(originally posted by Clark Quinn)Well, I really want to reply to Peter, but right now I've got a bee up my bonnet, and I want to vent (how's that for mixing my metaphors?). I'll get to Peter's comments in a moment...In recent work, I've reliably been coming up against a requirement for a pre-test. And I can't for the life of me figure out why, they're not using the data to do anything but compare it to the post-test! This didn't make any sense to me, so, I did a Google search to see what came up. In "Going Beyond Smile Sheets... How Do We Know If Training Is Effective?" by Jeanie McKay, NOVA Quality Communications, I came across this quote: [Level Two] To evaluate learning, each participant should be measured by quantitative means. A pre-test and post-test should be administered so that any learning that takes place gets attributed to the training program. Without a baseline for comparison of the as-is, you will never be able to reveal exactly how much knowledge has been obtained.Now I don't blame Jeanie here, I'm sure this is the received wisdom, but I want to suggest two reasons why this is ridiculous. First, from the learner's point of view, having to do a pre-test for content you're going to have to complete anyway is just cruel. Particularly if the test is long (in a particular case, it's 20 items). The *only* reason I can see to do this is if you use that information to drop out any content that the learner already knows. That would make sense, but it's not happening in this case, and probably in too many others.Second, it's misleading to claim that the pre-test is necessary to assess learning. In the first place, you should have done the work to justify that this training is needed, and know your audience, so you should have already established that they require this material. Then, you should design your post-test so that it adequately measures whether they know the material at the end. Consequently, it doesn't matter how well they knew it beforehand. It might make sense to justify the quality of the content, but even that's falacious. We expect improvement in pre-post test designs (this is forbidden in psychology as a mechanism to determine the effectiveness of an intervention, without a control group), so it doesn't really measure the quality of the content. Though it could be considered a benefit to the learning outcome, there are better ways to accomplish this. There is no value of the pre-test in these situations, and consequently it's cruel and unusual punishment for the learner and should be considered unlawful.OK, I feel better now, having gotten that off my chest. So, on to Peter's comments. I agree that we want rich content, but if we have the current redundancy to address all learners, we risk being boring to all to make sure everyone's learning style is covered. We *could* provide navigation support through the different components of content to allow learners to choose their own path (and I have). That works fine with empowered learners, but that currently characterizes no more than about half the population. The rest want hand-holding (and that's what we did), but that leaves the redundancy.Which, frankly, is better than most content (although UNext had/has a similar scheme). However, I'm suggesting that we optimize the learning to the learner. I'm not arguing to assess their cultural identity, but to understand the full set of capabilities they bring to bear as a learner (my cultural point is that we're better off understanding them as individuals, not using a broad cultural stereotype to assume we understand them). That is, for some we might start with an example, rather than the 'rule' or 'concept'. For some we might even start with practice. We might also present some with stories, others with comic strips or videos. Morever, we drop out bits and pieces. A rallying cry: Use what we know to choose what to show. Yes, additional steps in content development are required to do this (see my IFETS paper), but the argument is that the payoff is huge...The assessment is indeed a significant task, but in a long-term relationship with the learner, we can do something particularly valuable. If we know what their strengths and weaknesses are, as a learner, we can use the former to accelerate their learning, and we can also take time and address the latter. A simple approach would be to present 'difficult' content with some support that, over time, would be internalized and improve the learner's capabilities. Improving the learner as a learner, now THAT's a worthwhile goal!I strongly support Peter's suggestion that using a rich world as a source for embedding (or extracting) learning to make it meaningful is ultimately valid, and the base of much of my work on making learning engaging. We may be agreeing furiously, except that I may not have made what I meant by learner assessment clear.In answer to Peter's query, I'm sad to report that we have not, and can not, publish on the 31 dimensions. I can only suggest the path we took: using Jonassen & Grabowski's Handbook of Individual Differences as an uncritical survey of potential candidates, as well as other likely suspects from any other source your research uncovers, then to make some sensible inferences to remove redundancies (much as the 'Big 5' personality factor work attempts to make sense of personality constructs). Make sure you cover the gamut of things that might influence learning, including cognitive, affective, and personality factors.

(originally posted by Peter Isackson)Curiously, Clark and I don't seem to know for certain whether we "furiously" agree or not. This seems rather typical of the whole learning business. I tend to agree with Clark that we do agree! The problem is that at different times we are probably referring to different phenomena. My suggestions were very general, pointing towards the overall strategy for handling a variety of content, which I see as process (transforming input into output). I also glanced at questions of content selection in the light of cultural variation. When we focus on specific content needs, particularly the "learning objects" we hope to find somewhere or need to produce ourselves, we are faced with these cultural problems, which, as Clark points out, constitute helps or hindrances depending on 1) the profile of the individual learner 2) the trainer's awareness or even real knowledge of that profile. I think a lot of work needs to be done on both at the same time. I don't believe we have any valid human models yet for dealing with this efficiently (i.e. converting information into effective strategy) and everyone else (i.e. the knowledge management specialists) seems to be focused on structuring the information. I believe that this is only the first step and may need some guidance from the strategy side to develop the right structural models.A new theme occurred to me today and I have no idea what it's worth or how far it can be taken, so for the sake of my own ongoing reflection I'll state it here (I need to set it down somewhere!) and await any constructive or, why not, destructive criticism. It is curiously linked to the bee in Clark's bonnet, but inverted (the stinger is on the other end!). The notion has to do with the teacher’s or trainer’s state of knowledge -- not the learner’s -- before and after a course. I am not, however, suggesting pre- and post-testing! I am suggesting that it should evolve, almost as much as the learner’s state of knowledge and that we should take an interest in tracking this evolution. The context I am referring to is that of collaborative online learning. This wouldn’t be the same thing for traditional face-to-face teaching (but see my final remarks below), and even less so for pre-programmed eLearning (which I see increasingly as isolated or modular learning objects, whose meaning and impact derive from the variable contexts in which they are used more than from their internal merits).My notion is that of a kind of open or "improvisational teaching", a strategy that specifically aims at learning to teach a particular course by teaching it, after defining its overall structure and logic. It proceeds from two observations:1) no one can fully anticipate what will happen in the learning process, particularly in distance learning,2) we do not necessarily know in advance what resources, among all that are available, will prove the most productive for real learners (in all their cultural variety).My notion of improvisation is borrowed from jazz, one of my previous occupations*. To be good at improvising, you have to learn not only the art of soloing (which you at least partly invent), but you must also know the chord changes (+ variations) of the tunes you are playing, the chosen style for each number, your precise role in the ensemble sections and, especially if you are accompanying rather than just soloing, have a good idea of the style and system of each of the other players. These multiple constraints nevertheless leave you free to discover through playing the things that work and don’t work both in general and specifically with regard to each type of musical event. The most interesting thing about working with other musicians is what you learn from them each time you rehearse or play. And of course the more you play a particular tune, the easier it gets to keep it going and to find ways of innovating and surprising without upsetting the underlying logic and the other musicians.In short, I’m in favor of under-planning one’s course strategies and leaving room to for us to learn from the learners themselves. Actually it’s less under-planning than avoiding over-planning. This means, without sacrificing one’s "authority", learning how to encourage the learners to bring things to you (discovery of appropriate resources you may not have been aware of, new ideas or ways of looking at the material, patterns or sequences of behavior that produce learning more effectively than your initial game plan). In other words, we should seek to be instructional co-designers rather than instructional designers.It might be said that what I’m describing is a form of beta testing. But its implications are very different. You beta test something that is fully designed down to the last detail. What I’m suggesting is a system in which we as trainers and designers are actively concerned, at least the first time around, to integrate elements that come from the learners, or rather our own interaction with the learners. This can obviously only apply to collaborative training. But it can lead to strategies for producing learning objects. Much needs to be said on how to conduct this approach (how to create the overall model, how to manage events, how to communicate with learners, how to react to embarrassing mistakes, how to make permanent or replicable everything one learns, etc.).After a brief search on the web, I found that David Hammer of the University of Maryland, in a context of traditional face-to-face instruction, calls a similar approach "discovery teaching" and identifies some of the areas of resistance to it by teachers. My contention is that it is less risky and more appropriate in an online environment. It is also easier to structure, plan and capitalize on.* I ended up living in Paris because, after participating in a free-for-all jam session organized by Steve Lacy at the American Center nearly 30 years ago, I was offered a permanent job as a pianist (accompanying dance classes at the Université de Paris) and accepted it in order to become fluent in French!

If you'd rather learn by doing instead of poring over weighty textbooks, you will like what we do with SimBLs™. We take one or more learning objectives, throw real life problems at you, and ask you to apply conceptual knowledge to solve them. Feedback on your performance is immediate, and connects your actions with their consequences. Involvement and interest is enhanced through interactive treatment coupled with rich contextual content. We have developed over 120 SimBLs™ developed over the past few years on topics as diverse as Negotiations in Healthcare to Operating in the Derivatives Market, we are confident that if you have a learning need we have a simulation for it. Enough said! if you want to be sure, check out our comprehensive catalog here, or if you first want to experience the real thing, click here.

We hope to see you at Training Fall 2005 which is being held at The Long Beach Convention Center (Long Beach, CA) between Oct 17 - 19! We are having a "Product Demo" at the "Simulations and E-Games Pavilion" on Oct 17th between 2:50 PM to 3:20 PM. This is at the special Simulations Pavilion in the main EXPO hall. We have an interesting session on Oct 18, from 4 pm - 5pm titled ""Taking Stock of Decentralized Training Content, Are You Teaching The Right Stuff? ". During this session we will explore how a major US airline partnered with Tata Interactive Systems to build a methodology and database that supports decision making and helps strategize the design and development of training.

Whenever we begin designing a learning solution, we get into a detailed analysis of the content (Merrill and Component Display Theory come in handy here, among other tools), define the instructional objectives (Bloom takes care of this for the most part), decide the instructional strategy (take your pick on this - scenario-based learning, problem-based learning, story-based learning, blended learning, micro learning objects, threaded discussions, to name but a few), and get into the creation of the learning product. Not for a moment am I arguing that these steps are not necessary. But the area I reckon a little more rigor would help is that of understanding the learner. While we do get at some level of target audience definition, either the definition is a little too general and broad (spread across the world, wide disparity in age, gender balance, diverse races, comfortable with computers, ambitious...) or we end up considering holistic personality definition tools (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument, Multiple Intelligences Theory...). May be we need to hit a little closer to home as well. Can we define the learner's personality vis-a-vis the learning content? Can we attempt a learner definition vis-a-vis the learning objectives? Can we analyze the learner's motivational congruence with the program goals? Can we define the learner's raison d'etre to learn this content? Can we put all these together and define the instructional challenge for the program? And then use that as the trigger to define the instructional design of the program? As I say this, my mind goes back to the world of consumer marketing and advertising. If you were to launch a new brand of soap, you would try to understand the consumer as a holistic individual, as a consumer of soap, and as a consumer of the brand proposition you want to put forth for your offering, wouldn't you? This composite understanding is what you would use to define the product and the corresponding marketing plan, isn't it? Inasmuch as advertising aims to educate the customer (albeit in a limited self-serving sense), training will do well to advertise itself to the learner. After all, we want the learner to be a willing participant in the learning process. S/he needs to be part of the team that defines the learning. And if that happens, the training program ends up being an advertisement for itself. And nothing can better than that to promote learning effectiveness. Thoughts, comments? (Geetha Krishnan heads Instructional Design at Tata Interactive Systems)

Wall Street Journal PSFK

I prefer a learning environment that provides me opportunties to: Assimilate content at my will. Listen to an expert on the topic. Watch an expert deal with the task in question (if the learning is problem-solving/task-oriented). Interact with an expert. Listen to anecdotes, stories, real experiences, and points of view related to the topic. Practice the task in a simulated environment (if the learning is problem-solving/task oriented). Practice the task in a real environment (if the learning is problem-solving/task oriented). Interact with others interested in or pursuing similar topics. Reflect on and analyze new learning in relation to existing and evolving knowledge constructs. Articulate my own interpretation and position on the topic. Continue building on the learning, both formally (research) and informally (reading in a non-linear manner, exchanging ideas, listening to others, etc.). What do you want as a learner? (Anil Mammen is a Senior Instructional Design Consultant at Tata Interactive Systems.)

Stephen Downes on E-learning 2.0, comprehending how we are changing the way we learn and what lies ahead in the field of e-learning.What happens when online learning ceases to be like a medium, and becomes more like a platform? What happens when online learning software ceases to be a type of content-consumption tool, where learning is "delivered," and becomes more like a content-authoring tool, where learning is created? The model of e-learning as being a type of content, produced by publishers, organized and structured into courses, and consumed by students, is turned on its head. Insofar as there is content, it is used rather than read— and is, in any case, more likely to be produced by students than courseware authors. And insofar as there is structure, it is more likely to resemble a language or a conversation rather than a book or a manual. The e-learning application, therefore, begins to look very much like a blogging tool. It represents one node in a web of content, connected to other nodes and content creation services used by other students. It becomes, not an institutional or corporate application, but a personal learning center, where content is reused and remixed according to the student's own needs and interests.This approach to learning means that learning content is created and distributed in a very different manner. Rather than being composed, organized and packaged, e-learning content is syndicated, much like a blog post or podcast. It is aggregated by students, using their own personal RSS reader or some similar application. From there, it is remixed and repurposed with the student's own individual application in mind, the finished product being fed forward to become fodder for some other student's reading and use. [. . .] As this trend progresses, we find ourselves in a world characterized by the phrase "ubiquitous computing." "Where virtual reality puts people inside a computer-generated world, ubiquitous computing forces the computer to live out here in the world with people" [26]. The "Father of ubiquitous computing," Mark Weiser, compares computing of the future to writing. "Today this technology is ubiquitous in industrialized countries. Not only do books, magazines and newspapers convey written information, but so do street signs, billboards, shop signs and even graffiti" [27]. In the world of learning, what this means is having learning available no matter what you are doing. Read the complete article here.

A student like Plato presupposes the presence of a teacher like Socrates—my non-elearning friend throws this at me as an unassailable argument in favor of the traditional learning methods. Closer home, examples of the efficacy of the guru-shishya (teacher-student) tradition abound. The Upanishads (literally meaning "sitting near the guru") and the Panchatantra (a collection of fables that elucidate issues such as ethics and strategy) have carried forward great wisdom through thousands of years. The biggest challenge of e-learning to me, therefore, seems to be cloning the teacher and transporting him/her around the world, to be delivered on the remote computers of the e-learning users. There has to be a way of replicating the intense give-and-take and personal focus of one-on-one teaching to hundreds or thousands of students at a time. The education side of e-learning seems to have cracked this challenge better than the corporate side. I’ve come across several well-written articles on how facilitators/instructors for online courses can adapt themselves to synchronous/asynchronous learning. Some of the useful links are: http://www.learningcircuits.org/2003/dec2003/hofmann.htm http://itdl.org/Journal/Oct_04/article04.htm http://www.internettime.com/itimegroup/people/guide.htm The third link traces the role of an online instructor from "Driver" to "Guru"! In the corporate world, however, there doesn’t seem to be any model of using on-line facilitators effectively. I wonder whether this is because e learning in companies usually has specific, short term learning goals or is it because it is tough to find "gurus" for all subject matters? What about "learning organizations", where learning is a continuous and collective process? While on this quest, it was inevitable that I stumbled on Peter Senge and his model. You can read more about this in: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/senge.htm I guess technologies such as blogs and wiki can support a team learning model. Any thoughts? (Priya Thiagarajan is a Senior Instructional Design consultant)

I know it sounds very "brave new world", but my forays into the world of Wiki (Hawaiian for "quick") and other social software have convinced me that something very brave and new is happening out there. In this world, phrases such as "new paradigm", "the Next Big Thing", "democracy in education", and "hypertext on steroids" abound. Of all the social software available, Wiki seems to have captured the imagination of a lot of people. A quick definition: Wiki is a piece of server software a software tool that allows users to freely create and edit hyperlinked Web pages using a web browser. Wiki implementations typically use a simple syntax for users to create new pages and cross links between pages on the fly. For more information, click here . Big companies such as Motorola and SAP are using TWiki (a Wiki based tool) to design chips and develop software collaboratively by large teams spread across the globe. To read more on TWiki and its many success stories, click here . I heard somewhere that the knowledge economy has ushered in the era of synthesis (of existing knowledge) as opposed to innovation (of something new and hitherto nonexistent). I guess synthesis presupposes the breakdown of knowledge class system of the teacher and the taught/expert and the novice. Wiki seems to be just the tool that would allow virtual communities around the world to synthesize and synergise new knowledge from an existing base. There’re a lot of thoughts on the economics, culture, and behavior of Wiki communities which make fascinating reading. For more information, check out the following URLs: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_12/ciffolilli/ http://kairosnews.org/node/3794?PHPSESSID=e3a378792d4a2d300d68469877a04325 So, does Wiki have a place in e-learning as we know it? The answer, according to an article by Eva Kaplan-Leiserson in Learning Circuits, is a resounding "yes". Read this article to learn how Wiki can be used in the e-learning sphere. For a non-user, I’m very excited. How about you? (Priya Thiagarajan is a Senior Instructional Design consultant)

Allison Rossett defines Performance Consulting in her book, First Things Fast, as: "Partnering with clients and customers to help them define and acheive their goals."  She further explains that this involves obtaining several perspectives on the performance problem, determining all drivers of and barriers to effective performance, and proposing a solution system that is based on what has been learned not what has typically been done.  I had the opportunity to study with Allison while obtaining my MA in Educational Technology from San Diego State University.  Her main stance was that we were providing business solutions to our clients, and that training isn't a silver bullet.  We need to study the performance situation thoroughly and use data to drive our decisions about the need for training and it's subsequent design.  We are also expected to design a solution system "the surround" that would ensure learning transfer and improve the performance of both the individual and the organization. Most credit Thomas Gilbert as being the Father of Performance Consulting.  His book entitled, Human Competence, was originally printed in 1978.  In it he proposes several theorims and two tools: The Behavior Engineering Model (BEM) and The Performance Matrix.  Consultants worldwide reference these tools with respect even as they modify them to fit today's world.  Carl Binder, a student of Thomas', has modified the BEM into what he calls The Six Boxes(TM).  Note that each box is numbered and should be considered in sequential order: 1. Expectations and Feedback2. Tools and Resources3. Consequences and Incentives4. Skills and Knowledge5. Capacity (selection and assignment)6. AttitudeAllison calls these drivers and barriers.  The first three relate to the organization / environment and the last three relate to the individual.  Note that the only barrier that can be removed via training is number 4 - Skills and Knowledge.  All others require different types of interventions (e.g. improved access to tools, alignment of incentives to performance goals, process redesign).  Unfortunately, many smart people rush to training and neglect the non-training interventions. By doing so, they diminsh the probability that training will improve performance in the long term.  Performance consulting is key if your aim is to link training expenditures to business results.  Do you agree?  Do you have an alternate perspective you would like to share?  Can you provide an example of when training might be the only intervention required? ( Dawn Papaila is Consultant - Instructional Design, with Tata Interactive Systems )

Jay has shared on his blogsite an unedited version of his Forward to Curt Bonk and Charlie Graham's new book, The Handbook of Blended Learning. Writing a forward to a book isn't that unusual or noteworthy (although I'm still awaiting an invitation to join that club), but it *is* a bit unusual to see that Jay has done so for a book on Blended Learning, since he has been a pretty vocal critic of the term/concept over the years. I found myself nodding my head in agreement on several of his "common sense" observations and stances (especially the one on 'This Old House' and on reading a bad book once, so giving up on reading entirely). Comments? (Jon Revelos is Consultant - Instructional Design with Tata Interactive Systems)

We are delighted to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Very Happy New Year! To have a look at some more images, please navigate to the photo albums section at the bottom of the left hand sidebar.

Each year, The Edge asks its members ("some of the most interesting minds in the world") to respond to a provocative question.  This year's question was: WHAT IS YOUR DANGEROUS IDEA? The history of science is replete with discoveries that were considered socially, morally, or emotionally dangerous in their time; the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions are the most obvious. What is your dangerous idea? An idea you think about (not necessarily one you originated) that is dangerous not because it is assumed to be false, but because it might be true? The responses are all worth a read, but the one that caught my attention (given TIS's area of focus, and the fact that I got my MS under him at The ILS @ NWU) was Roger Schank's. As is his habit, Roger's non-PC response hit the nail of the assignment squarely on the head: No More Teachers Dirty Looks (It was originally titled 'School Is Bad For Children' and in the following shorter format - perhaps all the attention he's been getting caused him to edit/expand his original answer?) School is bad for children Schools are structured today in much the same way as they have been for hundreds of years. Schools should simply cease to exist as we know them. The Government needs to get out of the education business and stop thinking it knows what children should know and then testing them constantly to see if they regurgitate whatever they have been spoon-fed. We need to stop producing a nation of stressed-out students who learn how to please the teacher instead of pleasing themselves. We need to produce adults who love learning, not adults who avoid all learning because it reminds them of the horrors of school. We need to stop thinking that all children need to learn the same stuff. We need to create adults who can think for themselves. Call school off. Turn them into apartments. - Roger Schank, Chief learning officer, Trump University Roger is a lightning rod (by his own design), often taking some pretty outrageous positions in order to prompt thought and discussion.  Perhaps this (espec the original title) is just another example of this technique, but the content of the message has some merit, I think. "Education/Training" (both at the K-12 and Corporate levels) has been blindly modeled on an outdated view of how we learn, and how scarce instructional resources/expertise is.  Too often, we take the lemming stance of "I went through the current school system and I turned out OK, so it can't be *that* broken!", and blindly ignore (forget?) just how painful and meaningless the majority of the time we spent in school actually was, academically.  So, we cheerfully send our kids (and employees) to experience a similar lock-step, one-size-fits-all experience. We need to not only open our eyes to this suboptimal pattern of behavior, but also open our minds in considering alternative approaches to teaching and learning, based on new research and advances in technology. Take into account that, based on our experiences and (yes) genetics, we are all different and unique, so instruction shouldn't be aimed at the "bump" in the middle of the normal distribution curve, but dynamically tailored to the individual (content and pace). Motivation, context, and failure are enormous drivers in comprehension and retention. (What's the difference between myosis and mytosis?  Anyone who's completed freshman Biology once knew. Now ask anyone who's played SimCity about the relationship between Industrial Tax Rates and municipal growth (something taught in High School Govt and Econ class). QED) Very little of what is valuable in life/work is based on explict knowledge of WHAT (which is the instructional foundation of our school systems and most corporate training programs - fact & figures, listening & memorization), but rather on implicit (tacit) knowledge of HOW (doing).  This "Learning by Telling vs. Learning by Doing" division is at the root of many of the shortcomings of our current instructional methods. Most testing and assessment, as currently practiced, is irrelevant and misleading.  Multiple-choice and True/False questions (which make up the vast majority of structured evaluation) say little to nothing about what we are (or *should* be) really interested in:can the learner actually DO something better now (compared to before). Most tests are simply artifacts of what is easy, quick, and inexpensive, when applied to the masses. To paraphrase from the opening to the 70's TV show, The Six-Million Dollar Man: We can rebuild it. We have the technology. We have the capability to make the world's learning systems better. Better than it was before. Better... stronger... faster." (Jon Revelos is Consultant - Instructional Design with Tata Interactive Systems)

I am happy to announce our acquisition of two companies - Tertia Edusoft AG in Switzerland and Tertia Edusoft GmbH in  Germany - from the Tertia Group, a leading provider of Human Resources Management solutions in Germany. Tertia Edusoft AG is the market leader in  Switzerland in the development of regulatory and compliance training solutions for the Banking, Financial Services, Insurance, Professional Services, Logistics and Telecom sectors. Tertia Edusoft GmbH’s core competence lies in designing management simulations, through their proprietary product line, TOPSIM - the no. 1 simulation product in  Germany. TOPSIM has been successfully implemented in business education and professional training for more than 20 years in German-speaking countries, and is currently being used by more than 1,000 customers. This is a significant step for us in our quest for global leadership in e-learning. These two companies provide us the impetus to pursue high growth opportunities in the European market. Now we can offer an even wider range of offerings to our customers worldwide. Tertia Edusoft GmbH’s TOPSIM range works in synergy with TIS’s strong global presence in the simulations segment. TIS has already developed a library of about 200 SimBLs™ (Simulation-based Learning Objects) on diverse topics - from Management and Accounting to Business Ethics and People Management  - that are being used by more than 60,000 students and 25,000 other licensees around the world. With the coming together of SimBLs™ and TOPSIM, we are now poised to become a world leader in simulations. -Sanjaya (Sanjaya Sharma is CEO, Tata Interactive Systems)

(Priya Thiagarajan shares her experience of conducting a functional induction training session at Tata Interactive Systems) I walk into the room. Six eager faces turn to look at me. They are newly hired writers, anticipating an three-hour overview of writing for Simulation-based Learning Objects (SimBLs®). I greet them and without another word, walk around the room, accessing a sample SimBL® in each of their computers. I then look around the room with a grin. "Here’s your task for the morning. Go through the SimBL® I have provided and deconstruct the design. Tell me what ID considerations and decisions have been taken while making this. You have two hours to do this," I tell them. And amidst shocked gasps, I walk out. All the new hires have English literature background and the SimBL® I have asked them to deconstruct is one on trading patterns, designed for management students. Have I given them too tough an assignment? Perhaps they are not ready yet to do such a high-level task? Perhaps I should’ve hung around to help them? I brush aside such "mother-hen" anxieties born out of years of writing instruction text and "Help" section. "Believe in the process!" I tell myself, putting my shaky new faith in "Exploratory Learning" and "Constructivist model" to test. I put my head around the door an hour later and am received by a chorus of distressed appeals: "We don’t know what to do!". Although my heart sinks, I step in and look around with mock sternness. "I can’t believe that you guys didn’t understand such a simple thing! Ok, tell me what the SimBL® is all about," I ask them. Little by little, aided by questions from me, the class constructs the learning objectives, structure, design considerations, rationale behind the interactivities, and concept taught in the SimBL®. "It worked! It worked!" the refrain jumps around like an excited child in my head. I look around the class with a grin that I can hardly conceal and say, "You guys have cracked it! What are you complaining about? Now, prepare a detailed report. I’ll be back in an hour." (That is my Behaviorist side showing up!) That was three weeks ago—I am now all set to meet another batch of new hires. I am looking forward to put them through the same grind. Oh yes, I'm not only a convert, but an evangelist of "Exploratory Learning" and "Constructivist Model" now. (Priya Thiagarajan is a Senior Instructional Design consultant)

The verdict seems to be out, well almost. Online games are serious business! And when it comes to helping students learn, that’s as serious as it gets.  In a fascinating article titled ‘The Classroom of Popular Culture’ in Harvard Education Letter, James Paul Gee serves up a potpourri of game folklore, learning styles, and a flippant analysis of the so-called US outsourcing crisis. Yet, he still manages to provide a compelling proposition: If teachers and administrators were to consider principles involved in designing video games and apply those same principles to the classroom teaching experience, then learning would be so much more stimulating. Maybe like playing a video game?!  For those of you who have been involved in designing the learning games developed by TIS over the years, reading the article might give a sense of déjà vu. Many of the principles that Paul talks about in his article (written in Dec 2005) seem to have been applied by our designers for around a decade now. For e.g. Game players needing to have strong identities Users need to be producers not just consumers of games Levels of difficulty Increasing competence through peer and expert advice  It must be said that James Paul Gee is neither a crusader for games (games or nothing) nor is he specifically talking about the online learning experience. What he suggests is that some of the underlying philosophy on which today’s video games are based could be applied to the classroom. If you extend that argument, games could also be used to supplement or further the online learning experience. And that is exactly the principle on which TIS operates when it comes to designing learning games - it is always a game within a course and not a game as a course.  I may not be able to link theory with fact and make a compelling case for this subject. But what I can tell you is this: If our High School teacher had followed up a lecture on angular velocity with a 15-min breakout session to play online snooker (maybe customized with controls to change mass/ radius), we may have learnt Physics differently. And possibly would have had fond memories of that high school teacher.Disagree? Possibly agree? Comments welcome.  I have mentioned many Learning Games in this piece. You can access some of these by clicking here. (Sanjay Easwar is Project Manager with Tata Interactive Systems)

What do Tom Cruise, Whoopi Goldberg, Walt Disney, Winston Churchill, and Alexander Graham Bell have in common?Learning disability. Learning disability is a life-long disorder that affects the manner in which individuals with average or above average intelligence select, retain, and express information. It reflects a difficulty in encoding and decoding information as it travels between the senses and the brain. Learning disabilities are also termed as ‘learning differences,’ based on the fact that certain individuals learn differently—they aren’t unable to learn, but respond best to ways of learning that are different from traditional teaching methods. Although several products are available for the identification and remediation of learning disabilities, most of these are either unable to sustain the progress of a disabled child or not aligned to government standards. To overcome this limitation, we develop end-to end solutions that screen and identify children with learning disabilities, and offer remedial action as well as a tracking system to monitor their progress. For a detailed overview of TIS’s involvement and solutions please click here . TIS’ products have not only been endorsed by names like Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) - US, Granada Learning, Nelson Thornes, and Steck Vaughn, but have also won international recognition by the way of prestigious awards including Best Product Award at British Educational Training and Technology (BETT) Show 2004, in the Special Needs category, for nferNELSON’s Dyscalculia Screener. In India, TIS mentors the Learning Disability Center at Sion Hospital—the only center in the State of Maharashtra, approved by the State Government to certify students with learning disabilities. Beyond the salaries and the stationery, we help the clinic with a hands-on approach—whether it’s by streamlining the day-to-day functioning or finding solutions to the scores of issues that crop up from time to time. We also share our reservoir of educational software, including the award-winning Jojo in Numberland, to help the children discover the joys of learning. Run for Learning Disability: On January 15, we are participating in the Standard Chartered Mumbai Marathon 2006. Leading the way is our Head of Japan Operations, Mr Tadashi Horiuchi (image on right) , who will run the Full Marathon. Tadashi is flying in to Mumbai from Tokyo especially for the event. He is one of more than 50 TISians who will take part in the marathon, in three categories - Full Marathon (42 km), Half Marathon (21 km) and the Dream Run (7 km), with our CEO, Mr Sanjaya Sharma himself being part of the TIS Dream Run team. We hope that our participation will reflect our commitment towards helping those with Learning Disabilities.

I was part of the TIS team that took part in the Mumbai Marathon 2006 yesterday (15-Jan-06). While the number of participants, with apparently more than 20,000 people running in the different categories, was overwhelming, what to me was even more amazing was the crowd. There were spectators on all sides, dressed for the occasion, craning necks to get a view of the predominantly amateur runners, and waving handmade placards, flags and the like. Some of them apparently even bought biscuits and water off their own money and provided these to the runners. What made these people wake up early on a Sunday morning, get on to the train or bus or whatever modes of transport they took (the roads were mostly closed for private vehicles, so that could have been an option for most of these folks), and stand in the middle of the hot roads, cheering people they don’t know from Adam? What’s it in for them? Is there a lesson we can learn from the marathon, from an e-learning perspective? We keep spending a lot of time and energy trying to build in the "what’s in it for me" element into the design of our products. Is there something here? Or am I just forcing connections where there are none? (Geetha Krishnan heads Instructional Design at Tata Interactive Systems)

(above:Tadashi Horiuchi, TIS's Head - Japan Operations with his wife at the Mumbai Marathon 2006) Click here to see a small video clip of TIS's Tadashi Horiuchi in action at the Mumbai Marathon 2006. To have a look at some more images, please navigate to the photo albums section at the bottom of the left hand sidebar.

Seth Godin makes an interesting point in "The problem with prototypes", when he says "your prototype has to be better than the finished product is going to be." This is something we come across quite often in our work, when we send in proposals and do a "quick" prototype of the final solution. And we seem to make exactly the same assumptions that Seth suggests we should not. "This is just the concept, so a quick scribble is enough." "Let’s do some rough designs; we can refine them later." May be that’s not such a smart idea after all. A good idea badly represented may not be too different from a bad idea. Of course, it’s tempting to argue that one may not have the time and resources to do a "better than final" prototype. But then, may be that’s a question of scope. May be we should pick up a smaller unit of learning and prototype it better. As I write this, it strikes me that in advertising, the layouts and designs we make for business pitches are probably far superior to what finally comes out in the media. Tailpiece: Quite often, the advertisements for a product are better than the product itself; so, if we go by Seth’s views, is the advertisement a prototype for the real product? (Geetha Krishnan heads Instructional Design at Tata Interactive Systems)

My brother works in Chennai in the South Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Tamil is the dominant language there and while business is conducted in English, Tamil is the language spoken otherwise, even at the workplace. Little wonder then, that the office attendant, the boy who served coffee to everyone and did most other menial jobs in the office, spoke in Tamil. One day, my brother noticed that boy sitting in a corner reading one of those books that claim to teach you English through your mother tongue (in this case, Tamil). My brother was surprised and asked the boy why he was trying to learn English. The boy replied (in Tamil, of course; translated here), "Sir, I have been noticing that many people have been resigning from the office in the last few months, and the new hires are mostly from outside of Tamil Nadu. Which means that I cannot speak with them in Tamil. So I am trying to learn some English so I can communicate effectively with them." Trendspotting? Or Adaptability? Have similar stories? Do write in. Could provide interesting insights for Training Needs Identification. (Geetha Krishnan heads Instructional Design at Tata Interactive Systems)

There’s something about buzzwords that I find irresistible, though they often only attempt to make the mediocre seem extraordinary. But once in a while, they help you discover real gems—like Extreme Programming (or XProgramming or just XP), a rage in the late nineties that I chanced upon. Invented by Kent Beck, XP turns conventional software development methodology on its head. At the heart of XP, however, is a set of very basic concepts:  Keep it simpleSimpler to say than to do, but XP manages it by never adding more functionality than is absolutely essential. Instead of using complex software tricks that save on hardware, XP uses simple software code that saves on human effort—the savings are well worth it. Go for Gold Make small releases rather than trying to go the whole hog. As every release is a complete product in itself, clients get a working product faster. Each subsequent release brings new features—as required—and improves on earlier features.  Takes two to tango Pair programming—or using two heads instead of one—seems like a ridiculous waste of time. But the productivity gains through design innovation, defect reduction, and rework minimization explain why XP is ultimately a lot more productive.  Test. Test. Test. Begin testing on day one—yes, that’s not a typo. This is what makes XP the most likely candidate to realize the software utopia of Zero-Defect Programs.  Expect the unexpected Your cheese will move—and your software design will change. As Beck explains in his new book, XP is designed to accommodate change—heck, XP welcomes change. XP is more than yet another lightweight methodology. It’s a way of looking at software development as a living organism that is continuously changing to adapt to market dynamics. Looking at our own TIS Demo Zone, it seems like a lot of what we did was XP, though not all of it was intentional. As we learnt during the development, there are no limits to customers’ demands—and no limits to XP’s capacity to meet them. And that is what XP is really all about. The author is Manager - Content at Tata Interactive Systems. A graduate from the Indian Institute of Technology - he can resist anything except a good programming challenge.

To say that effective learning happens only in an environment conducive to learning is to state the obvious. What exactly is this environment? Here are three types of environments that can affect the learning process:  1. The environment where the learner works (in the corporate context) Does this environment support a learning culture? Does it employ people who are open to learning new things and unlearning old things? Does it encourage intellectual interaction among its employees? Does it support positive skepticism-in the sense of not taking things for granted? 2. The environment which imparts learning (the media and the strategies employed to facilitate learning) Does the medium suit the learner and the content? Do instructional strategies engage the learner? How much power does the learner have in directing the course of learning? Is the depth of content pitched at the level of the learner’s expertise or lack of it? 3. The learner’s internal environment (in plain words, his/her mental state) Is the learner in a positive state of mind? Does the learner have any deep-rooted preconceptions about the nature of the content? Does he or she prefer the quiet corner of self-paced learning or the active sphere of collaborative learning? Learning designers don’t have much to do with the first environment-except, probably, develop platforms for informal learning and collaborative learning, or develop performance support systems and tools. However, a tool or a platform is one thing and the motivation to use it is another. As for the third type of environment, I’m not sure how much a learning program (especially, one that caters to a wide audience) can do to change a learner’s attitude to learning or cater to his/her unique learning styles. Also, I think, learning style is not a purely internal phenomenon; it is closely linked to the "styles" out there from which one can choose.  That limits an instructional designer’s influence to just the second type of environment (traces of which will spill over to the third type and influence it). Here again, we need to look closely at the question "How much power does the learner have in directing the course of learning?"  Perhaps, it’s time for us to redefine the way we approach instructional design.  (Anil Mammen is Senior Instructional Design Consultant with Tata Interactive Systems)