How does one person make something relevant to another? Is there some sort of formula that can be expressed in words?
First, let's get the myths out of the way.
As a web designer and internet marketer since 1992, one issue has constantly appeared. Stubbornly, people want to think of a website as
a form of mass marketing: a gi-normous, instantaneous mail out of their
company brochure. A website is not a gigantic billboard that hangs over
the planet. -- A website is a direct marketing medium.
That's why
branding is so difficult on the Net. In fact, it may be impossible.
Even if your online business is revolutionary, exciting, informative,
and sets a whole new standard -- It cannot be branded efficiently on
the Internet.
This is a direct marketing medium.
For a
trainer, that is a unique advantage. The most efficient and effective
training is done one on one, face to face. The designer has that
special opportunity built into their efforts, if they can find a way to
take advantage of them. -- And there's the rub.
Most trainers are
trained by teachers. Teachers are used to presenting ideas to a group,
not individuals. The perspective is contractory to the nature of the
online experience. (I'll leave this one open for discussion. It usually
draws a few comments.)
That special student
We have a chance in our designs to speak to our learners directly.
In my opinion, that is the weakness of many LMS platforms: they are
designed to mimic, and enhance, a classroom structure. Which raises the
question: What model should an LMS platform emulate?The answer may be
to emulate the chatter in the room or the group passing notes back and
forth in the back of the class; or better, the special relationship
between teacher and his or her favorite student.
As Instructional
Designers, we assume that our learner is that one interesting and
interested person who makes the teaching experience so rewarding day
after day. We design to that assumption.
But is that the simple
formula for relevance? -- No. It is part of the answer. Like artists
who use charcoal, pencil, watercolor, acrylics or oils, we must conform
to the strengths and limitations of the media or we will spend our
creative energies fruitlessly trying to force a media to conform to our
expectations.
What is relevance?
Marg O'Connell
drew me into this line of thought on her blog. Her questions about how
to design to a "shared experience" and that "Aha!" moment sparked my
thinking.
While I wandered walking the neighborhood, I was searching for a term to describe the purpose of my new company, AEmeritus.
I searched the online thesaurus for a word and came up with
"Determined." But the term was awkward. It didn't convey the full or
pertinent meaning. A question to Paul Rand about 'good design or bad
design' provided the answer. (see the previous post)
Even with the right term, the question remains: What is relevance?
What conveys relevance to a university student may not convey relevance
to someone wanting to learn a trade skill. Relevance has a motivational
aspect. A university student can be required to read books and articles
to understand concepts that are largely abstract and find them all very
relevant. The university student is motivated by their long term
educational goals.
A vocational learner will only find such requirements irrelevant, even annoying.
This implies that there is a motivational aspect to relevance; a
subjective aspect; and a contextual aspect.The learning environment is
an aspect of relevance.
We have returned again to the medium and design.
As Instructional Designers, we can use the medium to control the learning environment. It is a conceptual environment.
Maybe a couple of terms
Words about human interaction are poor tools to convey some meanings,
but here is an attempt. I think part of the answer is in the conceptual
pairing of two terms: inference and implication.
In our designs, we
seek to provide the inference that draws the implication from the
learner. We express enthusiasm and interest in the person; the learner
takes the implication of motivation. We use our designs -- appearance,
colors and graphics, sounds or voice, or motion -- to convey a positive
energy. The entertainment value of our design provokes the learner to
want to repeat the experience, even if the subject is arcane and
simplistic. (A good example is the modular design of the CustomGuide online training and the Personal Trainer series of books.) In effect, we make the training relevant by entertaining the learner.
Again, we provide the inference; the learner finds the implication.
A Blended Learning example
Last week I spent a day as a part of a corporate training class on
Adobe Acrobat Pro. I came into the class the last half of the a
two-day, 6-hours a day training. When I asked the other students how
much of what they'd learned they would use on their jobs, the answers
were predictable. After a day and a half of expensive training, only
two of the students saw anything they could use in their work. By the
end of the course, all but one said they would use some of the
techniques. None saw what they had learned as a significant skill they
would use in their jobs.
Despite the quality of the presentation
and facilities, and the many capabilities of the software, the
relevance to their immediate jobs was questionable. None of the tasks
they could do now in Acrobat Pro were unique. All the tasks could be
done in other ways, often easier than using Acrobat Pro.
The
relevance was in their sense of confidence in an improved skill level;
the value of a resume entry; and that the company had sent them on the
course.
The definition of relevant training is expanding. It
includes the concepts of professional development -- a similar
relevance as in the university student. The students had increased work
skills. Their companies had expressed an interest in them and their
skills.
Was the course relevant? - Yes.
Again, Relevant?
Now assume this course had been offered wholly online. -- Do all the same aspects of relevance apply?
I think the answer is again, Yes, but with an emphasis on the drive
necessary for the individual to complete the training. Does this imply
a new sense of relevance?
After all, vocational training offered
online can be faked. The learner doesn't have to pay attention to the
modules. They only have to run them to say they've completed the
course. As with any training, the relevance is dependant on the
motivation of the learner(s) and the effectiveness of the presentation.
A Performance Art?
Do these ramblings suggest that training or education is a performance?
Comments