Subscribe

Your email:

More from Allen Interactions:

UpcomingWebinar
5myths(2)

 ZEBRAZAPPS

CS&DM(2)

WhitePapers(2)

Connect with Us!

Facebookdescribe the imagedescribe the image

e-Learning Leadership Blog

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Defining Design: Creating an e-Learning Solution

  
  
  
Ethan Edwards, Chief Instructional Strategistby Ethan Edwards, chief instructional strategist

Design is a discipline that is hard to define.  It exists in an extraordinary range of contexts:  instructional design, architectural design, industrial design, fashion design, game design, graphic design, software design, experience design—the list goes on and on.  Because of this diversity of application, it is difficult to formulate a concise definition of design that isn’t so general that it loses usefulness.  But I think it’s important that designers have a definite sense of what it is that is required of them.  A common foundation in design, no matter the field, is that the designer is working to accomplish some goal in a particular environment, using a set of components that exist within some set of constraints.  That’s accurate, I think, but not very useful.  More specifically, an essential part of design is that the designer has to have in mind as a goal some desired function or outcome, and the work of the designer is centered around achieving that function--sometimes with grace, sometimes with beauty, sometimes with economy—but always with reliability and ability to replicate.

This applies especially to instructional design.  If a piece of instruction fails to produce a predictable change in the learner, it hasn’t been designed appropriately.  And to design appropriately for instruction, we need to understand the design elements we have at our disposal and truly understand what various strategies might hope to accomplish.  In working with many designers of e-learning, I fear that outcomes are often poorly understood and that design elements are often applied almost randomly with only a vague hope that they might work.  Just transferring content to the screen and then testing whether a learner remembers it is not design.  Design creates purposeful interactions based on a confidence that certain strategies can create predictable results.

First, as you’ve come to Strawberry fieldexpect in this blog, a seemingly unrelated analogy:  Strawberries are the main crop we grow on our produce farm, and I spent some time spreading a loose layer of straw over the dormant plants.  An acquaintance questioned the timing of this since we’re well into winter here, long past the first hard freeze.  His assumption was that the straw is needed to protect the plants from the cold, and that spreading the straw two months after our first hard frost is like closing the barn doors after the horses have escaped. However, the straw has very little to do with protecting the plants from the cold; it does that a little, but honestly, the plants are sufficiently hardy to survive our winters without protection.  The function of the straw is really to keep the plants dormant in the springtime; this delays new growth and the bloom and so the blossoms will be less likely to be hurt by late spring frosts. Also, as the plants grow through the straw in the springtime, the straw provides a great bed to keep the berries from being muddy.  It’s a great instance of the function of a process not serving the expected purpose, or the purpose it might serve in other contexts.  Operating under sloppy thinking, amateur growers can seriously hurt the strawberry crop by putting on the straw too early in the fall or by taking it off too early in the spring…both of which would be very easy to do if the grower didn’t really understand the function of straw in strawberry culture, but rather applied it under the general assumption that straw must help strawberries survive cold weather.

It is so easy to implement a design feature in instructional design inappropriately because we haven’t bothered to really understand its function.  Unfortunately, I rate applications of avatar-creation software often into this category.  We’ve seen avatars and sophisticated 3-D modeling used to great effect in gaming and also in short marketing pieces in film and on the Internet.  I’ve only rarely seen examples where the 3-D representational aspects of avatar character used in e-learning performed an essential part of the learning or even the learning engagement.  In gaming, the control of at least some of the characters is in the hands of the user which gives the player something active to be engaged in.  In most implementations of avatars in instruction I’ve seen, the author maintains control over the avatar, leaving the student ultimately unengaged.

The problem isn’t that avatars don’t have value.  Rather, it is that the designers are applying misplaced surface assumptions about a strategy (avatars are intrinsically interesting and create interest) instead of really understanding what instructional role the practice might actually play (avatars might heighten the choices and control given to the learner and increasing the fidelity of intrinsic feedback in the learning environment.)  Most examples simply use avatars as a tour guide, a lecturer, or a coach.  These functions may be useful, but that are only marginally and usually only temporarily enhanced by 3-D representation.  On the other hand, conversation and customer service training where the avatar might provide adaptive and semi-lifelike responses to user actions could serve a unique role in creating risk and providing feedback.  Unfortunately, like misapplying straw to a strawberry patch, implementing a technology for the wrong reasons can often make instruction even less likely to occur than it would without the technology.

Of course, the problem is that nearly every tool and every technology marketed to the e-learning community is sold as a “solution.”  This perspective ends up often circumventing the whole purpose of design.  Instead of looking at instructional problems, it declares a solution before the problem is even analyzed. Unfortunately, this mentality bypasses the whole idea of design.  Design should start with a problem; the design process identifies strategies that are relevant to solving the problem.  Selecting a solution and applying it across the board based on naïve assumptions will rarely result in a positive outcome.

Comments

I think we can learn from the strawberry analogy, too, that some farmers will benefit from the straw even if they mistake the purpose. I see in elearning that there is luck in development (the work with the tools) that gets to results even when design was absent or wrong!
Posted @ Monday, February 07, 2011 7:50 PM by Eric Matas
yes, some may benefit by chance, but the odds are against it, as there are far more ways to work against learning than enhance it. 
 
(One year my Dad was seriously ill so our well-meaning tenants who are expert grain farmers sought to do a good deed by spreading the straw. But not understanding what straw actually did, they thought if a little straw is good, a lot of straw will be better...the result was that we had no crop that year and nearly lost the entire field. Thank heavens learners are far more resilient than strawberries and are able to survive the most horrible of training attempts.)
Posted @ Monday, February 07, 2011 9:41 PM by Ethan Edwards
Ethan, you raise an interesting distinction between avatars in games and in e-learning. I've been trying to figure out why I've been underwhelmed by avatars. I thought maybe I was just too unhip to get them. You put your finger on teh problem.  
 
It's so easy to get seduced by bright-shiny-object technology and forget how little it matters in the end. I draw an analogy with radio: Consider the power of a show like This American Life, achieved with nothing more than the human voice.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 08, 2011 8:13 AM by Michael Boyette
A lot of interesting topics to discuss. As I don't have too much time now, I just would like to argue about the status of design: I understand it as one of those disciplines with a lot of art. This means that creativity, innovation, novelty play an important rol in instructional design. In this sense, freedom among the factors that guide us in designing a course is very important and I think that intuition and luck have to run during the process. We can have goals and expected results clearly stablished but that's different to have the guarantee to achieve them. The reason: human beings are unique, different and free; we'll never have total control of a learning process so there will be surprises and unexpected outcomes. Well, this is a philosophical view, hope to write later with a more down to earth topic. 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, February 09, 2011 2:18 PM by Carlos Serrano
As an instructional designer myself, I feel are widely more subject to the "racoon distracted by the shiney quarter" effect than we may want to admit. Ethan, your discussion of avatar use, or any other new and fancy tool for that matter, drives that point home quite clearly. In one of the classes I teach, I like to challenge my student’s understanding of technology inthat "technology" is a process first: a scientific process that may leverage tools such as a fancy computer, iPad, or expensive software. The ancient Egyptins leveraged technology to build the pryamids, all without the help of Flash or avatars. 
 
 
 
I feel that your final two sentances speak volumes for the whole article: start with the problem and work towards the solution and then, only select the technologies that will get your learners from problem to solution with the highest rate of learner success, not necessarily with the most bells and whistles.
Posted @ Thursday, February 10, 2011 7:26 AM by Dan Carlson
Truth be told, is that really a picture of your strawberry farm? If so, BRAVO.
Posted @ Monday, February 14, 2011 3:34 PM by Mitch
Comments have been closed for this article.