Tata Interactive Systems

Effective eLearning ID: Tech Skills Req'd?

Alan Kay, a true pioneer/legend in the Computer Science world, once said:

"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware."

Apple CEO Steve Jobs has referenced this quote several times when challenged with the idea of making Apple more profitable by taking a page from Microsoft's strategic play book and concentrating efforts primarily on software.

Without speaking for Mr. Kay and what it was that he intended with this famous phrase, one potential interpretation is that living in operational silos makes for less than stellar results.  The more you have isolated groups who have little/no understanding or appreciation of what goes on in other operational divisions, the less likely you should expect anything groundbreaking or revolutionary to emerge.  The best one can expect in such a circumstance is a more finely polished version of what has been seen before, due to a lack of understanding of what is possible and reasonable.

Relating this interpretation to the world of online learning and instructional design, I have gone back and forth over the years regarding if the best (eLearning) IDs also have a more-than-passing familiarity with the basics of computer science, programming, and some of the more popular/powerful authoring tools. 

Reflect, for a moment, on the following:

• Are the IDs you admire/respect the most tech literate?
• In recruiting, do you explicitly look for tech abilities/understanding as one of the characteristics that are required?
• Are tech skills something your organization supports developing (in the form of ongoing training) in its ID team members?

Why? Why not?

I'm still not fully convinced one way or another, but I have a heavy leaning...

In my 16+ years in the field, I've seen far too many examples of designs thrown over the wall to developers that detail either mind-numbingly simple interactions (for lack of knowledge that anything better was possible) or amazingly complex pipe-dreams that would require a form of A.I. to actually implement (for lack of understanding of what sorts of logic would necessary).  In such cases, I can't help but believe that having a moderate understanding of how development work is done would make for better designs (and ultimately, courseware).

Just as a good architect can't simply design based on what 'looks good', but actually needs to have a basic understanding of the strength of various materials and how they may (not) interact with each other, perhaps the best IDs should know be conversant with Programming Concepts 101 (maybe 201? maybe more?). 

Of course, there will always be the counter argument that such a background should be regarded as a 'nice to have', not a 'must have'. After all, didn't Frank Lloyd Wright design beautiful homes that had notoriously leaky flat roofs? (it is said that FLW once told a client to "Move the chair" in response to a complaint of rain leaking through the roof of their house onto the dining table.)  But should we build the rule based on the exception?

How would the ID profession change (both positively and negatively) if we suddenly began to require more of a tech-bent?  Would we end up cutting our noses off to spite our face?  Or would we see a sudden surge in the quality, sophistication, and ingenuity of the instructional solutions that are thrust upon the world?

I'd like to hear YOUR thoughts, regardless of what they are, or how fully fleshed out they might be!

Weigh in!

(Jon Revelos is the Director of Instructional Design and Story-based Learning at Tata Interactive Systems)

Content or Platform?

“What comes first: Content or Platform?” is a question that is comes up as inevitably as a bug in a beta. I’ve always thought this to be a rather straightforward question. But in my experience, I have quite often been very surprised to see a lot of people confidently moving in the opposite direction; hence this blog post.

I have been repeating the statement, “In eLearning, system/platform is an enabler. Most important is the content (learning material) that needs to be delivered by the platform/system.” Unless you have decided what content will be placed in the platform, any kind of sophisticated, state of the art, cutting-edge technology will be a dead-investment.

Here’s another potential pitfall.

After having decided on the content that will be delivered, what kind of platform do you build? When it comes to building systems using technologies, there is always this worry about what pieces of an eLearning platform should I build. Should I put all the systems in place for me to develop, maintain, and deliver the content? Or can I build it brick by brick?

Questions worth deliberating.

(Anand Subramanian is Head – Systems Design at TATA Interactive Systems.)

Personalized Printing --> Personalized Learning Docs?

A couple of months ago, WIRED Magazine made a subtle offer to their subscribers (I've been a loyal subscriber since the first issue showed up in my mailbox for free back in the early 90's):

The first 500(?) people to email a digital photo of themselves to their site would get a personalized cover (using that picture) on the July '07 issue, courtesy of Xerox and their "Custom Xerox" offering.

Well... my personalized issue arrived the other day (see the image on left), and even though it is just a marketing stunt, I have to say that it was pretty neat to have my photo on the cover of my favorite magazine (my son got a kick out of it, too)!

This fun experiment got me to thinking about the implications for learning....

Being primarily focused on technology-based learning, I usually see things through those sorts of glasses, but I am in full agreement with the claim that eLearning is no more a silver bullet solution to education/training woes than the television was when it was introduced.  Rarely are there full, single-source solutions to issues, and education is no exception - a careful analysis of goals and objectives, tied to a review of the available tools and techniques is always a critical first step in any learning effort.

With that in mind, I was reflecting on how, even in this age of websites, blogs, and wikis, most people are still much more comfortable and happy with physical documents.  For anything over the length of a short email message, most people still prefer to have a hard copy for reading and 'personalizing' (marking up with notes and comments).  This is easy enough on a one-off basis for shorter length items using traditional PC printers and blank paper, but what about longer articles or collections of essays that are related?

What would it be like to be able to self-assemble 'personalized learning packets' of related articles from the web that could be bound into a magazine-like format?  It's not a rocket science idea (in fact, I don't think there is anything that's been preventing it to date), but just how much more convenient, usable, and useful would such an animal be, compared to stacks of individual articles (usually stapled in a corner, printed with questionable quality on a single side of paper)? 

Would YOU value the ability to have a "magazine" of the articles that you wanted/valued?  How much would you be willing to pay for it?  Would your organization see value in producing customized, high quality collections of articles for its employees (as an internal communication vehicle, performance support tool, or as a blended-learning artifact)?  What sorts of avenues of opportunity begin to emerge and open as the ability for greater personalization becomes feasible (both technologically and economically)?

Hmmm.....

(Heck... forget about personalized magazines!  What about personalized objects?  Where do these trend-lines begin to take us, as learning and performance improvement experts?)

(Jon Revelos is the Director of Instructional Design and Story-based Learning at Tata Interactive Systems)