Every day there's less time and more to do. It's easy to take shortcuts...easy to get in a rut...easy to not think things through. And every day it takes more to be successful, too, so there's a real need to see things in a different way, and not settle for just "good enough." It reminds you that: if we always do what we've always done, we'll always get what we've always gotten.

From the top of my head, here are some examples of what may be contrary...but more correct for the our needs...thinking:

• Good smile sheets as feedback on training may be a reverse indication of how much is learned
• The best instructional designers may be the ones without degrees
• Things like learning styles and multiple intelligences aren't solidly substantiated by research
• Faster and cheaper isn't necessarily the right business target

Now, maybe some of these already make sense to you. You're savvy. Good for you. But if some of them have you wondering, let me continue in more detail.

Feedback

It's good to know how you do when you're a trainer or how the program is going when you're a training manager. And we've all known that we need more than smile sheets for some time. Here's a Training Magazine article from a couple years back that illustrates how in one company, the two trainers with the worst smile sheets have the highest training gains. http://bit.ly/4CZbJ5

Even though it can be next to impossible to get real business results, post-training, you can ask learners about how they've changed because of training. And more importantly you can ask their managers and make a comparison between the two reports. An example of this kind of surveying is in a previous post from this blog.

Instructional Designers

We have way too much e-reading and e-listening out there that's being called e-learning. So we need good IDs, no question. Cammy Bean has a great blog post from a session she facilitated at DevLearn 09, talking about IDs: http://bit.ly/8u1Nnw

For our part, here at w/, the framework that we expect our IDs to work within is what we call Natural Learning, meaning that courses should be designed around exploration, practice and feedback...allowing people to learn like they do everywhere else in their lives (okay...other than when they sit in front of PowerPoint presentations). For more on natural learning, there's another post on this blog.

Learning Styles

These theories always sound good. It would be nice to have easy answers for everything. A formula to follow...but it doesn't always work that way, does it? At DevLearn 09, I listened to Ruth Clark talking about a study that disproves learning styles. Ellen Behr also has a great blog post, with numerous supporting citations to debunk learning styles: http://bit.ly/6zNu9B

Faster and Cheaper

One of the things I want to do here is take aim at rapid e-learning tools. Yes, they can be used well...but most of time they're part of a broader approach of faster and cheaper. And I have one challenge to this: return on investment! If cheaper and faster puts your car in the ditch...is that really the target you want to shoot for? I mean...hello! When you put your other products together (and e-learning is a product) do you cut corners and then expect quality results? Heck no!

I had a conversation with a global training manager just the other day, who explained that when his company went from all instructor led training to a focus on e-learning they "went from one ditch to the other." Now they have so much rapid e-reading that people can't get to all of it. It's not focused, and it's not quality training. So, what do you think the results will be on their sales and field services? And if a year or two has passed as they drove their training program from one ditch to the other, what damage have they done to customer satisfaction or the top line results they might have had? When it comes down to it...faster and cheaper can be frighteningly expensive!

Conclusion

I started this post by saying that there's less time and more to do than ever before. That's true, and it's only going to get worse. So, business as usual isn't good enough anymore. Get out of the box! Don't take less time to sort things out, take more. Be strategic before you get tactical.

This post is a real departure from my usual selection of topics, but I think it's really important to help clients manage technical contacts and conversations.

We know that we depend on our clients to survive, of course. But sometimes I think we forget how much our clients depend on us. Case in point: a phone conference I was on the other day where the topic was making two different LMS products communicate with each other. I represented w/ and our product: simpleLMS (www.simplelms.com) and there were two technical contacts from the other company who were trying to communicate what they needed from our joint client.

The details on this project are a bit deep for most clients...but what do they need to know, really? They need to know the end result of how the two products will share information, how much it costs, and how long it will take. That's it.

The mistake the technical contacts made was thinking that the client needed to understand how their database was designed and how many variables were allowed, at which different levels of the product. In other words, they were getting the client involved in the design of the solution...and that's not the client's job. All the tech guys needed to know is what information from the learners' profiles needed to be shared between products and why (login, password, course completions and prerequisites). From that, they could come back with a simple proposal to make things work, without getting the client in way over her head.

Now, you clients out there...applause for how hard you work, but don't let the techies take over the show and drag you into more work, or more information, than you need to be involved in...

• In a preliminary conversation, tell your supplier what you want to accomplish
• Make sure they ask you enough questions, so that they really understand what you need
• Make sure they clearly explain what they will need from you, in order to be successful with your project
• Ask your supplier to create a scope document that outlines all of the above parameters, and have them include at least a preliminary budget and time table
• Now, review the document with support from other people who may be able to spot problems or additional opportunities and go to a final version of the scoping document with your supplier

That describes every popular video game on the market today. In fact, it describes every game ever made or played. And it's no accident, because it also describes life, and we design games as a reflection of how we experience life. That's why good games make for such compelling e-learning.

But as soon as I say that, it seems to me that I'm under-selling the product. I mean, game? It's not just a game. What we're talking about, really, is a mini-life experience!

More than that, we're providing the opportunity for people to experiment and make mistakes in a safe environment, so that they learn both obvious and very subtle ways to be more successful. You see? Game...just doesn't say all that!

Now...is it any wonder why people don't retain what they learn when we stand at the front of the room and talk though PowerPoint slides? Is it any wonder why reading, clicking next, and reading some more, is just short of fingernails on a blackboard, when it comes to learning? 

From day one, we've all interacted with our environment and learned...naturally, not by PowerPoint. And in a nutshell, that's why w/ continues to develop e-learning that more closely represents our natural habits of learning. Sometimes that means simple exploration, sometimes it's practicing skills within a simulation, and sometimes it means developing a game, er, I mean...mini-life experience. So, how do we go about that?

Well, to start, it's important to throw out two elements of the popular learning paradigm: pages and linearity. Throw them out. We can always go back and get them if we find they fit somewhere, but they're not a natural construct for learning. Certainly they offer a very incomplete construct for learning, do they? And while we're at it, throw out games like Concentration and Jeopardy, when used to simply develop a rote memorization of facts. Popular game shows aren't necessarily good models for e-learning.

Now, let's lay down some pretty obvious and sound guidelines: In general, learning is most successful when it's:

• Fun, challenging but not stressful, and relevant to other things that are important in our lives
• Purposeful (interpret this to mean driven by specific business expectations or desired outcomes
• Reflective of the skills we how we behave in real life, which includes having rules and being able to experiment, practice and make mistakes

There are a couple of other things that make learning more like real life: interacting within a group and being on the go. The first leads us to avatars, and social tools (blogs, wikis, online collaboration) while the second speaks to mobile learning. To be sure, there barriers to adoption for these tools, but because they imitate real life, they're destined to become part of real e-learning.

So what's the wrap-up here? The short answer is that your e-learning probably isn't compelling; probably has less impact than you want. But the great thing about that is, you don't have to be stuck there. You can start re-making your e-learning in a way that mimics life. Not linear, but exploratory...not reading, but practicing...not in isolation, but as part of a group.

After just a day of DevLearn 09, I've come away with some awesome new knowledge, contacts and ideas. But I've also developed an irritation. An irritation connected to some peoples' over-exuberance with what they call 3D learning.

There are a number of 3D solutions out there with little people running around little offices, conference rooms and events. And like all tools, I've seen them used effectively...and effectively misused. Sometimes all they amount to is 3D wrapping paper around simple, expository content.

At that point, the best you can say is the process is more exploratory and the user has more control. But you could also say that the 3D environment is so contrived that it's a distraction to learning.

Designers should always ask themselves what delivery method best contributes to their objective, which is different that starting out by saying, "Wouldn't it be cool if...?" For me, if you're going to incorporate 3D into your solution, you'd also better include one or more of the following:

• Appropriate practice of the skills it takes to succeed
• Game play, rules, consequences...whatever it takes make it really immersive
• Avatars that are real enough to truly humanize the learning experience

Professor Andrew McAfee (left) just finished his keynote Enterprise 2.0: The State of an Art at DevLearn 09. He emphasized that web 2.0 isn't something to miss out on and shared some convincing survey and case study results as proof (I promise to share more on these in a future blog post).

He also made the case for getting out of the way, if you're going to be successful with web 2.0. For instance, stop obsessing about the risks, and also, keep things simple. McAfee made a great point for not getting trapped in credentialism (despite the fact that he has five degrees) but rather, trusting in the wisdom of the crowd.

Now, let's take the next step forward, together...

In light of both McAfee's comments, and your own experience, please share with us what issues might have kept you from embracing web 2.0 in the past. The poll widget below is live, so you'll get immediate feedback on what others have been experiencing in their organizations.

Anyone responsible for developing e-learning probably knows about the eLearning Guild. Great people there...and they put on great meetings, too. The fall meeting, called DevLearn focuses on current and immerging development issues. Discussions will be both strategic and tactical, and there are lots of us gurus and experts who predictably collect into groups to share what's working and what's not.

The keynote presentations will get you thinking and there are more concurrent sessions available then you could ever hope to attend. It's three days of busy!

w/ will again be participating in DemoFest this year. This is where 30 different producers display one of their most interesting courses, demoing it everyone else that's there...kind of like one big, professional show and tell event!

If you're going to be at DevLearn this year, make sure to call my cell (612-669-4633) and let me take you to dinner on Wednesday night. We'll cover anything you want, related to serious games and immersive learning...and dinner is on me!

And if you can't make it to DevLearn, call me anyway, we can have a virtual dinner, at the very least. For dessert,  I'll show you the immersive simulation we did for BFGoodrich tires...the same one I'll be showing at DemoFest.