I admit, I’m a rebel with a cause. I want to see us, administrators, learning designers and learners, contribute more to the future.
I’m tired of assignments that are created six months before the learner is even known; a one-size-fits-all approach, in a world that implores us to nurture the individual. I do not accept the norms that dictate students complete a 5,000 word academic assignment that bears no relationship to the real-world experiences – unless, that is, the learners is to become an academic! I resist examinations that “test” simple knowledge when the learning/task domain is complex; this is just not good enough and goes against everything we know about adult learning. So why do “we” do it? Why do we treat adults, with their concept of self and existing experiences, in the same way we would a child? Why? Why? Why? The future starts with us, the learning designers – you might have guessed, I don’t see myself as someone who “lectures.”
Picture yourself in the learning space provided for your students today. Now, for those of you old enough, close your eyes and push your mind back twenty-five years. What does our future look like today? Has that much changed in the last 25 years – technology has moved on, but what about practice?
1985 and 2015 (inset)
This week Michael J Fox was given a pair of self-lacing trainers by Nike. For those of you who are not familiar with the story, Nike first imagined the self-lacing trainer for “Back to the Future II” in 1989 – Marty McFly (Michael J Fox) travels to October 21st 2015 and one of the “innovations” he sees is a Nike hightop trainer that laces itself when a foot is placed in it. In 1989 Nike had a vision for the future that tickled our imaginations. What we didn’t realise is that Nike would deliver on this vision for the future. On October 21st, 2015 (real world), Nike delivered Michael J Fox the first “real” self-lacing trainer – the product will go on general sale in 2016. Nike envisioned the future, gave us a glimpse of it, and then delivered it! Now, compare that with the picture of a university classroom in 1985 and a university classroom today.
From 1989 to 2015
We, learners and learning designers, are shaping the future. What is the shared vision? What will our actions create? What will we learn if all we ever did is what was done before? We love to talk, us academics, but words can lie, where as actions tell the truth.
I’m a rebel with a cause and I dream of fully immersive simulations – the Holodeck will be the “norm.” What about you?
Found via Google search for non-commercial use images
This year I have taken a cognitive science led approach to Learning Design for MBA students; the intention being to use a “marginal gains” approach to improve student satisfaction and learning attainment.
As part of this approach I have moved away from the use of PowerPoint during lectures, preferring to increase the complexity of learning through the use of story-telling platforms (Atavist), infographics (Visme), key images (models etc.), video, role play and a whole other other host of PowerPoint alternatives.
Here’s the problem, students are customers and they want PowerPoint! They want the slides before hand; they don’t want to read the original articles/texts and instead want the key learning points in digest format; and, contrary to popular belief, in general, self-directedness doesn’t apply to them. This is not the experience of one cohort or one University. My opinion has been formed from working in post graduate environments in Russell Group and teaching-led Universities in the UK. I also want to stress that this is not about all students, but it is about the majority of students I work with.
Everything I know about learning design points away from the use of PowerPoint as the primary learning tool. I practice adult learning theory and have explained “why” this is so, “how” it relates to real world practice (e.g. learning to learn and practice in the context of MBA concepts in the workplace etc.). However, this is alien to many students and often leads to a high level of discomfort. The following are quotes taken from formative post-grad learning blogs (note the strong language in the first quote, where my explanation of why I use PowerPoint in moderation is taken as an attack on the format):
“Attacking Powerpoint makes me think of the Harvard Business Review Article Bright Shiny Objects. There’s a danger we jump to the conclusion Powerpoint is bad and not address the route cause of why it’s perceived not to work.”
“With regard to learning I don’t think the problem is Powerpoint at all; it’s the way in which Powerpoint is used.”
“I LIKE POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS OK! What is so wrong with them? I need to have all the facts and I need to be able to write them all down to reflect on later.”
Such feedback does need to be considered carefully against that from other learners on the same module:
“I thought David’s approach to learning was quite refreshing and there is most definitely value in conducting different exercises to assist us in the recollection and storage of key information.”
“I did enjoy our first session with David, it was refreshing to be able to move around and the material came to life, which really helped to cement it in my mind.”
“I was relieved to be experiencing an engaging, interactive and energetic learning experience and that I would not be battling with 3’0’clock slump!”
“I have attended lectures and courses…before, however, within this session I found I was able to absorb more information and fully identify with the concepts with ease in relation to applying theory to the practical day to day tasks of my working environment.”
I see my role to be that of a learning facilitator, but, as with the vast majority of those of you who will read this blog, I am governed by student satisfaction and end of module surveys. I’m fighting to find a balance for all students, and I have provided slide decks to support the student experience away form the face-to-face engagement. However, the expectation remains that I will “present” the slide deck in lectures.
I asked one of my students this week, “how do we learn if all we do is what we have always done?” But the question is also, do learners in HEIs really care? Is it more about the customer experience and meeting customer expectation, as opposed to developing holistic learning journeys?
As learning designers we need safe spaces through which to experiment and demonstrate the value of “learning-to-learn” to the adult learner. This can be difficult to achieve in a customer-centric environment, where performance is judged through the use of a 5-point Likert scale happy sheet.
Having learning designers create a controlled dive into discomfort, taking a learner out of their comfort zone, is a valuable experience for the learner and develops key skills in relation to personal agility/resilience in today’s complex world. So, as learning designers/facilitators, are we creating experiences for customers, learners or both? Regardless, how do we manage expectation to ensure that “satisfaction” and therefore perceived “performance” is fairly reported. After all, surely it has to be about the quality of service (the evolution of competence to competency and capability) and not just a piece of paper presented at the end of a course.
Found via “labeled for reuse” search on Google – Flickr hosted
Those in academia are all the same, one lovely glob of “vanilla” talent! It’s true, just look at your workload model.
There is no need to account for individual differences between institutions; we are the same, that’s why we copy, benchmark and harmonise the way in which we work.
There is no need to adapt to individual needs; the best approach is a one-size-fits-all approach, especially in a world where lecturers are being called upon to deliver just-in-time personal learning experiences.
We all work in the same way, deliver the same amount of value to students, the Institution and society as a whole, and so we should all model our workloads in the same way.
The world within Universities exist is stagnant and therefore and there is never a need to revisit the way in which they model the way in which people work – just look at other Institutions, they don’t so why should yours.
Talent is two dimensional, just ask HR: it’s all about competence and competency. Capability? Why do we need that? Look at other Institutions, they’re not talking about capability, so why should we?
Talent develops itself. Academics are self-directed learners. So, why on Earth would they need to be developed?
One lovely glob of gooey vanilla talent! Just look at the workload model 😉
idealskunkworks 
You must be logged in to post a comment.