New tools, same old problems: curation and media literacy

I've been trying to find, to no avail, the source for the quote: "If it isn't written down, it didn't happen."
And of course, the flip-side, "If it's written down, it must be true."

In light of Apple's announcement on their iBooks Author program and the release of iBooks 2, there's been a flurry of discussion of how this is the nail in the textbook industry's coffin. Maybe...but likely not.

The truth is, we NEED curators, and that's what the textbook industry is. For all of their (many) faults, textbooks try to collect and document information to provide a basis for what constitutes being educated. (I'm resisting adding quotes around the key words in that sentence...) As long as we are depending on others to do the curation for us, we are subject to their biases. When I wrote my Master's thesis on media literacy, I had no idea that it would become exponentially more important to develop those critical thinking and analysis skills; at the time, I was focused on subliminal gender and political biases perpetrated through marketing and journalism. I focused my media literacy curriculum on questioning the source and asking questions like:

• what information is being communicated? 
• why are they choosing to communicate that information? 
• what information is being left out? 
• how do the intrinsic biases of the people making those decisions shape what others are being led to believe?
• who has differing viewpoints or counter information? 
• what information are the authors basing their message on?
• how does it benefit the author for you to believe his/her message?

I could go on and on. 

The point is, EVERY communication is biased, but where journalism, media agencies, and even educational curriculum developers (eg, textbook publishers) are concerned, we are not usually taught to consider the source. 

We should always consider the source. We all need to become curators.

Even more challenging is our brain's awesome and frightening ability to create fabricated memories based on our biases. We need documentation and curation to prevent not just the biases of others, but our own personal biases, from rewriting history.

Not all opinions are created equal and not all "facts" or "truth" are created equal either. The goal of "fair and balanced" shouldn't just apply to political journalism, it should apply to any content we consume. Collect data, consider the source, examine the biases...don't confuse opinion with fact.

As the opportunity for curation and publication becomes more readily available, the need for media literacy, critical analysis of content, and curation skills become increasingly important. I'm thrilled that tools are becoming available that are challenging the stranglehold of textbook publishers. But the bigger question is, are we prepared for the responsibility inherent in the use of those tools? 

What makes a good learning "tool"?

Even though I'm attending through the Twitter stream, ADL's Implementation Fest #ifest is getting me fired up about some learning technology industry issues that just can't be explored in 140 characters. For example, yesterday there was some lively conversation around the usefulness of learning tools.

And I, in a rash statement, said that most learning tools suck.

But let me clarify, because there can be a broad definition of what a learning tool is.

For me, a learning tool is not what I use to design learning experiences (those things might include pen and paper, whiteboard, PowerPoint, Visio, etc.). A learning tool is NOT a reference tool like Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an information portal where you can go, read, and maybe learn something new...but it was not designed as a learning experience. It does not facilitate learning, even though it can enable it. Can you learn from a reference tool? Sure! But good reference tools have good user experience design, not instructional design, making it a reference tool and not a learning tool. There IS a difference.

A learning tool, to me, is something that you use to develop a learning experience. In other words, a tool that allows you to "design" a learning experience and output it into "Voila!" a learning experience. Input = content, output = training. And here's why I think most learning tools suck.

Most tools limit what you can design intrinsically in their functionality. Let's take PowerPoint. What you're going to get is slides. Pretty didactic. Maybe a little video embedded, some nifty animations...but you're not going to get much in the way of learner interaction.

But now I'm going to ask you a question...have you ever learned in a workshop that was guided by a PowerPoint slide? Have you ever been in a learning environment where PowerPoint was the primary learning tool, but the content, activity, discussion actually taught you something? I'm going to guess yes. Maybe you've even been lucky enough to be in a session guided by PowerPoint that made you do something differently when you left. You know what that is? GOOD DESIGN. It's not the tool. Its how you design learning experiences that facilitates learning, not the tool that you use.

So what makes a learning tool "good"? Openness. Flexibility. Interoperability with other learning tools and reference tools.

What makes a tool bad? One that dictates design. I could list some specific examples, but I'm betting you know what they are. Online learning development tools would be a great place to start.

One of my favorite quotes from yesterday's Twitter discussion was from John Campbell @jpcampbell :

what's ur expected output from tools? Learning Content? Why ask the architect to output a house?

Which is my point exactly. Instructional design and learning technology development are two different skill sets. Instructional designers are the architects and technology developers are the builders. You shouldn't build a house without an architectural plan, nor should you expect your architect to go ahead and put hammer to nail to bring his plan to life. There's an essential relationship here that too many organizations neglect to recognize, instead hiring IDs to build their training content using some rapid development tool. Most organizations are guilty of this in someway..."Put together a PowerPoint - led workshop!" "Import our workshop content into a virtual classroom!" "Create an Articulate module!" "Make video clips accessible from a smart phone!" This isn't a fault of the tools, its a lack of awareness of the importance of design. As an industry, we should NOT be designing learning experiences dictated by what tool you have (if you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail) but by the appropriate format to support the goal, supported by the appropriate design for that format. Instructor-led, game-based, online, mobile, print...they are ALL good formats when they are appropriate for the content, designed appropriately, and appropriate tools are used to develop them.

And that's why I think most learning tools suck...because they neglect to recognize the difference between design and development, and the default tends to be development at the expense of design.

Why Spymaster isn't a colossal waste of time

A couple days ago, I started seeing people I follow on Twitter getting assassinated. My first inclination was to find out what I needed to do to start assassinating people myself. And so I signed up for Spymaster.

Let me start by saying that I've never joined into any of the social games, like Mafia Wars, on Facebook. But honestly, I have given up on Facebook for the most part, and Spymaster is run through Twitter where I spend an inordinate amount of time (thus the two weeks since I've blogged anything...). Immediately I saw complaints in my twitterstream on the Spymaster spam (yep, its annoying) and naysayers touting it as a waste of time. Still, there were a few people I wanted to assassinate and so I signed up anyway.



Spymaster is not a learning game. But it is a game run in conjunction with a social media outlet, and a lot of my Twitter friends (who I think are really smart people) were definitely engaged. So for the last two days, I've played Spymaster. Here are my observations and conclusions:

- Yes, incentivized spam is annoying: Spymaster rewards players for posting a variety of updates on Twitter. The more you play, the more annoying this is for your followers who don't care if you just wounded @spydeesense or if you just bought a new safe house in Rio. But the temptation is there to post these things, since the game "pays" you for each update posted. This is probably the worst design feature, and although the updates can be turned off, the incentives make you think about it before finally deciding that a few "rubles" or "pounds" aren't worth the followers you're going to irritate.

- Its fun to assassinate your friends (and people you don't know, too): People are competitive. Social games feed the need for competition in a communal way, and a social media tool like Twitter is an interesting format for combining social technology with gaming. Its been done with Facebook, it'll be done with other social media tools too. Wherever people gather socially, people will be inclined to play games.

- But can it be used for learning?: The question I always come back to is how can the engagement that is garnered through games be translated into learning experiences? Most games actually do teach something, its just not explicit. A lot of games for learning somewhere along the way lose the thing that makes people want to play them: they lose the fun.

Spymaster, on the surface, is a simple game of accumulation and leveling up: assassinate people and perform tasks to make money and gain experience, allowing you to level up and more easily assassinate people and perform more complicated tasks. There incentive to get your Twitter friends to join the game to make your assassinations stronger. There's an economy of purchasing weapons, buying safe houses, and "saving" money in a Swiss bank account.

But the real "game" is the strategy in determining HOW you're going to level up. Do you focus on assassinations, or performing tasks? How much risk do you take on? How important is it to get your friends to become spymasters in your network? Is it better to try to assassinate your friends, or strangers? How do you pace yourself so you don't lose all your energy? Ok, granted, the content of Spymaster isn't particularly useful for anything I do in my day to day life (although based on my performance in the game, I would make an excellent Russian spy). But what if the content were a bit more "serious"? Could this same format be used to teach job performance content? Could it be used as an assessment technique? I think there are any number of potential uses of social games for learning...and sadly, very few have yet been seen or taken seriously.

I've lately been focused on ARGs as the next wave of games for learning. But social media games may be another viable model for learning, and a market full of immersive, engaging learning possibilities. Now back to my safe house to plot the next assassination...

Top 5 reasons I'm on Twitter

I'm not keeping up with my blogging like I should, and I blame Twitter. The conversation is so dynamic, it makes my blog seem slow and isolated. I like to think through some topics in more detail and so no, my blog is not obsolete. But if you want to really keep up with what's going on with business, virtual worlds, games, learning, or if you just want to see pictures of Tony Hawk skating (and sometimes his kids)...you should really be on Twitter.

What are the top 5 reasons I'm on Twitter?
1. It's a news source. I get information that I wouldn't have the time or energy (or even the know-how) to find on my own. Information, references, articles to read, the latest news...all streaming by for me to pull from. Hashtags (#) can help you sort through content to find topics of relevance, as can search tools.
2. It's a 24/7 networking opportunity. I've met the most interesting people. Networking is a skill, and in-person networking is tough. But on Twitter, you can find really smart, funny, and engaging people to exchange ideas with very easily. I'm learning from them every day. And now, having met some of my Twitter friends in person, the awkward first meeting isn't really awkward--I already know these people. Events like the #lrnchat live chats have allowed me to meet a lot of new people all interested in the same things I am. The development of communities of practice and learning through Twitter seem to be one of the ways the medium can be leveraged even more effectively for networking in the future.
3. It's a social outlet. Sadly, I work most of the time (I'm working on better balance though!) and the Tandem team is "geographically diverse" so work is sometimes a bit isolating. Twitter gives me a chance to take a break, exchange some banter, and build friendships along the way.
4. It's professional development. I've got filters and groups organized in Tweetdeck that allow me to keep up-to-date on the latest industry trends and events. I get inspired and challenged daily from my interactions on Twitter.
5. It's business development. Much has been said about using Twitter to market your services. Personally, I find Twitter marketers annoying. That said, people who demonstrate their knowledge and expertise in a particular area, I start to trust. If I needed help with a project now, I'd know a lot more people to contact. I've had people contact me through Twitter for my own expertise. And that's where I see the real value of Twitter "marketing."

So why aren't you there yet? Follow me @koreenolbrish

The mixed-up world of Second Life

Working on plans for our product we're developing in Second Life, we were talking to a Second Life developer today. He was asking what our design style was, and my honest answer was I hadn't really thought about it. I've been so focused on the strategy, I haven't had much time or energy to think about the style.

The funny thing is, and this is what the developer said as well, is that usually, all people think about when they are building in Second Life is the style, not the strategy. I think that's why there are so many "ghost towns"...just because you build something cool, doesn't mean people will come. You need to think about what would cause people to want to use your product, who would want to use it, and they tailor your product and messaging for that group.

For our Second Life product to be successful, we need to attract people who AREN'T already in Second Life. We have to show them that what we are offering is valuable, and Second Life is simply the delivery vehicle. Our product needs to transcend Second Life...so our marketing needs to focus on the product not the tool.

I've visited a lot of cool Second Life ghost towns. I'm not looking to build one for myself.

To Do lists

There are lots of people who seem to be able to get stuff done of their own accord, but I am a slave to the To Do list. I usually make a list each morning of the things I need to get to that day. I love checking things off the list. And the next day, I start by looking at what I didn't get to the day before and put those items on my new list.

Sadly, if I forget to put stuff on the list, it just doesn't get done.

And there are things that are on my list every day, like working on my book. Some "to do's" just take a lot longer to complete than others.

Often I think that these lists get in the way of more creativity, that perhaps they impede real 'a-ha' moments as I focus on checking stuff off of the lists. But last night, at our most recent Rockstar meeting, we got through the entire "to do" list for the meeting. I was excited that we got so much done, and energized that it seems like we've now taken the first steps in our product development adventure. We've officially left the discussion phase and have entered the doing phase of our first product.

So this morning, I'm loving my "to do" list and looking forward to checking items off one by one.

Splitting the pie

You're starting a business, but you're not alone...how do you figure out how much of the business people deserve from the get go, before you have any history to pull from? I found this handy-dandy tool, which, although not perfect and definitely subjective, gives you some criteria to help come up with a number. Better than the SWAG or finger to the wind method...