Why scenarios aren't there yet

I really like interactive scenarios, particularly the branching sort which require learners to make decisions in response to an evolving situation or to engage in a dialogue with an on-screen character. Designed well, they provide the learner with the opportunity to engage in a sort of experiment from which insights can emerge into key principles. Although it's great when these scenarios can unfold as a series of video scenes or as 3D graphics, I'm not too unhappy if the stimulus for each decision is a simple photo or illustration.

So what's the problem? As I rediscovered this week as I tied my brain in knots constructing a series of branching scenarios for learning designers, the weakness with current scenarios is with the interface.

Unless I've missed some major technological breakthrough, all scenarios currently require the learner to interact by choosing from a series of options presented as text. And, as we know from TV quizzes, it's much easier to answer questions when the options are presented to us (think Who Wants To Be A Millionaire) than when we have to construct them for ourselves (think Mastermind, at least in the UK).

Now scenarios aren't quizzes. They're testing the ability to make judgements rather than simple knowledge retrieval, but the effect is similar. When you see a series of options, it's very hard not to be tempted by the one that looks like the most sensible, even if you'd never have thought of that for yourself. As a result, it's all too easy to sail smoothly through the scenario, looking cleverer than you really are.

Back in the mid 1980s, Donald Clarke and I worked on a whopping series of video-based scenarios for British Telecom. Each scenario depicted a complete selection interview. The branching was cleverly constructed with the aid of a programmer who was a bit of an AI expert. We tried our best to make the interface more fluid by having the learner construct sentences from a  series of phrases. The result was compelling but still not like participating in a real interview. At that time, we would have been amazed to believe that, nearly 30 years later, we would not be using a natural language interface for projects like this. So why is that? Is this ever going to be feasible?

So what's the answer? First off, I'd suggest that, imperfect as they are, scenarios still provide a valuable opportunity for experimentation and rehearsal, safe from physical, financial or psychological risk. But they're only a step along the line. Next step is probably the role play, which is all too often an unsatisfactory experience or, if funds permit, a full-scale simulation. But in most circumstances, there is a more practical and logical way to continue the process of learning beyond the scenario and that's through real-life experience, ideally supported through coaching and/or social learning.

In other words a blend.

Wired for speech

I've long been a fan of Clifford Nass's first book The Media Equation, which demonstrates how humans unconsciously respond to computers and other machines that they can interact with as if they were human. A later book which has only just come to my attention is Wired for Speech: How Voice Activates and Advances the Human-Computer Relationship, which Nass co-wrote with Scott Brave. The primary audience for the book is those responsible for designing automated voice interfaces, such as telephone booking systems and satnavs, which is not my field at all. I was looking for relevance to learning technologies and I wasn't disappointed.

I'm going to list a few of the findings which struck me as useful. I'm not going to back these up with the research or even the arguments, so you'll have to buy the book if you want to dig deeper.

The central premise is as follows:

  

'As a number of experiments show, the human brain rarely makes distinctions between speaking to a machine - even those with very poor speech understanding and low-quality speech production - and speaking to a person. In fact humans use the same parts of the brain to interact with machines as they do to interact with humans.'

In other words, it doesn't matter whether we know a voice is computer-generated or not, we will still respond to it in the same way we respond to other humans, at least at an unconscious level. And don't tell me you've never felt awkward ignoring the directions given by your satnav!

Similarity

'The more similar two people are, the more positively they will be disposed towards each other.' Implication: If you're choosing a voice over artist, look to match to your audience wherever possible.

Stereotyping

People will assign whatever gender, racial or other stereotypes they have in dealing with humans to a machine they perceive as having that gender, race, etc. I'm not going there, mainly because I haven't really figured out the implication.

Multiple voices

'When a person is confronted with a new voice cognitive load is increased.' Currently my recommendation is to use multiple voices in webinars for much the same reason: one voice becomes boring and a new voice attracts attention. Which is why they very rarely stick to a single voice on the radio. However, the implication here is that, when attention is already high, such as when a learner is concentrating hard, don't add to the load by bringing in new voices.

Personality

On average people prefer extrovert voices to introvert, so it's safer to use a voice that comes over this way. Extrovert people speak quickly, loudly and with significant frequency range.

Specialists v generalists

'Experiments have shown that the products of specialists are perceived to be better than the products of generalists, even when their contents are identical.' All that's needed to be convincing is for the person to be labelled (not by themselves) as a specialist. The implication for voiceovers is that it may be better to use a subject specialist than a professional voiceover artist who clearly knows nothing about the subject and is simply reading a script. (After I read this, I decided to voice a number of scripts myself rather than use a pro voice. Let's hope it works.)

Recorded v synthetic

'The current data strongly supports the view that recorded speech is superior to synthetic speech.' Not surprising this.

Faces

'Although people can certainly listen without seeing a speaker's face, they have a clear and strong bias toward the integration of faces and voices.' So show what the speaker looks like if you can.

Clarity

An interface should speak as clearly as possible. Again, hardly surprising.

Humour

Humour that is light and not provocative seems to be consistently effective. I'm all for this, but try getting humour through your client's thought police.

Being recorded

'When people have a sense of being recorded they are likely to say different things and process what is said differently. The lack of a record allows people to speak with a sense of informality and plausible deniability.' The implication here is webinars. We routinely record them, but perhaps in doing so we are constraining the dialogue. Nass's recommendation is to minimise the signals that recording is taking place, because people will forget after a while, but whether this is ethical is debatable.

So, plenty of good stuff in here. I'd recommend you have a proper read. Particularly interesting is what Nass has to say about the brain's ability to recognise and interpret speech, starting in the womb.

Asynchronous social learning is newer than you think

For those of us who have spent a number of years working in online learning, the idea that a group can collaborate asynchronously (not in real-time) on a learning activity is rather taken for granted - not so much 'old hat' as just nothing novel. But in the grand scheme of things it's a relative newcomer and - as is becoming increasingly apparent as I talk to those learning professionals with no online experience - not an obvious thing to do.

Historically, all social learning activities, whether one-to-one or group, would have been synchronous (real-time). Furthermore, because until recently there were no technologies to mediate this process, they'd also have been face-to-face.

On the other hand, asynchronous learning in centuries past would have been individual and reflective.

Bit by bit, new technologies enhanced these processes. Asynchronous self-study was supported first by books and then, in the twentieth century by all kinds of tapes, discs and films. But individual it remained.

Synchronous learning also benefited by technology; first the telephone and then online tools such as text chat, instant messaging, internet telephony and web conferencing.

All very good, but the model remained synchronous = social and asynchronous = individual.

Only in the past 20 or so years has it become possible to engage with others on a learning activity without setting a date and time that was mutually agreeable. And 20 years is, in the history of learning, no time at all. I suppose you could argue that learners could have interacted with tutors by post, and of course that's has how the original correspondence courses worked. Similarly, I suppose, groups of learners could have collaborated in the same way. But was this normal? No. Was it sufficiently speedy and flexible to be desirable? No. It was a last resort.

So what does it mean to be able to interact, as learners, using email, forums, wikis, blogs, social networks and the like? Quite a lot I reckon. There are considerable advantages to asynchronous learning:

• It allows time for reflection.
• It isn't dominated so much by those who speak before they think.
• It allows for more in-depth research and sharing of perspectives.
• It allows learners to control when they participate and for how long.

And when that asynchronous learning is online as opposed to by snail mail, then the practical barriers break down:

• You can post messages just about instantly.
• You can share large volumes of content in a wide variety of forms.
• You have a record of all interactions that can be viewed by all participants.

Asynchronous social learning does, therefore, represent a significant new approach to learning, one which opens up possibilities that were previously impractical. Yes, it has been widely used in higher education for some time and, I suppose, happens informally every day on the Internet, but that does not mean that it's not still a new way of looking at learning for millions of learning professionals and billions of students. We shouldn't underestimate what opportunities we have, nor the extent of the change we are undergoing.

Can PeopleCloud support learning in all its contexts?

Last week I posted that Formal learning doesn't need to be all that formal. My argument was that well-designed formal interventions can extend beyond the confines of the course to include elements that would normally be regarded as 70 or 20 in the 70:20:10 model or experiential, on-demand or non-formal in the model I present in The New Learning Architect.

Learning professionals have no real difficulty in supporting the formal element of their work, i.e. providing access to courses. This is what they have always done and this is what others expect them to be doing. With the increasing awareness of the importance of informal learning, in all its guises, it is not surprising, therefore, that learning professionals should seek to broaden their scope by enriching their blends with coaching, practical work assignments, performance support materials and so on. And the tools that they already have at their disposal, in the form of learning management systems and virtual learning environments, allow them to do this with varying degrees of success.

So let's leave to one side the formal delivery of learning interventions, where there seems to be a clear path forward for the learning profession. The challenge is supporting and encouraging learning as it occurs on a day-to-day basis, well beyond the formal curriculum.

Over the past few months I've been looking at a number of tools that might just help learning professionals to make a positive contribution in this area; tools that provide an infrastructure to support informal learning. The first I want to examine is Saba's new PeopleCloud. My challenge is to see whether it can make a difference across all four learning contexts:

Formal
Formal learning occurs through courses
As you would expect from one of the world's major LMS providers, Saba PeopleCloud does provide extensive support for formal learning. However, there is a key difference. Here, LMS functionality is provided within the context of your principal day-to-day tool for learning, knowledge-sharing and collaboration, not the other way round.

This is important because it means that the social elements of formal blended solutions can be supported  using everyday tools which don't require you to log into an LMS and learn a whole new set of conventions. A learning cohort becomes just another PeopleCloud group.

Non-formal
Non-formal learning provides development outside the context of formal courses
PeopleCloud allows you to set your own goals (including learning goals), although these can also be set by your manager or by the organisation as standard practice. You could then be supported in meeting those goals through YouTube-style video channels, communities of practice, shared content, webinars run using Saba Meetings, and so on. It is also possible to establish mentoring relationships and set up activities to support these.

On-demand
On-demand learning occurs at the point of need
PeopleCloud provides an alternative, social intranet where knowledge can be shared in the form of content, news feeds or through social interaction, both synchronous (chat and live meetings) and asynchronous (forums and groups). There's also a facility to track down an expert.

Experiential
Experiential learning occurs through job experience
Experiential learning can be accelerated by providing employees with opportunities to have more varied and challenging job experiences and then encouraging learning through reflection. While not currently a feature, Saba will be integrating workforce planning into PeopleCloud, which should help to support job rotation and enrichment. The functionality of PeopleCloud will also support action learning and blogging, which help to maximise what is learned through experience.

One feature I definitely like in PeopleCloud is the People Quotient (PQ), which measures the contribution that an employee makes to the community. You can raise your PQ by earning badges or by commendations from your peers. This 'gamifies' the process of social learning to some extent and provides the recognition you might just need to encourage you to move from being a 'lurker' to an active contributor.

Formal learning doesn't have to be all that formal

There are various models which attempt to describe the various contexts in which learning can take place at work. There's 70:20:10 of course, which places the greatest emphasis on experiential learning (the 70), then social learning (the 20), then formal learning (the 10). Naturally I prefer my own model, as described in my book The New Learning Architect (and written, before you ask, without any exposure to 70:20:10), which defines four contexts: formal (courses), non-formal (other proactive developmental approaches, including on-job instruction, coaching, communities of practice, webinars, conferences, reading, etc.), on-demand and experiential.

Anyway, the point of this post is not to argue about models and both will do for this purpose. What I'm finding is a great deal of confusion amongst learning professionals about the possibilities for including non-formal, on-demand and experiential elements (or the 70 and the 20) within the scope of a formal course (the 10).

As far as I'm concerned, a well-designed blended programme, although primarily a formal intervention, is very likely to cross boundaries into the other contexts. For example, a blend could easily include the following:

• Coaching from a manager or specialist coach (non-formal/20)
• Workshops in a physical or virtual classroom (formal/10)
• E-learning tutorials / scenarios / simulations / serious games (formal/10)
• Use of forums, wikis, blogs, etc. for reflection and discussion (non-formal/20)
• Content contributed by learners (non-formal/20)
• Work assignments (experiential/70)
• Performance support materials (on-demand/70)

I'm sure you could think of more examples.

So, yes, I believe it is possible to cross the boundaries within the context of a formal, blended course.

The mistake, though, is to believe that, in doing this, you are satisfying in its entirety the need for non-formal, on-demand and experiential learning (the 70 and the 20). In practice the vast majority of learning will continue to take place, as it always has, outside the context of formal courses. There is much you can do to support and encourage this, but you cannot encompass it within your programme of courses.