, or have been stolen from elsewhere. Checking that submissions do not infringe copyright can be a nightmare; simply designing things in-house can be the cheaper and safer option.

There are other reasons why crowdsourcing and commerce make uneasy bedfellows. Most crowdsourcing projects rely on volunteers, and people are much less willing to volunteer if they feel someone else is profiting from their hard work. Wikipedia’s success may have much to do with the fact that it is run by a non-profit organisation. A commercial version of it would probably have to find a way to reward contributors.