Does anyone else feel like this forum just went dead? It may be that it's because of the recent U.S. holiday, but all the other forums that I belong to are roaring with activity. Feels like it went dead right after this was posted, maybe because announcing a debriefing in a training session signals the end of the training session and that it's time to gather your papers and go home. This forum had just started to build some momentum and trust and unique rhythms and I was looking forward to another week of seeing where it would go next.
My first suggestion would be for a longer timeline and avoidance of the word "debrief" in any subject line (I didn't change the "3 Words" subject line to include "debrief") unless you want to stop the discussions. Might be better to do something similar to the "3 Words" thread and ask an open question like "What were the 3 most interesting concepts you've encountered during this discussion?" and then repeat that same open question several times during the timeline. That''s a technique that works well to gather user input during developing web projects and it's interesting watching the replies evolve.
I've been thinking a lot about the issue of how much structure is the right amount of structure, which is my paraphrasing of Nancy's question under the 3 words debriefing thread, and I think it was also asked early in the discussion. But now I feel that any discussion that might arise wouldn't fit into the timeline, so I'll confine myself to noting that I found the structure underlying this forum constraining. Didn't like having to go online for posting (no spell checker!), found the flow of the threads to be confusing - new subjects for existing threads, new threads with same subject, replies to replies that were actually replies to the original posting. It felt like a great opportunity for some type of graphical mind map of the concepts and discussion flow.
I also didn't like the HTML formatted emails and allowing attachments. Plain text format allows me to have a choice of what font style and size I prefer for my email display so I can set it and forget it. I still remember one of my first, and still one of the top 3, eLearning experiences from around 5 years ago. It was a weekly distribution of plain text emails presenting a small bite concept with a supporting discussion forum. It was just enough structure, but not too much.
Christie Mason
Christie Mason
Posts made by Christie Mason
In high school I wanted to become a librarian because I love books - I love their smell and their feel and portability. But now I hate to use them as resources. Why? Because I can't Ctrl-F to search their contents to refind and collect/rearrange the parts that were useful. I can't scan for content and then drill down to detail. Plus, books just can't keep up with 'net technologies. By the time they're published the information has become almost useless.
As I look over the hundreds of non-fiction books that I've accumulated it strikes me that the most useful ones on understanding learning processes and change mgmt have been those focused on sales techniques. To me training is selling someone on the need to learn, selling them on the need to change.
Yes I still read printed material but it tends to be free magazines that have online access to their articles (for some reason most training magazines don't offer this service). I'm currently enjoying CLO- Chief Learning Officer and CIO-Chief Information Officer magazines. I also do a lot of ripping and tearing and filing but have to admit I rarely delve into the files.
I no longer use browser "Favorites" features became they're too cumbersome and linear, plus I use multiple browsers and I could never remember what was where, so I created a database that we use as a simple reference tool. First I created the quotes database for my own use and then I created a link database that we use as simple reference/KM tool. That db was also my first hands on exploration of online searching functions and faceted classification.
BTW - one book that I do NOT recommend is "e-Learning and the Science of Instruction". Inaccurate recommendations based on some old, really old and really, really old studies of college kids. Semi-relevant for CD based distribution (CBT), not the web.
Christie Mason
As I look over the hundreds of non-fiction books that I've accumulated it strikes me that the most useful ones on understanding learning processes and change mgmt have been those focused on sales techniques. To me training is selling someone on the need to learn, selling them on the need to change.
Yes I still read printed material but it tends to be free magazines that have online access to their articles (for some reason most training magazines don't offer this service). I'm currently enjoying CLO- Chief Learning Officer and CIO-Chief Information Officer magazines. I also do a lot of ripping and tearing and filing but have to admit I rarely delve into the files.
I no longer use browser "Favorites" features became they're too cumbersome and linear, plus I use multiple browsers and I could never remember what was where, so I created a database that we use as a simple reference tool. First I created the quotes database for my own use and then I created a link database that we use as simple reference/KM tool. That db was also my first hands on exploration of online searching functions and faceted classification.
BTW - one book that I do NOT recommend is "e-Learning and the Science of Instruction". Inaccurate recommendations based on some old, really old and really, really old studies of college kids. Semi-relevant for CD based distribution (CBT), not the web.
Christie Mason
Thanks Nancy, I must have missed the originals. Anything that uses single syllable words such as "kick ass" tends to attract my attention, but I have to confess that the list doesn't "click" with me.
I always find it easier to explain why something does "click" rather than why something doesn't "click" so I'll just muddle out loud and hope something makes sense. I agree that these could be worthwhile experiences, perhaps more like worthwhile emotions, but I don't feel/see/hear any "how" or "why" to create these emotions/experiences.
Those words feel like trying to hold a handful of air and for some strange reason they sound like the same types of large concept/little shared meaning words that people use to describe the qualities of leadership.
Maybe you could expand on where you felt the sameness between these ideas and what I posted?
Struggling,
Christie Mason
I always find it easier to explain why something does "click" rather than why something doesn't "click" so I'll just muddle out loud and hope something makes sense. I agree that these could be worthwhile experiences, perhaps more like worthwhile emotions, but I don't feel/see/hear any "how" or "why" to create these emotions/experiences.
Those words feel like trying to hold a handful of air and for some strange reason they sound like the same types of large concept/little shared meaning words that people use to describe the qualities of leadership.
Maybe you could expand on where you felt the sameness between these ideas and what I posted?
Struggling,
Christie Mason
I'm seeing similar concepts in several different threads.
I've learned to redefine "fun" as "F.U.N." (Focusing onUnderstanding Needs). What does the learner need to learn? What need is motivating this learner to learn? When a learner is learning what they need in an environment that motivates their learning, that's when I'm having fun because I'm successfully applied "F.U.N."
I was just looking at the Maslow Hierarchy and trying to align different levels of motivation to what that level may consider a fun way to learn. It seems to me that externally motivated people are motivated by social recognition and belonging, internally motivated people have fun controlling their own quest for knowing. This closely aligns with how different personality matrix split personalities between task driven and socially driven types.
Looking at the different ways people are motivated to learn explains a lot to me about the different reactions from different types of learners to games andother training/teaching techniques. Try a nonsense game that's not tied to the topic with a classroom of engineers, programmers or successful salespeople and feel the room go cold. Those functions tend to attract task oriented people who are internally motivated. Try that same game with trainers as a audience and you'll feel the room go warm and open. I verystrongly suspect that's why trainers view sales, engineering and IT audiencesas "the toughest audience". Trainers tend to offer training based on the Golden Rule "Do unto others the way I want to be done unto" and that doesn't match the diverse needs and motivators of their learners.
I've always found it better to apply the Platinum Rule "Do unto others the way they want to be done unto". To me, the Platinum Rule encapsulates the essence of "F.U.N." and how it can be applied to support informal learning processes that meet the needs of many different definitions of "fun". I use it daily to continuously remind me that my definition of fun isn't the same as other people's definition of fun.
Christie Mason
From: Videogames revolution and informal learning by Bronwyn Stuckey
"Can we claim to be learning because we are engaged?"
From: Debriefing "Just Three Words" Game by Ann Busby
in reply to my post questioning what was being learned from "Just ThreeWords". "I want learning to be fun, not drudgery"
From: various threads about how children learn vs adult learning I've been wondering "Doesn't it seem like kids have fun learning just about anything, any time, anywhere as long as it's not in school?" Plus, outside of structured teaching environments, I just haven't seen a significant difference between the way that kids and adults learn.
I believe that learning is fun, it's one of my strongest motivators. I also believe that most teaching and instructional methodology is designed to remove the fun I find in learning. Why? I have no idea. I know that people/rats/ etc repeat behavior that is rewarded. What the reward could be for ignoring decades of theories and observations that indicate that different people learn in different ways continues to escape my understanding. However, I have a strong suspicion that George Washingtoncan supply a piece of the puzzle.
One of the difficulties in bringing about change in an organization isthat you must do so through the persons who have been most successful in thatorganization, no matter how faulty the system or organization is. To suchpersons, you see, it is the best of all possible organizations, because lookwho was selected by it and look who succeeded most in it. Yet these are the very people through whom we must bring about improvements. GeorgeWashington
Look at what passes for "fun" in most teaching/training environments- a game such as an ice breaker or a Flash simulation. What the training community is slowly learning is that the participants deem a game that isn?t tied into learning something about the topic a waste of time. Why isn't that reaction always reflected on the smiley sheets? I've eavesdropped on many coffee break and post training informal discussions for years and noted that even when the majority is dissatisfied with the "fun" that was imposed on them, they never notate it on the evaluation. Why? The reasons that I hear again and again are variations of "didn't want to make the trainer feel bad", "other people seemed to enjoy it", or "I've just learned to deal with it because everybody does it."
I've learned to redefine "fun" as "F.U.N." (Focusing onUnderstanding Needs). What does the learner need to learn? What need is motivating this learner to learn? When a learner is learning what they need in an environment that motivates their learning, that's when I'm having fun because I'm successfully applied "F.U.N."
I was just looking at the Maslow Hierarchy and trying to align different levels of motivation to what that level may consider a fun way to learn. It seems to me that externally motivated people are motivated by social recognition and belonging, internally motivated people have fun controlling their own quest for knowing. This closely aligns with how different personality matrix split personalities between task driven and socially driven types.
Looking at the different ways people are motivated to learn explains a lot to me about the different reactions from different types of learners to games andother training/teaching techniques. Try a nonsense game that's not tied to the topic with a classroom of engineers, programmers or successful salespeople and feel the room go cold. Those functions tend to attract task oriented people who are internally motivated. Try that same game with trainers as a audience and you'll feel the room go warm and open. I verystrongly suspect that's why trainers view sales, engineering and IT audiencesas "the toughest audience". Trainers tend to offer training based on the Golden Rule "Do unto others the way I want to be done unto" and that doesn't match the diverse needs and motivators of their learners.
I've always found it better to apply the Platinum Rule "Do unto others the way they want to be done unto". To me, the Platinum Rule encapsulates the essence of "F.U.N." and how it can be applied to support informal learning processes that meet the needs of many different definitions of "fun". I use it daily to continuously remind me that my definition of fun isn't the same as other people's definition of fun.
Christie Mason
There's a bit of irony in this posting because I'm usually very supportive of chaotic/informal learning processes. But, I have always had difficulty in seeing the reason to have a game just to have a game. I enjoyed the moments of fun to think of 3 words but I'm left wondering... Has anyone learned anything?
I don't think we're building community with this because no one is commenting, expanding or engaging with any other posting. There are some nested threads but only because people are replying to replies, not to the parent thread.
The best games have a reason to engage, an attraction tht promotes activity, a payback for energies invested. Perhaps it's my internal blindness but I'm missing the reasoning for this game and where it's supposed to lead.
Maybe the purpose is to point out that informal learning isn't fun and games?
Christie Mason
I don't think we're building community with this because no one is commenting, expanding or engaging with any other posting. There are some nested threads but only because people are replying to replies, not to the parent thread.
The best games have a reason to engage, an attraction tht promotes activity, a payback for energies invested. Perhaps it's my internal blindness but I'm missing the reasoning for this game and where it's supposed to lead.
Maybe the purpose is to point out that informal learning isn't fun and games?
Christie Mason