clarka clarka

No, this is not about Phantom Menace, Clones, or Revenge of the Sith.I greatly appreciate how much George Lucas advocates educational simulations. But when he talks about the "immaculate reality," the attention to the detail and cohesiveness of the simulated environment, the fear that a discordant factor will break the illusion and the learning, I have to disagree.There are at least four key reasons:Adding pedagogical details: Whether an onscreen graph or chart, or forced "advice" from a computer colleague, or even a screen telling you "congratulations," the adding of pedagogical elements on top of the simulation is critical to minimizing frusteration. Maybe these elements can be phased out over successive missions, but if they are not there, the students suffer.Breaking reality delibrately: Whether training a pilot on a flight simulator, or learning to drive, there are great reasons for breaking reality. An instructor might take out three out of the four engines without warning, to see how the pilot reacts. Or, after successfully following the rules and completing a difficult assignment in a driving simulator, the player might be rewarded with a bonus section where gravity is only one tenth as strong for his or her car.A focus on certain elements: One reason for a simulation is to narrow down the complexity of the system and the complexity of possible options. If someone wants a perfect simulation of a lemonade stand, I suggest they just go outside and open up a lemonade stand. If they want a perfect project management simulation, they should actually plan a party.We are imperfect: No computer can yet perfectly create reality. Every new generation of technology shows us how incomplete the last generation was. That can't hold us back. The learning experience should be measured in how much better than previous approaches, not closeness to perfection. On top of that, once we can create a perfect simulation in any given situation, we should just automate the process to behave perfectly and get the human out of the loop.We have to get better. We have to always be more accurate. We can get more complex. But to create this expectation, and to give traditionalists such a weapon, is more unforgivable than Jar Jar.

Where I disagree with George Lucas

This month marks the end of an era. After nearly a decade and 500+ posts, we are shuttering the Learning Circuits Blog and posting exclusively on the ASTD Learning Technologies Blog. It has been a tough decision, especially with the LC Blog getting some of its highest traffic ever—thanks to the amazing group of guest bloggers who have contributed their ideas and expertise over the past 10 months.  So, why are closing it down?Well, ASTD’s website redesign in April enabled us to publish blogs through our own Communities of Practice—rather than externally house them. For the past few months, we have been dual posting new content in both places, but that was never intended to be a long-term solution. So this month, we’re making the transition to post new content solely to the ASTD Learning Technologies Blog. It will still be the same great content, just on a different—and more dynamic—platform that is searchable from anywhere on the ASTD website, making it easier for users to find technology-related content.This isn’t the first time ASTD has revamped the LC Blog into a more serviceable offering. Excited about the new communication tool, we actually started our first blog somewhat ambitiously in 2002 as an experiment lead by informal learning guru Jay Cross and Learning Circuits editor Ryann Ellis. After a few years of misfires and restarts, Jay helped us relaunch the blog as we now know it on January 5, 2005, with a post laying down ground rules for a group-generated blog. In short, the rules were, no self-promotional posts, no personal attacks, and keep it brief—all good advice to heed today, no matter the platform.Indeed, over the years, the blog has seen several incarnations and a parade of learning technology thought leaders contributing content, including Clark Aldrich, Karl Kapp, Donald Clark, Dave Lee, Clark Quinn, Clive Shepherd, Harold Jarche, and most notably Tony Karrer, who was at the helm for nearly four years. We thank them and everyone else who shared their ideas, expertise, and dedication to the field. \[And have no fear: For those looking for an older post, the LC Blog will remain live with all its content intact.\]The final post on the LC Blog, Let’s Stop Pretending, is a fitting one. It’s been the most commented on post we’ve had in years. Written by Craig Wiggins, the post is a rally cry to all learning professionals and instructional designers. Thanks for sending us out on a high note, Craig.For August, our guest blogger is the wonderful Mayra Aixa Villar, who will share her insights on mobile learning.

The Blog Evolved

I was thinking about Clark's (the other Clark) post on learner rights, and then the broader learner marketplace. One of the trickiest parts about development of formal learning programs is that so often, the learner only has a passing relationship to the cost of the program.Enterprise ProgramsEnterprise training programs are paid by the corporate, military, or government sponsor.Their goal is usually some form of increased productivity or compliance.Any vendor has to care more about meeting the need of the training director, and the training sponsor, than the end learner. Even the cost of the classroom environment is often subsidized by the enterprise, penalizing e-learning, outside classes, or even training outsourcing.K-12K-12 schools are paid by taxpayers, not the students of course, nor even the family directly (even a family that goes on lavish vacations, for example, gets their education subsidized (of course if they have big houses, they also big property taxes; and then there is the private school whammy, where they are paying twice...).).As we are also learning, some K-12 activity is subsidized by softdrink/juice/water vendors, that come with strings attached.There are grant based subsidies that push activities in one way or another.And there are more subtle subsidies, making land cheaper than building supplies or technology, relative to other building projects.Of course, K-12 is required of students, which can be considered an anti-subsidy (increasing its cost to the student, while still interfering with the learner marketplace). Lack of choice for any required course also represents an anti-subsidy.CollegeIn many college situation, parents significantly augment the students' ability pay at least some of the tuition. Then there are scholarships for academic, sports, and music. And scholarships, like other endowments, are subsidies by alums, meaning schools have to do things specifically to keep alums happy (while students do certain things to meet the criteria of the scholarship), not necessarily in the interest of the students. Furthermore, the reason many students put up with schools is to get better jobs, which means that while corporations might subsidize universities directly, they anti-subsidize them indirectly. Any certification, in fact, is anti-subsidized by the organization that values itThese are just a few examples from the K-12, Higher Ed, and enterprise world. But every subsidy and anti-subsidy distorts the natural value proposition away from the learner marketplace. Getting over all of these will be our challenge for the decade.Note: This blog post has been subsidized by my most recent book, Learning By Doing. New book review here.

clarka clarka

About