2012 Visual Thinking & Literacy Conference

In just a few weeks (March 17, 2012), the Visual Thinking & Literacy Conference takes place in Waterford, MI. Based on what some colleagues have told me about this organization’s previous events, I would definitely check it out if you’re in the area. From their website:

The 2012 Visual Thinking Conference is for anyone focused on visual approaches to thinking and communication. So whether you are a business leader giving presentations, a marketing manager designing websites and materials, or a grade school teacher looking for new ways to reach students, no other event offers you more of today’s solutions… and tomorrow’s vision.

I’m continuing to see the importance of visual thinking and problem-solving in instructional design (and everyday life), but if you still need convincing of the connection, notice that Matt Pierce, TechSmith’s manager of Customer Engagement and host of the Forge, is one of the facilitators.

Extra props to the organizers for including a pre- and post-conference happy hour.

HT: Koreen Olbrish

#LearningStyles Awareness Day – Catering to Interaction Preferences Instead

One of my team's mascots... I think it fits well in any discussion of learning styles.

First, it’s kind of intimidating to write about something that a lot of other really smart people are writing about — on the same day, even — and even more so because many great things have been published about learning styles recently that I couldn’t hope to touch in terms of thoroughness.

So I’m just going to share an experience from a workshop I gave recently to my local ASTD chapter, which largely covered choosing training/performance support modalities for different situations. I didn’t bring up learning styles, but when participants mentioned it — several times — I shared with them my opinions, which are that it’s entirely unfounded (okay, that part is far from just my opinion) pseudo-science that is being used to guide a lot of bad design and sell a lot of so-so authoring tools, and that humans are such overwhelmingly visual creatures that if we simply catered better to that one sense, we could improve the vast majority of our designs.

One of the participants countered that learners certainly had different preferences, though… for example, some generally want a full multimedia experience and some prefer to just read a help file and get back to their jobs, and didn’t that verify that there was something to the learning styles theories?

Well… no. I have observed the same phenomenon among learners, but my takeaway is that this is a preference for different kinds of interaction, and furthermore, that it can change with context. A learner may prefer a full course or immersive experience in most cases, but have different needs at different times. Consider these scenarios:

  • If it’s on a topic that the learner is already well versed in, he may just want to start by testing himself to find the gaps in his knowledge, so that he can skip the parts that would just bore him.
  • If the learner is new to the topic and interested in it, but is in the middle of a time-sensitive situation, he may prefer just skimming a help file to handle the situation at hand and come back for an A-to-Z course later.

The question is, if these learning preferences (based on type of interactivity) do exist, how to accommodate them… and especially when they could change not only from person to person, but from context to context? The best way I’ve found is to incorporate at least the spirit of Thiagi’s 4 Door Model… essentially, designing for different interactivity needs/preferences and allowing the learner to choose their own experiences. This seemed like a really labor-intensive process the first time I thought about it, but I’ve found that the most difficult thing about it is creating an interface that allows the learner to immediately understand that they’re being given options and what those options are (at least, if all interaction types are being presented in the same place). It seems to be wildly beyond learner expectations.

What do you think? Have you designed for interaction preferences? What were your results?

Becoming a Designer at #UTAOU

Some of the participants, learning the visual alphabet from Dave Gray

I’m going to make what I anticipate is a bold statement: If you’re reading this, you have little or no training in the process of design.

Don’t get me wrong. You may have a degree in instructional design. You may have participated in a number of workshops, webinars, and conference sessions on instructional design over the years. You may have read books on learning theory and taken courses to develop your proficiency with authoring software. But if you’ve read the same books, gone to the same workshops, and yes, even have the same degree that I have, you have learned few processes for working out creative solutions to problems.

And don’t feel bad… Frankly, until this last weekend, I hadn’t either. That’s not to say that you and I aren’t good designers, but I’ve now realized how much of that is probably due to natural talent and hard-won experience, rather than a full toolbelt of design techniques. The more I read books by and talk to designers in other fields, the more I realize that all of them, through their culture and/or formal education, do have these tools. They’ve learned them, developed them, continue to refine them. That isn’t really part of the education of most instructional designers, whether formal or informal.

But something happened this last weekend to change that. The first Up to All of Us, an unconference geared toward design in learning, technology, and society, took place in Sedona, AZ. Designers from several fields, primarily learning, gathered to think, sketch, play, learn, brainstorm, bodystorm, and design some wicked problems and even more wicked solutions. I’m happy to have helped create some new directions, but I’m even happier to have come away with some new ways to look at problems and start to creatively unravel them. I feel like I’m always telling our industry what it needs more of — in a sense, that’s how I choose the books for Well Read — but I hope this message comes across as a positive one. Because I’m learning more and more every day that what we need already exists; they just exist in different disciplines. We can learn those, adapt them, improve them for our use.

There’s so much to be shared from Up to All of Us, so I’m grateful that David Kelly has included it in his conference backchannel posts. And as resulting projects get launched and calls for help with projects go out, you will hear about every single one of them here, too.

Thank you to Aaron Silvers for conceiving and organizing — or, as he has said, summoning this event, and thank you to all of the people I was lucky enough to connect with. We’re going to build ships together. Great. Big. Ships.

Photo credit: jaycross on Flickr

Update: Jay Cross has published an outstanding list of the actual activities we did, games we played, and things we learned about on his blog. Definitely check it out.

Bring on TechKnowledge 2012!

Okay, I’ve written about preparing for TechKnowledge in a couple of places, like Learning Circuitstwice – and the E-Learning Uncovered blog. But today I’m starting to look over what sessions I’d like to attend that I’m not officially involved in. Taking a cue from Cammy, here’s what I already have on the docket:

Wednesday

11:00 – Facilitating the Storyline Creation Station

12:30 – Panelist-ing for the Authoring Tools/HTML5 TK Chat

2:00 – Moderating the Gamification TK Chat

Thursday

11:00 – Facilitating the Storyline Creation Station

12:30 – Moderating the Experience Design/Activity Streams TK Chat

Other than that, I know I’ll be at the general sessions and I’ll be at TechKafe a lot. (By the way, if you have an iPad stylus you like, meet me at TechKafe and let me try it out!)

Looking forward to meeting lots of new people… Find me on Twitter and say Hi!

And whether you’re at home or in Vegas, remember to follow the backchannel with hashtag #astdtk12.

Update: Remember the conference app!