The project – to develop a performance support system for Boston College’s School of Education “City Connects” program – depended on a deep understanding of the different needs of the various stakeholders: the users of the system (coordinators based in schools who are responsible for the day-to-day implementation of the program, reviewing the needs of students in order to refer a wide variety of individually tailored supportive services); the managers of those users at an area level; and the administrative and research teams at BC who use the data to measure the impact of the program and to plan for future growth.

Our approach was to base the system design on a thorough, structured initial analysis of the job performance and user needs at all levels. Interviews at schools were eye-opening and allowed us to map in detail the workflows of the coordinators, who are the front line of the program. Matching the day-to-day work of the coordinators to the complex data capture requirements of the research team was key, so that the system would seamlessly support both sides. The interface, design and database structure all built on what we learned about the actual job tasks, so that the complex processes, forms and reporting etc. that are involved in implementing the program, became easier to complete. In addition, online task management support was provided to help track, highlight and measure the progress in key areas, shown at a glance.

The initial performance and knowledge needs analysis was the basis for the information architecture design, and was further enhanced as we learnt more about the complexities of the requirements as we developed and tested the system.

The system is now in use in all “City Connects” elementary schools, supporting the program’s work of providing enrichment, prevention and intervention services to children to help them learn and thrive.

So “learning on the job” is effective – what, then, is the value of creating explicit learning projects in the work setting?

The learner derives value from the structure and support which comes from focusing explicitly on learning – a focus which is often missed in the context of pure work demands. Individual reflection, group discussion, and external research all create a deeper understanding which contributes to increased recall and improved application of new concepts and models. †

From an organizational perspective, learning on the job effectively trains up to current work requirements.  It doesn’t necessarily improve an organization’s overall capabilities. In contrast, explicit Learning Projects are designed to bring new concepts and processes into an organization.  As such, they contribute to moving an organization’s focus beyond maintenance into continuous improvement – the goal of all today’s learning organizations.

To learn more, read an overview of our approach to Project-Based Learning.

-Chris

† An argument can be made that all of these processes should be in effect even absent the context of an explicit learning project, but that’s a subject for another post.

The concept of ‘learning styles’ has been applied in a wide variety of settings, from kindergarten through adult education, with countless educational and training programs designed to take the preferred learning style/s of the target audience into account – the other side of the learning styles coin being of course matching teaching styles.  

An alternative view was explored in a recent New York Times article which looked at the factors that can best contribute to effective learning (studying)  – a topic clearly of great interest to the NYT Science Section reading public according to the ‘most-popular ’ article ratings that week!

 The article describes the environmental and cognitive variables that may best support learning and suggests ideas to improve study skills; for example, alternating study environments, mixing content and types of practice, spacing study sessions, self-testing (e-learning and project-based learning anyone?), and discusses their impact on retention.  Interestingly, the article references a review of the research on learning styles published in the journal “Psychological Science in The Public Interest”, which concluded there is a lack of ‘methodologically sound studies’ of the learning styles approach despite its popularity.

So, although the article focuses on how to improve traditional study habits, there are useful connections with instructional design in its broader application. In particular, self-directed e-learning programs can allow for the variety of experiences that the article suggests help learning and retention of information. For example:

-          Being able to study in different environments (e.g. at home in a quiet room, at a busy café). The researchers suggest that concentrating on the same material in different locations aids retention and ‘slows down forgetting’.

-          Mixing the type of task or problem covered in one sitting, rather than repeating the same type of exercise over and over, and only then moving on to a different type.  Working through a mixed set of practices means that each task requires new processing and encourages deeper learning.

-          Varying the modes of presentation, so the learner can interact with the material in different forms.

-          Incorporating frequent self-testing opportunities throughout a program. The suggestion is that rather than simply being a method of assessment, the very act of testing can enhance learning in that it forces the brain to retrieve ideas that subsequently become more accessible.

As e-learning becomes more widely used for a range of purposes – higher education, workplace training, professional development – integrating such findings from cognitive science research into the instructional design can move it away from the old ‘page-turning online’ experience into a truly rich learning experience.  

The social context within which people actually do things is quite different from the context of sitting in a classroom or taking an e-learning course. Ignoring this difference certainly weakens the impact of any educational effort.

On the other hand, “social learning” as a two word justification for building a blog or wiki or Web 2.0 whatnot is not likely to yield positive results. It’s little more than the hope that: “user generated content” can create “user generated learning” without the need for instructional design.

So, how can social web tools effectively be used to enhance and improve learning? We’re currently working through a number of the issues; one thing we’ve landed on as an essential component is the creation (or identification) of a common challenge which creates the context for learning.  Communities of practice are not created in a vacuum.

Here are some links Tony Karrer collected on the use of Wikis and-learning and  a quick link to Etienne Wegner’s Communities of Practice page.

The language and labels we use in the education and learning field, as in every area of life, can be a source of either clarity or confusion, with limitless potential for misinterpretation between those involved; one person’s “e-learning” is another’s “technology-supported asynchronous stand-alone learning program.” Of course we interpret what we hear and read through our own filters and mental models. A colleague described a conversation that went on for several minutes between two friends, each using the word “segway” with a different meaning:  one talking about the personal scooter machine, the other about a conceptual “segue” between two ideas. Eventually the penny dropped, but not before quite a lengthy, entirely agreeable, and mutually misunderstood exchange had taken place.

It’s easy to fall into the trap of using jargon that’s familiar to some audiences, but quite nonsensical to others. Not for nothing is there a Plain English Campaign in the UK, which fights against “gobbledygook, jargon, and misleading information” in public communications, of which there is without a doubt an endless supply. Here at Gnaritas, we spent some time discussing the terms we should use on this site to categorize our services, and it was surprisingly difficult to decide on what we hope are clear and accurate labels to describe what we do. (Let us know if not!)

We’d be interested in your thoughts. How do you ensure the language you use in your work is clear and unambiguous? Do you have any examples of annoying jargon or phrases that make you cringe?