First, a few definitions of transmedia storytelling:

• “Telling a story that extends across multiple media platforms” (Lisa Hsia of Bravo Digital Media writing for Mashable)
• Where “elements of a story are dispersed systematically across multiple media platforms, each making their own unique contribution to the whole.” (Henry Jenkins debunking transmedia myths in Fast Company)

Lisa Hsia’s point is that interactive social TV is changing the way audiences engage with television. Henry Jenkins takes it further and adds that shows such as Glee “model new transmedia strategies to attract and sustain audience engagement.” You watch the show, you engage with the characters on Facebook, you read the Twitter stream, and maybe even add to the story.

Henry Jenkins makes a key point (you really should read his article) “Transmedia storytelling is still about the stories and if the stories do not capture the imagination, no amount of transmedia extension can repair the damage.”

And now to learning….

So why the heck does this excite me? Well, can you just imagine the possibilities for learning/organizational change?

• Say you’re trying to get a group of people to behave differently or think differently about a particular topic. Well, write an engaging storyline for them. Start with a set of characters that personify their lives.
• The audience watches the stories of the characters’ attempts to learn on a particular topic, then in the classroom the audience/participants engage in deconstructing the story and saying how they would have done it differently, what resources they should have used, what they should do next.
• At the close, they then pitch that idea to the “producers”, who then decide on the next story segment. And so it goes on for each class.
• The learning experience starts with each new cohort (defined as a group coming into the organization in a similar time frame.)
• Add in a fan page, a twitter stream, a game element, t-shirts, etc., all of which tell one aspect of the story or allow the audience to engage.

Back to Henry Jenkins: “Transmedia represents a strategy for telling stories where there is a particularly diverse set of characters, where the world is richly realized, and where there is a strong back-story or mythology that can extend beyond the specific episodes being depicted in the film or television series.”

I just have to keep reminding myself, start small, grow it over time. Time to make the ideas I’ve been exploring on creating the eLearning graphic novel into a franchise. Next episode coming soon….

We often do not get voluntary participants. People are forced to come to programs and consequently, it undermines the implementation of other game mechanics. How do we overcome the challenge of voluntary participation?

My response:

• First, there’s an assumption that participants DON’T want to go to training — I think they do. I think their work gets in the way. If they had their druthers, they would volunteer to come, but the system they are a part of (aka, their work environment), prevents/hinders/discourages them from doing so. If it’s choice between learning and utilization, utilization wins (particular to professional services.) Examine the SYSTEM they are a part of.
• Motivation comes from goals. Perhaps if were to get clear on the learner’s goals, we could more clearly map to motivation. If they don’t know their goals, their motivations will be fuzzy, IMHO. If their goal is to figure out their goals, then even that helps.
• The tension in most learning, as was noted in Joe’s post, is that is about the “message” that the organization wants their employees to learn/regurgitate/live. So absolutely, there are training situations where there is a need for compliance and people are forced to go. We look for ways to make those trainings more palatable (like gamification) rather than stating quite clearly, in this GAME of WORK, here are the rules. This is what you must know to survive and thrive. If your goal is to keep your job, guess what, you gotta play by these rules.
• The medium in which this message is given (yes I’m channeling McLuhan, he is Canadian after all) usually kills the motivation (yes, I’m thinking death by powerpoint)
• The challenge is the capture the energy in a forced training situation. Where is the energy? In onboarding (new hires or acquisitions), the energy has to do with anxiety of joining a new organization. The motivation is to understand the lay of the land – expectations, tools, etc. How does one channel the energy into something positive — either connections with each other, with their new organization, or voicing/airing concerns in a safe way. This is not new.

I think with gamification and voluntary participation we are perhaps asking the wrong question. It’s not just about the individual but the system they are a part of. Use gamification, but use it in a way that makes the experience more authentic — bring in randomess and the gaming aesthetic it creates rather than a point system. Allow rules that channel and focus the energy in the room — rules that open up the experience rather than shut it down by someone “telling” you what to do. Create teams that support collaboration rather than competition.

Gamification can be useful with the right framing.

Through the Looking Glass is an apt description of what it feels like to enter into a new organization. With every organization you  step through the looking glass, into a world that is defined by its own set of rules. Sometimes the rules make sense, most often they don’t – that is until you have a better understanding of the system, and how it relates to the world around it.

I find myself asking “whose mind is mirrored inside this looking glass?” What minds, or aggregation of minds have created this world? And always, always, the questions — what is the game, what are the rules, who are the players? It’s in my nature to not just try and understand systems, but to try and change them. To find the places where you can shift the game to a new level — the leverage points or “magic key to the secret door.”

My problem is that I get so excited and awed by this new world, that I forget to ask the basic questions about the game. I forget to remain in that place between believing and non-believing, between being a dancer and watching the dancing from a higher ground, between playing the game and playing the rules. This time I’ll try to remember.

Two things happened that piqued my interest: a friend shared a TEDx talk by Seth Priebatsch: the game layer on top of the world; and I talked to another friend about the difficulty of selling anything called a “game” into corporations. As many others have concluded, you have to change the name of the game. Call it anything but a game. Which begs the question — what do we call games?

What are games?

What are games? What are some of their characteristics? Learners are actively engaged in a simulation/fantasy or solving a problem, where they will fail multiple times in order to succeed. The game is filled with feedback mechanisms. It’s about getting the points, not so much having the points (for most people anyways). It’s about status in the game, and often about playing amongst a community of gamers, whether that be in a multi-player game or in a single player game where you compete with your friends.

Sounds kind of like….

Discovery learning

What is discovery learning? Here’s a quick introduction.

• Basedon theories of  Dewey, Piaget, and Vygotsky.
  • Dewey – primary premise was learning by doing, learning is experiential and social; experiential was often defined as “using your hands” — building a house, taking apart a radio, with a group of peers.
  • Piaget – showed that a child is not an empty vessel, but is an active participant in learning about the world; assimilation and accommodation are means of adjusting the understanding of the world. Created the idea that children learn differently from adults and go through “stages of development” — not all of his theories have stood the test of research.
  • Vygotsky – best known for Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and the bringing out the social and cultural influences on cognitive development. ZPD is the zone between what an individual can learn on their own versus what they can learn with guidance or social interaction. In a sense, it is the optimal learning zone. Related ideas include scaffolding and situated learning.
• Architectures for discovery learning
  • case-based learning
  • incidental learning – results incidentally from an interaction, such as a crossword puzzle.
  • learning by exploring/conversing – asking questions to solve a mystery, discover an object
  • learning by reflection – a teacher never gives a direct answer, but instead answers questions with questions, forcing the students to reflect.
  • simulation-based learning
• How discovery learning is different
  • active rather than passive
  • process-orientated rather than content-oriented
  • failure is important
  • opportunity for feedback in learning process

Sound familiar?

Games as discovery learning

So let’s call games what they are — guided discovery learning. Games are guided by the rules of the game, where you get feedback on how you perform, instantaneously.

Change the name of the game to “guided discovery learning.”

Hmmmm…. I think I can sell that.

But what about…

The fear with guided discovery learning (aka games) is that you will not cover the course content and it will take to long or will be too expensive to create. I’ve been struggling with these questions — how do I design a game so people learn the ‘right content’? Well, it’s about the process, not the content, so that’s the wrong question. I’m not selling a learning PRODUCT, I’m selling a learning SERVICE. Games are a type of learning service. That means coming up with a business model that works in the service economy. OK, some more thinking to do here.

We don’t need to learn how to play games — games are already a part of our world. (Seriously go listen to Seth’s TEDx talk.) The problem is that they are just not fun yet. The bigger problem is that we just haven’t figured out a business model for adult learning games that works yet. How do we create and sell guided discovery learning that’s relevant and cost-effective?

Castronova, J. (2002). “Discovery Learning for the 21st Century: What is it and How Does it Compare to Traditional Learning in Effectiveness in the 21st Century?” Action Research Exchange 1 (1)

Bicknell-Holmes and Hoffman (2000) Engage, Elicit, Experience, Explore: Applying Discovery learning to Library Instruction – LOEX. Presentation.

Social Development Theory: Vygotsky. TIPS website – http://tip.psychology.org/vygotsky.html

Have you ever experienced learning design failure? It’s pretty easy to spot — the primary “tell” being the utterly confused or disgusted looks on the faces of your learners. Or it’s when your stakeholders or learners actively start sabotaging the design and doing whatever they want. Or they just get up and leave. That is a failure of learning design.

Having recently gone through a design failure, here’s some tips for avoiding this gut-wrenching experience.

Tip #1 – Make sure there is ONE owner/sponsor

The hardest thing for an outside consultant (or an inside L&D employee for that matter), is to make sure there is ONE person who owns the design. One person who will give you the sign-off, the go-ahead, the buy-in, the responsibility. If you find yourself in a situation where the owner or sponsor isn’t really owning the project — RUN, don’t walk, in the other direction. Ease your way out, or find a way to address the situation. To be honest, by the time you realize this, it’s often too late.

Tip #2 – Get your stakeholders’ attention

We all lead busy lives and our working lives seem to never let up. Learning initiatives often take a backseat to making the end-of-quarter numbers. So when you have your stakeholders review the information, make sure you are getting them at a point where they can pay attention and really try to understand what’s going on. Otherwise, you’ll end up with a nasty surprise just as you’re ready to launch, and where they will claim to have never been consulted.

Tip #3 – Make sure they understand the what the learning experience will feel like

Remember Tip #2 above — first get people’s attention. In addition, if people don’t do learning stuff every day, they will not easily understand the learning experience. Once you have their attention, do whatever it takes to help them understand the what the learners will be doing in the module, what it will feel like, what they will be doing, how the learning sequence ties together. Help them enter into the experience in your head. Then they will be able to give you honest, and grounded feedback on whether or not your learning design will work.

Don’t design alone

The hardest thing to do is do design alone without feedback. Do whatever it takes to get that feedback from your owner/sponsor, your stakeholders, your learners. Consult other learning designers if available. Do whatever it takes to get involvement and avoid surprises.

But sometimes, you just make mistakes. You make errors and there is no one to catch them. Or your design doesn’t quite fit expectations. Admit your problems and if there’s time and money, fix them. Otherwise, take a deep breath, do some meditation, and move on — and don’t forget the lesson you’ve learned.

All business communication would halt or slow to a crawl. People would have to start writing in coherent sentences again. They would have to make linked arguments and not just bullet points. We’d have to think critically about data and what we’re putting forth. We might even have to think long-term. The ensuing panic would result in economic downslide. And whoa! We’d be back in September of 2008, at the edge of the precipice.

Really now? Come on.

Trainers/facilitators/experts/SMEs wouldn’t know what to say or how to say it. It would be just them with their learners. It’s presenting naked– no hiding behind slides! You’d have to get at the essence of what you wanted to say. You would have to find other means of communicating your message — be that drawings, games or just telling stories. Learners would have to share their experiences with each other. And facilitators would have to focus on what’s important — the process of learning, rather than the content. More on “how” are the learning rather than “what” are they learning (credit to Jim P. for this insight.)

People would learn. Meetings would be shorter. We’d have more time. World peace would be just around the corner (ah, a girl can dream.)

A thought experiment — have your organization try being slide-presentation free for a week and see what happens. Or maybe just ban PPT from meetings, and see if you find other ways to communicate.

Constraints create freedom to design. You’ll end up in places you never thought you’d go.

As a part of my work I’ve been doing interviews with SMEs. You know, very highly technical people who are passionate about their work — but not always so good at communicating the essence of the product or idea they are working on. So in come the Learning Designers asking them to think differently — to teach without powerpoint! What? Is it possible – oh yes it is! Is it scary – of course.

But most importantly, as one SME pointed out “it’s orthogonal to my approach”.

Orthogonal – what the heck does that mean? It’s at perpendicular angle to the way, it’s at an tangential angle — basically it’s a techy way of saying: “I was heading in a different direction, and now you want me to rethink my approach?” Depending on the tone, and how many times that phrase is used, it could also mean “You’re pissing me off.”

Well good. As a learning designer I want to be orthogonal to your approach. I want you to think differently about your materials — I want you to think about those people sitting there listening to your powerpoint — YOUR LEARNERS. Guess what — they are orthogonal to your approach.

So the next time a SME says, “that’s orthogonal to my approach”, take it as a compliment.

Walking into Hacker Dojo at the start of the Women in Mobile event there was a loud buzz in the air. Voices bouncing off the concrete floor and reverberating through the open space — a large gathering of women and several men mixed in. And…. (sniff, sniff)…the smell of pizza in the air! (thanks PayPal) Ah, the scent of a meetup. Smiles as I greet Seema and Grace at the registration desk.

After introductions to APWT by Shirley (surely you know Shirley Lin!), and Lilian Tham — they hand it over to the moderator, Ishita Majumdar (Executive In Residence, Plug-N-Play) to talk about how these women entrepreneurs in mobile got started, what they/their companies are doing, and their advice for creating your own products and startups. I walked in with no expectations, and walked out excited by possibilities — the Silicon Valley magic.

Here’s the 3 women presenting and what I found cool about what they do.

• Georgi Dagnall, CEO, GeoGad
• Bess Ho, ninja mobile developer with 10 apps in the app stores and speaker at Web 2.0
• Katie McMahon, Marketing Maven,  SoundHound

Geodad – Your personal mobile tour

My first thought — isn’t this just a mashup of maps + tours? It reminded me of running routes that I could do and share with others. Ok, it’s an app, and it also has a web interface for creating personal tours. You mean I could create a personal tour of my home town Port Kells? (Ok, not really a town…more of a corner) Upload commentary, pics, and other stuff that I find cool about it? Ok, I could get into that.I could create my own personal tours around my interests and share it with others? Like a chocolate tour of SF? Ice cream tours? Coffee houses in tour of the South? City of Durham could put its Black History tour on this thing. Very cool.

But hey, I could use it for more than just tourist tours — I could use it for onboarding new people, and giving them a tour around a campus, office or facility (it’s based on longitude and latitude).  Hotels could use it to orient their guests/corporate users (could have used this as an event coordinator when I was trying to figure out what was possible in a space.) I could also use it to create an oral history project, combining it with locations. Or have students create their own oral history project! Or the local homeowners associations could use it to create garden tours, walking tours and more and more.

All right I get it, now I just have to try it. It’s completely free too! (Both iPhone & Android versions I think.)

SoundHound – sample sound, find music

SoundHound is probably the best-funded group that was here tonight. And SoundHound has some serious IP behind it. SoundHound  samples your voice, or a tune that you hum, the music via the radio or speaker –  and finds the song, artist, etc, AND link to places where you can purchase it! How cool is that? (The real question is can it understand MY tone-deaf humming?)

Most sound-matching technology goes from sound > text-text > matching. SoundHound does sound > sound-sound > matching. Much harder, many more possibilities.

So I can imagine doing role plays based on this sound matching. Stay with me — instead of a branching structure, imagine an algorithm that responds to tonality, to specific words, and creates a response based on that. Possibilities of more general role plays. Many things to play with here.

Very cool app. Download – there’s a freeium version or premium version at low cost. Both iPhone & Android.

Bess Ho – app creator, promotion-hacker extraordinaire

Bess Ho is amazing. That’s all I can say. Comes up with app ideas, does quick market research to see what’s out there, then if a competitor exists, designs to its failings, and then starts coding. Her advice: (a) Keep it Simple (2) Do One Thing Really Well (3) Make it Fun.

And she practices guerilla marketing – like showing up at the Palo Alto Festival with her music app, and just talking her way into performing, then near the Apple store in Palo Alto and just stop people on the street to promote her app. This girl is hacker to the core. Great energy, makes anything seem possible. Bess Ho rocks. You can follow here on twitter @bess.

• Why the heck am in a meeting with a bunch of OD folks when I think of myself as an Instructional Designer?
• What’s is organizational development? How is it different from organizational learning?
• What the difference between development and learning?

Flash Mob Dance - Informal Group Learning?

I realized that  really liked the folks at this meeting — it was the first meeting I’ve been to in the Bay Area where I felt “Ah, I’ve found my people.” Since I want to keep going, I had to figure out a WHY I was there — what was the connection?

Development vs. Learning

Why not start with the basics?

• Development – stages that one goes through in one’s life or one’s life or one’s career, often thought of as change in roles (becoming a mother or becoming a manager). These stages in development can be biological (aging); psychological (maturing, identity); or sociocultural (change in roles, life or career events/problems/trajectory). In addition, there are variables such as race, gender, and sexual orientation and the impact and influence on that person’s development.
• Learning – knowledge, skills and attitudes required to master a subject, attain performance, or understand a domain, or innovate. Learning, like development, is about change and growth. Or sometimes just about “running to stand still” — keeping up with change to maintain one’s position. There is formal and informal learning; online, face-to-face, and blended; there is the technology of learning from CMS/LMS/Performance Management systems to Webinars to games and virtual worlds. Learning is a part of development. Learning integrated with development leads to “teachable moments” — learning appropriate to developmental stages. There’s much much more but I’ll stop here.

Organizational development vs. learning

Continuing from the explanation above, then organizational development is about the stages of an organization. It has an action orientation — it’s about evaluating and creating an intervention. Examples below:

• What an organization need when moving from start-up to mature organization
• Using diagnostic tools to understand what “life event” an organization is facing and creating an intervention, such as:
  • Using organizational 360 or SLCQ (Strategy Leadership Culture Questionnaire)
  • Using something like the Periodic Table of Strategy (Mercer-Delta) to determine the challenge and potential strategic moves for an organization
  • Gap  of where an organization is, where they want to go, and what it will take to get there.
  • SWOT analysis – Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats
• Based on Senge’s five disciplines to create the learning organization:
  • personal mastery
  • mental models
  • shared visions
  • team learning
  • systems thinking
• Using coaching, mentoring, other tools to improve organizational performance

Organizational Learning

Quite simply, organizational learning is the collection of stuff involved in individual and collective learning inside an organization. It is also about the analysis and support of learning processes, formal and informal.

• Courses and curriculum
• Informal learning – social media, water-cooler learning, blogs, wikis, enabling conversations, mentoring, etc.
• Technology that support the above
• Design that supports the above
• Understanding of the cognitive and social processes that support learning
• Understanding the organizational processes that support or impeded learning
• Design of learning that supports organizational strategy
• Senge’s five disciplines

It’s in the last four that we cross-over into the realm of organizational development. There is clearly a link between the two — when things aren’t working on an organizational level, often we often turn to learning and development. However, much less often, do we turn to learning and development when things ARE working – or when we want to make things better when they are already good.

Why an Instructional Designer meets with OD folks

Instructional design (ID) is too narrowly focused on creating learning — instead of being more broadly focused on creating learning specific to organizational strategy — specific enough to measure impact. Because of the narrow focus of ID, I’m am pulled to people and groups asking bigger questions, with an organizational focus.

I love thinking about how people learn, but I also need (for my sanity) to think about how organizations learn, and how individual learning is relevant in this bigger picture.

That’s why I joined BAodn.

References for this Learning vs. Development article:

• Learning in Adulthood: A comprehensive guide by Merriam, Caffarella, Baumgartner
• Infed website: http://www.infed.org/biblio/learning-organization.htm
• Organizational Learning vs. the Learning Organization by Carol Gorelick (Google Books)

Perfect for a learning experience! Here’s a domain where you have to know a lot of terms, be able to distinguish between the terms, and then be able to establish a point-of-view of your wine preferences — as opposed to Robert Parker’s wine preferences, or the Wine Spectator’s wine preferences. Yes, and then there’s understanding all these wine point guides.

So let’s just reiterate these key points:

• Audience – novice wine drinkers who want to learn more about wine, who are intimidated by the language of wine, and who may position themselves as anti-wine or anti-elitist.
• Outcomes - establish a point-of-view on what wine one likes to drink – wine preferences; be able to “defend” or speak-to that POV.
• Learning Tasks – some initial thoughts
  • Distinguish red from white (hey! an easy win, no?)
  • Understand fortified wines are, blends vs. single varietals, old world vs. new
  • Distinguish main varietals – Chardonnay, Sauvignon Blanc, Riesling, Pinot Grigo, Cabernet Sauvignon, Pinot Noir, Syrah, Merlot, common blends (Bordeaux)
  • Know some of the lesser varietals/blends
  • Pair wine with foods – the basics, more complex
  • Going into a wine store and buying wine for:
    • a drinking party
    • a special occasion
    • for your cellar – collecting wines

Distinguishing is both a visual task (red/white, etc.), cognitive task – knowing the terms, and being able to taste the difference. It’s also about being able to understand the mental models in the wine world (such as old world vs. new world). It may also be possible to define some cognitive strategies: systematic approaches to problem solving in this domain or rules of thumb (especially when it comes to wine pairings). Developing a cognitive strategy for oneself and a POV is about creating an approach to answering the question – “What wine do I want to drink?” To this end, a tool such as a wine journal, is a good start.

Methods

• This could be done as an extremely long PowerPoint presentation (save me now…put me out of my misery!) – or maybe just some part of it….
• It could be an in-person learning experience — in fact, some of it *has* to be!!! Virtual wine is just no fun. Self-directed, in-person learning experience — include a guide to wine bars, wine tasting, or do-it-yourself tryouts
• It could be a game – stay with me. If you have a group of people who are resistant to wine, one could create a game (part-task practice) on suggesting wine to a particular type of wine drinker. The more “right” suggestions you make, the more the will drink (although not P.C., it would be fun to see how much you could get people to drink…. creating drunks…. hmmm…sub-goal)

So these are just some initial thoughts on creating a learning experience about wine. I have to thank my friend Paul for all his years of encouragement on experimenting with wine. More next week.

p.s. If you have thoughts or experiences on who you learned about wine, please share!