For several years, I have been developing training programs--for my current employer and for previous clients. But prior to that I was an old-fashioned freelance writer, for traditional print vehicles, in which reader interaction was little, if ever, given thought. Partly because of my print background and partly because I tend to be somewhat didactic by nature, I am always struggling in my training development to relinquish control to the learner. When I start a new project, my brain inevitably goes down a very traditional path: a course created like a book, with a chapter-like structure in which the learner is forced along sequentially (didn't the book refer to this as a string-of-pearls design?).
Moreover, I find myself wanting to tell, tell, tell the learner things. It's a challenge for me to step back and let him or her do, even though I know and believe that doing is the most effective way of learning. Rather than give the learner a list of requirements and steps for designing a product label, for example, it is much more effective to present him with an immersive non-directed case study in which he actually seeks out the necessary requirements, designs a label, and receives meaningful feedback on the design. But this is unsettling for me because learners are unpredictable and untrustworthy beings. What if they don't bother to seek out the necessary information? What if they manage to get through the case study without actually learning anything? I fight the same internal battle with course interface design; it's hard for me to design a non-sequential course, where the learner is completely at liberty to explore (or not explore).
I am rambling, I realize, but I'm coming back around to the original idea: that action is the highest form of thought. From the learner's/student's perspective, I think it means much what I've already discussed: that no amount of looking, reading, hearing, or thinking about something compares to actually doing it. This is why simulators are such effective training tools and why there is such a high rate of transfer in simulator-learned behaviors into real-world situations. From the author/designer's perspective, it means that we have to be constantly looking for ways to give the user real experiences of doing--to build in autonomy and realistic results wherever possible. Again, I write mostly from a training viewpoint, because that's where my focus is, but the interviews in Meadows make it clear that the concept is an important one across all interactive disciplines.
You raise an interesting point about the freedom a teacher can give to a student. It can be amazingly gratifying to give an assignment that students take in many different wonderful directions, all picking up various skills and insights along the way. In the same project, though, a couple of students (you know who they are) could try to get from point A to point B in the straightest (easiest, err most efficient) possible line, without reflection or thought (besides tactical) and much learning at all. That's where action, to me, has too much power in the equation. Of course, without any action at all, there probably isn't much learning going on, either. How does one compensate for the different approaches going into a "learning" narrative? Some just want an A, at all costs. Others actually are driven by the desire to learn.
ReplyDeleteAs an instructor, I'm struggling with giving students freedom because my students are abusing the freedom, bypassing the reading and learning, submitting documents that don't apply what they were to learn and apply, and then blaming the instructor--me. Most of my students think "Ah, communication class equals easy A" and then they attend my first class and realize they must work to learn to communicate effectively.
ReplyDeleteI had one student say, "You cannot teach communication; you must go out and learn it by trial and error." Needless to say, his social skills were sorely lacking when he entered the class. He did admit that he learned something in the class; he learned how to work with difficult team members (particularly one who plagiarized and didn't show up for meetings). I reminded him that he gained his language skills by example: we listen to Mommy say, "Say 'please'" and we learn to say "please." But that's another blog topic....
Monica correctly comments that we must continue to lecture in class, and I agree that we must prevent our class sessions from becoming in-class entertainment. Students need to come to class to learn, and the university is hiring us because we are experts and have information to share.
So where is the balance? How do we effectively "share" and also provide students with that freedom? I guess we learn by practice...thinking and then acting as instructors. (Gotta love the circle of thought!)
I agree that action is in a way necessary for learning. My husband compares me to a sponge. I soak up information, much of which is completely useless, but I find that I truly begin to understand that information when I either have to apply it or explain it to someone else. Both of those things constitute action in my book.
ReplyDeleteShawna,
ReplyDeleteYou offer a really interesting perspective on Meadow’s statement. It was a wonderful idea to interpret it in terms of Bloom’s taxonomy. I too switched from the print industry to content development so I could fully empathize with your struggles over relinquishing control to the learner. Your reflection in the second paragraph also strongly resonates with Meadow’s observances on the “tyranny of design” (pg 53). Here, Meadows talks about how designers often try to control the reader’s movements in a game, making the game so much less interesting or engaging. Later on in the book, Meadows also establishes a beautiful tension between Customization vs Design—to what extent should a designer allow a reader to meddle with an interface (pg 221)? As we are finding out from our own experiences, it is not really easy to answer that question.