Category: instructional designers

Posted on

The uncommitted learner produces excuses

It’s been a while since I’ve been active on my blog because I’ve been working on some fundamental projects I plan to share with my professional learning community soon. One of them is ways to work with uncommitted learners.

To be committed to something means that one has pledged himself/herself to a certain course or task. Hence, I define a committed learner as one who is willing to give himself/herself to the learning process fully.  However, an uncommitted learner is reluctant to give himself/herself fully to the learning process due to their own perceptions of lack or limitation in academic acumen and fear.

I’ve been grappling with ways of working with uncommitted learners over the last two years. In my experience, I’m noticing more and more learners are generating excuses for why they are not able to partake in the learning process, yet they’ve registered and/or signed up for the course or workshop. Fully committed learners give up valuable experiences with family and friends and forego learning shortcuts in order to achieve their learning goals. Whereas uncommitted learners, make excuses that allow them to carry on with their routines and behaviors while limiting their growth.

For a while, uncommitted learners frustrated me. So I started researching what underlies “un”- commitment. I realized that uncommitted learners make excuses because of their perceived lack, limitation, and want for academic acumen.

Like uncommitted customers, uncommitted learners can be placed into four categories:

  • available
  • ambivalent
  • weakly unavailable
  • strongly unavailable

Uncommitted available learners can be converted with optimal instructional design and learner engagement. Uncommitted ambivalent learners have mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about the course or workshop, so they too will need optimal instructional design and plenty of opportunities for learner engagement along with supplementary resources that will help them gain more clarity in order for them to commit.

Uncommitted weakly available learners lack trust and are reluctant to be vulnerable during the learning process.  Nonetheless, these learners can be converted with ample support and encouragement from the course facilitator and their co-learners. Whereas, uncommitted strongly unavailable learners are teetering on the line of withdrawal from the learning experience because they simply do not want to be a part of the learning process. Perhaps, they are in the course or workshop due to external compulsory factors. So, it will take divine forces to convert them.

In sum, I learned that I can’t convert them all, and that’s okay. I also learned to listen closely to their excuses in order to better craft my conversion approach. Are their excuses telling me that they are available, ambivalent, weakly unavailable, or strongly unavailable? Whichever one, I’m fully committed to being committed to their learning journey.

Posted on

Video Ask and elearning

I recently learned about a new tool called Video Ask. It’s an interactive video chatbot that allows you to get realtime feedback in a more personalized way. In this video, I discuss the tool and how I use it in my e-learning instructional designs.

Posted on

The Five Instructional Stances

The instructional stance is always determined by the learner and the learning goal. Subsequently, the instructional stance will, in turn, determine which tools to use within the various instructional designs.

One instructional stance is pedagogy. Pedagogy has a  strong connection to behaviorism.  It is heavily instructor-centered and bases learning on environmental conditioning and stimuli. Another instructional stance is andragogy. Andragogy has a powerful connection to cognitive constructivism, as it is more learner-centered and accepted as an instructional approach for mature learners. However, cognitive constructivists believe that development precedes learning. Hence, “in andragogy, the learners themselves directly and significantly influence the curriculum, based on their interests and needs” (Bangura, 2005, p. 28), because of their development and maturation.

Ergonagy, like pedagogy, is an instructional stance with a strong connection to behaviorism, as with this instructional stance, learners are expected to learn for vocational purposes. Bangura (2005) submitted that “ergonagy supports a continual blending of academic and vocational education for improved work opportunities throughout individuals’ lives, whether in one or several careers” (p. 31). Hence, this instructional stance is centered on a technique. This instructional stance may or may not require specialized knowledge, depending upon the training objectives.  Heutagogy, like andragogy, has a powerful connection to constructivism and the newly identified theory of connectivism. Heutagogy is fully learner-centered, as this instructional stance allows learners full autonomy over the curriculum. Lastly, ubuntugogy, which has its roots in Afrocentric philosophy, has a connection to social constructivism. Unlike cognitive constructivists, social constructivists believe that learning precedes development. Ubuntugogy is heavily group centered and founded on the principles of dialogue, consensus building, and religiosity. Bangura (2005) argued that ubuntugogy has the potential to surpass all of the aforementioned instructional stances.

Once the instructional stance is determined based on the learner’s needs, the instructional designer will then determine which tools, analog and/or digital, will work best for his or her designs. Tools for both the learner and course authoring should be carefully examined, as tools are a huge part of learning. Ira Socol (2008) submitted that instructors should consider that learners, like instructional designers, also need experience with deciding which tools will go into their toolbelts, as each toolbelt is unique to its user. For this post, I will consider course authoring tools.

 

Reference:

Bangura, Abdul. (2005). Ubuntugogy: An African educational paradigm that transcends pedagogy, andragogy, ergonagy and heutagogy. 22. 13-53.

Khademi, M., Haghshenas, M. and Kabir, H. (2011). A Review On Authoring Tools. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fac5/9b388f822adac8bf3338fbb98b4a0690629b.pdf November 6, 2019

Socol, I. D. (2008) Toolbelt Theory. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/iradavidsocol/home/toolbelt-theory October 23, 2018.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Posted on

Practice what you preach!

I recently got the opportunity to do some freelance work as a subject matter expert. It was exciting to be a freelance subject matter expert, even though it was a short-lived opportunity. Hence, this experience taught me a big lesson… Practice what you preach.

 

Reference:

Hodell, C., & ProQuest. (2015). ISD from the Ground up, 4th Edition. Alexandria: American Society for Training & Development.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Posted on

The Instructional Designer’s Hierarchy of Needs

According to Maslow, there is a hierarchy of needs that are necessary for learning to occur. Like Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs, I believe that there is a hierarchy of needs for instructional designers.  Maslow has five levels of hierarchical needs. They are as follows:

  1. Physiological needs
  2. Safety needs
  3. Belongingness and love
  4. Esteem and accomplishment
  5. Self-actualization/Achieving one’s potential

 

  1. Image result for maslow hierarchy of needs

Using Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs, I’ve decided to tweak his theory for instructional designers who design learning experiences.  Assuming that Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs have already been met, the following are the instructional designer’s hierarchy of needs:

  1. Knowledge and understanding of learning theory
  2. Knowledge and understanding of individual learners
  3. Knowledge and understanding of David Rock’s SCARF Model
  4. Instructional toolbelt

IDOL Hierarchy of Needs

For starts, instructional designers must have a solid knowledge base of learning theory. In other words, instructional designers have to be familiar with the learning process and effective conditions of learning from a pedagogical stance, andragogical stance, heutagogical stance, or an ergonagical stance. Learning theory has been described by behaviorists, cognitivist, constructivists, and of late, connectivists. Hence, instructional designers should be familiar with each school of thought on learning in order to have a full understanding of the various dimensions of learning.

Learners are who instructional designers work for, yet they rarely get access to them.  Nonetheless,  having data on learners is important because it will determine the instructional stance. For instance, if learners are inexperienced or beginning to learn new concepts and skills, then a pedagogical stance would be instrumental in this case. However, if the learners are mature and need less guidance, then an andragogical stance would work best. If the learner is a fully self-actualized mature learner, then a heutagogical stance would be appropriate. Finally, if the learner needs specific technical knowledge for technical problems, then an ergonagical stance would be perfect.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs includes safety. Therefore, learning can not occur in situations of perceived threat. Hence, instructional designers who create an opportunity for learners to experience Rock’s SCARF model are helping to reduce the learner’s perceived threat. Rock created a brain-based model that supports collaboration can can be affected by threats and rewards. SCARF stands for status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness. This model is used to help individuals enhance relationships and improve connectedness with others. When SCARF is applied within an instructional design, it boosts learner connectedness as it reduces perceived threats. Here is how I see SCARF enhancing instructional designs below:

  • Status is about the relative importance of all connected individuals.
  • Certainty allows all connected individuals the ability to predict the future.
  • Autonomy provides connected learners a sense of control over events.
  • Relatedness provides a sense of safety amongst connected learners.
  • Fairness is the belief that fair exchanges will occur between all connected individuals.

In one of my earlier posts entitled Collaborative Production of Digital Media and the Tool Belt Theory, I mentioned Socol’s Toolbelt Theory. Socol argued that learners need to have access to a variety of digital and analog tools and understanding of the task at hand. He called this paradigm TEST. TEST stands for Task, Environment, Skills, and Tools. Hence, instructional designers can create learning experiences that assist learners in understanding the task, the environment that the task will take place, Skills necessary for the task, and the possible tools that can be utilized to complete the task. Also, the TEST paradigm allows learners to construct personalized toolbelts based on the task and skills necessary.

In sum, knowledge and understanding of learning theory, individual learners, Rock’s SCARF Model, and TEST are all elements within the hierarchy of needs for instructional designers. When each of these needs are met, highly effective learning designs are produced.

Reference:

Rock, D., & Page, L. J. (2009). Coaching with the brain in mind: Foundations for practice. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley.

Socol, I. D. (n.d.) Toolbelt Theory. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/iradavidsocol/home/toolbelt-theoryOctober 23, 2018.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

close

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

Get new posts by email: