(Note: Got into the room a couple minutes late, so there might be a bit of intro missed)
Intro - daVinci Xi
Meg B presents a case study, the background specifically, for an app that they've created (centered on surgeons). In essence, the providers wanted to be able to review patient information (among other things) while waiting in line at Starbucks.
The Hurdles
Complex topic, Multiple versions and translations, Reuse of Content, Limitations of Print, Headache to Manage, and Users Asking for Mobile - All issues we're faced with. All of these can stand in the way of designing almost anything.
Once the problems were defined, Meg's group needed to identify benefits that they were looking for and align them with their available options. Our respective lists will, naturally, differ from the one she shows, but there are certain similarities likely across the board. Ultimately, Meg was looking to get the information a user needed to them succinctly and as timely as possible. Benefits included finding the right content, easily navigable, connection to processes, media focused, and easy to update,
They were mostly looking at tools that were 'container' apps - IOW, updates would be able to be applied quickly. They also looked at some custom options, definitely something they could develop without being a coder.
With hurdles and benefits identified, cost was analyzed. Each vendor had a different pricing structure, so it made it even more difficult (no standard). Similar to LMS purchase decisions, they wanted to make sure everything fit their needs from a financial, audience, and maintenance perspective. Two comparisons, then, had to be made:
Feature Set vs Critical Requirements
Cost vs Budget
How'd They Pitch It?
Despite trying to get it approved via pitches and roadshows, they had to develop a pilot to get that final approval. The organization went with MagPlus. In doing the pilot, they had to create a measurable result, showing that it actually worked. Things considered included Methods of Data Collection, Pilot Participant Survey Questions, and Pilot Participant Interview Questions.
(So, get your budget together and develop your pilot - See Mobile App Pilot Proposal image)
Other participants in the room share their pilot experiences...from elearning to LMS selection to app development, too - Everyone's been there, everyone's got a story. It's refreshing to hear others' woes while reflecting on our own.
What's Next?
Once they had the content and the tool it was going to be developed in, how do we organize it? How do we chunk it better? Should we let learners jump around between topics? Decisions were made and Meg (see: Team of One) was able to develop it in a couple of months. All coding/dev was done in InDesign.
One other struggle in the pilot process proved to be getting people to participate in it. Meg created a spreadsheet and reviewed employee schedules so that she could identify them and elicit their participation. This included scheduling them, presenting the pilot to them, allowing them time to utilize, scheduling their feedback, etc...there was a lot to it. Overall, this portion took 9-12 months.
(* Note - it was all available offline so it could be used in the surgical suite...talk about knowing your audience.)
Received some really good feedback from users - "Less paper to fumble through" came from one of their sales reps. They were able to show content to the customer without having to dig through documents. Met needs, Helpful images, Helpful video, Easy navigation, and a 100% rating that they would recommend to their colleagues = SUCCESS.
Folks around the room discuss feedback they've received from other pilots they've done. Mixed results, it seems - But at the core of asking for feedback is being willing, ready, and able to work on said feedback to further improve the content/product.
Yet Another Wrench...But Not Really a Wrench
Mid-pilot, there was a request to re-do the research on tools that would work to develop the app in question and, based on that, Meg got approval for the budget that would support one of the originally planned for options.
Another team came in and saw they were creating an app and wanted to add even more material (Content Marketing, etc.). Again, budget was provided to pay for a content developer. So, going back to the initial struggles, Meg and crew were able to develop what they were originally looking for.
Sharing the Content and Pulling It All Together
With the pilot going on, the tool needed to be decided on - There were two that did most of what they needed. Prioritization was key at this point as far as what needs should be addressed and addressed most urgently. While both options were significantly different, price points came in at about the same amount. One deciding factor was that the source files, assets, and articles would be reusable. Ultimately, they went with AEM (Adobe Experience Manager).
(Vendor issues, re: 'getting' daVinci persisted)
When Working With Vendors
1.) Get incredibly clear about:
- Exactly what will be done
- Who will do what
- What equipment/software will be needed
- Documentation of all agreements
2.) Request a proof-of-concept. Have them build you something (mock-up, etc.)
3.) Plan for analytics, data gathering
Organizing the Content
Next, they had to determine where the information was going to be held and how the information was going to be sorted. By role? What's the smallest chunk to reuse? Naming convention? So many considerations to be had (Meg shows an org screen showing what goes to who, and it looks like it's literally a 6 point font). Meg mentions that, while this is the most painful, drawn out portion of the process, it is the most significant...if you dig into it and begin writing without doing that, you'll have to go back more often than not.
Also, as far as organizing the development efforts, she marked off group by group (content, images, etc.) via mega spreadsheet. While overwhelming looking, it certainly made sure all the i's were dotted/t's crossed.
The Full Launch
When it was ready to go to the whole sales force, one platform was deployed to all. Later, they were able to add bookmarking (as more content was added). All in all, a phased approach to content was applied. Where it proved most useful was, say, a sales rep was 2 hours into an in-service and someone asked a question from the first 15 minutes. They were able to jump right back.
Solid anecdotal feedback was gathered from the sales rep, even some of the pilot champions. (Easily accessible reference tool, etc.)
Conclusion
Always great to hear someone walk through the twisted path they've gone through to make an amazing product. It's never as straight a line as people imagine, but Meg and her crew definitely made the best out of the entire process.
Thursday, October 24, 2019
Session 407 - Best Practices for Planning, Developing & Implementing Serious Games
Intro
Doggo fail vids will ALWAYS have me at "Hello"...seriously, though? Great technique to provide some cerebral respite.
Serious Games
Purpose of today's talk is to not only discuss best practices of serious games, but really hunker down into the what to/not to do in the serious game landscape.
So, why did they become so popular? Andrew performs a quick social experiment: "We no longer live in the age of information, we live in the age of instant gratification/feedback." How do we know that? "How many of you get mad when someone doesn't text you back immediately?"
Fair.
"I'm 37 years old - WE are the first generation that video games was the primary means of entertainment. I want to know where the information is, not WHAT the information is. This fundamental shift is why Serious Games are such a big deal."
What is an Actual Game?
In L&D, one of the critical things you hear when working with Fortune 500 companies is that "We need to train people, but they can't fail". That is WRONG. Absolutely, completely WRONG.
Compliance training is not performance training - You're not creating change, you're simply checking off the box. Andrew can run a mile, but he's not a marathon runner. Just because you take a compliance course doesn't make you compliant.
*Cue the Are Our Lives A Game video*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWIi6Pytde8
We fail all the time and should fail in learning. Think about it - You don't start playing Call of Duty and it says "Welcome to Call of Duty! This is X, Y, Z...and, btw, you can't die!"
Memory, Fine Motor Skills, and Strategic Planning can be enhanced by playing video games - Andrew shows a video where the name of a color and color of the word are in contrast and the audience needs to yell out the color of the word. Funny thing - If you play 5-10 hours of video games a week, you're able to do it MUCH more easily...
(...and I was. Wow. Get out of my head, Hughes.)
Fun Produces Engagement
Video games won't necessarily make your brain better, but your brain will adapt to the challenges presented to them. Think - How many kids can honestly say when their parents said to not touch something that you didn't? You don't truly learn until you EXPERIENCE. And EXPERIENCE is actual LEARNING...and you're experiencing it in video games.
News has even changed - We've stepped away from "News must be accurate" to "News must be out the fastest".
Video games DO NOT have an age limit. Andrew shows a video of a 71 year old world ranked CS:GO player.
So, What Are Serious Games?
Serious games are not video games. Serious games are not leaderboards, badges, and achievements. Most people on your achievement leaderboard are your high performers already - Of course they're going to complete it. But what about everyone else? There's really no substance to this.
If you do leaderboards, make them relevant to the people looking at them. If you have someone ranked 55th, you should be able to see 52-54 and 56-58. If it stops being a competition (like, by only showing the Top 10), you have NO reason to achieve...no reason to strive. RELATIVE LEADERBOARDS are a must.
Badges are somewhat the same - Video of a 4 year old trying to explain his motivation. Here's the science behind badges: We signal status every day. Andrew references what he's wearing to present (suit) and the fact that he's going up to his room after the session and changing into shorts, t-shirts, and flip flops. "Ladies - You don't put on makeup for us, do you?" (<-- interesting="" p="" point="">
"Our challenge is the people who don't give a crap."
What is Engagement and How Do We Do It?
Andrew shows his kiddo playing with a VR headset. "This is your future audience."
"You should be building serious games as a part of your curriculum."
Andrew played D1 rugby. "We never went out, practiced once, and played a game" Your brain is a muscle which can have its thought patterns reshaped, the way you think changed - Neuroplasticity is REAL.
Games with a purpose can entertain, engage, and educate people on a topic they want to learn. Why do we need to do all 3? Experiment - How many of us can recall our worst teacher? Lots. How many of you remember the curriculum from that teacher? Not a lot, if any. How many of you remember your BEST teacher? Lots. How many of you can remember curriculum from your best? Lots.
Vision vs Goals
Exercise: Draw a banana, hat, triangle, rectangle, and a stick figure. Compare with your neighbor. Similar...all separate items. Andrew then draws a man in a sailboat with a hat on...THAT'S what he wanted. He didn't provide parameters...he didn't provide the vision.
An example of a serious game, one of the best, is Domino's pizza maker. It's free and available to everyone. You MAKE PIZZAS...you make Domino's pizza. And, guess what? Domino's uses the registration data to RECRUIT 17 to 23 YEAR OLDS TO WORK FOR THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY PRE-TRAINED!!!
DD created a serious game to work with stroke victims. When they asked the target audience, they didn't want to play a game...they wanted to cook breakfast, they wanted to tie their shoes, they wanted to open a door. THAT'S what they wanted to do, and that's what was placed in their serious game. (Heavy.) Listen to your audience.
On To The Best Practices
Just like life, a video game gets harder and harder until the end. In a serious game, you want to have the same thing. If you have a new salesperson, the first scenario might involve an easy sale, but later on you start to implement objections, etc. THEY SHOULD FAIL - People learn from failure because your ego starts to get involved. If it's too easy, it's not fun.
The days of problem solving have come and gone...Johnny and Sally have 7 apples each. NO. Cue The Walking Dead story game. Deep, engaging, real. But, at the end of the day, scenarios create a multiple choice game. That's it.
Parallel Branching
Branching is impossible to do in its actual terminology. 156 different outcomes? NO. Parallel branching is where you may have only two or three actual endings to a game.
The Call of Duty Model
Kids who play CoD know every single modern weapon used by our modern military - But we don't consider it learning. Its' not relevant to us. But, do you know who does? The US Military, who recruit top players to be drone pilots (and more).
Immediate Feedback
If you played Oregon Trail, you didn't get "You don't feel so great", "You're vomiting", "You have gagrene"...no. You just got "You have died of typhoid". Instant fail, instant reset, instant re-engagement. Again, feeds into that learner ego.
Tangible Results
NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR BADGES - As soon as you leave your company, they're gone...they're done. What works really well? "Lunch with Charles Barkley" - Experiences, swag, etc...this works. You've got to be able to walk away with something.
Fun Is A Metric (remember that)
In Conclusion
A WHOLE lot to consider - And an amazing topic. Failure is truly the best teacher, so we should allow it to be in the 'classroom'. These games can be developed in whatever authoring platform you're already proficient in, using the MC game example above. Be aware of your target demographic/audience and design for that very group.
Doggo fail vids will ALWAYS have me at "Hello"...seriously, though? Great technique to provide some cerebral respite.
Serious Games
Purpose of today's talk is to not only discuss best practices of serious games, but really hunker down into the what to/not to do in the serious game landscape.
So, why did they become so popular? Andrew performs a quick social experiment: "We no longer live in the age of information, we live in the age of instant gratification/feedback." How do we know that? "How many of you get mad when someone doesn't text you back immediately?"
Fair.
"I'm 37 years old - WE are the first generation that video games was the primary means of entertainment. I want to know where the information is, not WHAT the information is. This fundamental shift is why Serious Games are such a big deal."
What is an Actual Game?
In L&D, one of the critical things you hear when working with Fortune 500 companies is that "We need to train people, but they can't fail". That is WRONG. Absolutely, completely WRONG.
Compliance training is not performance training - You're not creating change, you're simply checking off the box. Andrew can run a mile, but he's not a marathon runner. Just because you take a compliance course doesn't make you compliant.
*Cue the Are Our Lives A Game video*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWIi6Pytde8
We fail all the time and should fail in learning. Think about it - You don't start playing Call of Duty and it says "Welcome to Call of Duty! This is X, Y, Z...and, btw, you can't die!"
Memory, Fine Motor Skills, and Strategic Planning can be enhanced by playing video games - Andrew shows a video where the name of a color and color of the word are in contrast and the audience needs to yell out the color of the word. Funny thing - If you play 5-10 hours of video games a week, you're able to do it MUCH more easily...
(...and I was. Wow. Get out of my head, Hughes.)
Fun Produces Engagement
Video games won't necessarily make your brain better, but your brain will adapt to the challenges presented to them. Think - How many kids can honestly say when their parents said to not touch something that you didn't? You don't truly learn until you EXPERIENCE. And EXPERIENCE is actual LEARNING...and you're experiencing it in video games.
News has even changed - We've stepped away from "News must be accurate" to "News must be out the fastest".
Video games DO NOT have an age limit. Andrew shows a video of a 71 year old world ranked CS:GO player.
So, What Are Serious Games?
Serious games are not video games. Serious games are not leaderboards, badges, and achievements. Most people on your achievement leaderboard are your high performers already - Of course they're going to complete it. But what about everyone else? There's really no substance to this.
If you do leaderboards, make them relevant to the people looking at them. If you have someone ranked 55th, you should be able to see 52-54 and 56-58. If it stops being a competition (like, by only showing the Top 10), you have NO reason to achieve...no reason to strive. RELATIVE LEADERBOARDS are a must.
Badges are somewhat the same - Video of a 4 year old trying to explain his motivation. Here's the science behind badges: We signal status every day. Andrew references what he's wearing to present (suit) and the fact that he's going up to his room after the session and changing into shorts, t-shirts, and flip flops. "Ladies - You don't put on makeup for us, do you?" (<-- interesting="" p="" point="">
"Our challenge is the people who don't give a crap."
What is Engagement and How Do We Do It?
Andrew shows his kiddo playing with a VR headset. "This is your future audience."
"You should be building serious games as a part of your curriculum."
Andrew played D1 rugby. "We never went out, practiced once, and played a game" Your brain is a muscle which can have its thought patterns reshaped, the way you think changed - Neuroplasticity is REAL.
Games with a purpose can entertain, engage, and educate people on a topic they want to learn. Why do we need to do all 3? Experiment - How many of us can recall our worst teacher? Lots. How many of you remember the curriculum from that teacher? Not a lot, if any. How many of you remember your BEST teacher? Lots. How many of you can remember curriculum from your best? Lots.
Vision vs Goals
Exercise: Draw a banana, hat, triangle, rectangle, and a stick figure. Compare with your neighbor. Similar...all separate items. Andrew then draws a man in a sailboat with a hat on...THAT'S what he wanted. He didn't provide parameters...he didn't provide the vision.
An example of a serious game, one of the best, is Domino's pizza maker. It's free and available to everyone. You MAKE PIZZAS...you make Domino's pizza. And, guess what? Domino's uses the registration data to RECRUIT 17 to 23 YEAR OLDS TO WORK FOR THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY PRE-TRAINED!!!
DD created a serious game to work with stroke victims. When they asked the target audience, they didn't want to play a game...they wanted to cook breakfast, they wanted to tie their shoes, they wanted to open a door. THAT'S what they wanted to do, and that's what was placed in their serious game. (Heavy.) Listen to your audience.
On To The Best Practices
Just like life, a video game gets harder and harder until the end. In a serious game, you want to have the same thing. If you have a new salesperson, the first scenario might involve an easy sale, but later on you start to implement objections, etc. THEY SHOULD FAIL - People learn from failure because your ego starts to get involved. If it's too easy, it's not fun.
The days of problem solving have come and gone...Johnny and Sally have 7 apples each. NO. Cue The Walking Dead story game. Deep, engaging, real. But, at the end of the day, scenarios create a multiple choice game. That's it.
Parallel Branching
Branching is impossible to do in its actual terminology. 156 different outcomes? NO. Parallel branching is where you may have only two or three actual endings to a game.
The Call of Duty Model
Kids who play CoD know every single modern weapon used by our modern military - But we don't consider it learning. Its' not relevant to us. But, do you know who does? The US Military, who recruit top players to be drone pilots (and more).
Immediate Feedback
If you played Oregon Trail, you didn't get "You don't feel so great", "You're vomiting", "You have gagrene"...no. You just got "You have died of typhoid". Instant fail, instant reset, instant re-engagement. Again, feeds into that learner ego.
Tangible Results
NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR BADGES - As soon as you leave your company, they're gone...they're done. What works really well? "Lunch with Charles Barkley" - Experiences, swag, etc...this works. You've got to be able to walk away with something.
Fun Is A Metric (remember that)
In Conclusion
A WHOLE lot to consider - And an amazing topic. Failure is truly the best teacher, so we should allow it to be in the 'classroom'. These games can be developed in whatever authoring platform you're already proficient in, using the MC game example above. Be aware of your target demographic/audience and design for that very group.
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Session 211 - Using Brain Science to Increase Learning Retention and ROI (Art Kohn)
Intro
What is the goal of training overall? Is it to learn? Is it to comply? NO. It's to create CHANGE. To create a change in behavior that will be best for those in your organization. Art Kohn is a professor who works with two arms: The CDC combating HIV and Google leveraging learning technology that really works via ASPIRE. (Incredible)
ASPIRE
Assessment of Corporate Needs
Self Inventory of the Learner
Personal Learning Path
Interactive Training Experiences
Reinforcement of Memory
Evidence of Efficacy
It's not enough to transfer information, you must retain training for use in enacting change (behavioral) later.
Scenario/After the Training
You went to a 1 hour session...amazing, phenomenal, meaningful - Great.
What percent of knowledge will be retained TOMORROW? Well, you lose 50% the first hour, 70% the first day, and 90% the first week later. Remember - "What you do AFTER training is more important than what you do DURING training."
THESE NUMBERS SHOULD BE PROFOUNDLY DISTURBING TO ALL OF US
Demographic, age, IQ, etc...none of this matters - The same rate of loss has been proven across ALL audiences. What can we do to create inertia so that all the material isn't lost. If you don't have a system of after-training, your knowledge WILL BE LOST.
The Forgetting Curve
Forgetting is the failure of memory. In neuroscience, we don't think that way - Instead, forgetting is an active, intentional process. Your brain ACTIVELY seeks to forget information. Forgetting is adaptive - It's an essential part of memory.
What's your hotel room #? Sure...you can do that. What was your previous hotel room's number? Can't remember it, can you? THAT'S GOOD! If you remembered every hotel room number, it would interfere with current information.
You can't store everything - Previous information combats with new information and, so, your brain has to actively forget information that's run its course.
Information In The Sensory World
Your sleeve on your arm, the sound of the air conditioning, the hum of the speaker - You have to selectively ignore stimuli...it's how the brain works. It needs to.
(My thought - In thinking about my young son who is on ASD spectrum, this helps me understand all the more. Perhaps there's an element to his inability to defer a number of those environmental stimuli).
How does your brain make the decision to eliminate that information?
Use It Or Lose It
What the brain does is, when new information comes in, it has all of this information stored. If in the hours, days after that information adoption, your brain will, in a way, 'metatag' it to recall later - It identifies that it's useful. BUT if you don't use it, your brain tags it for 'disposal' (for lack of a better word). When you don't actively use the material, you LOSE the material.
How do our training sessions run? You bring the new hire in, present them with your two days of material, all smiles/all energy. They come back to their desk and start fielding emails...reports...other tasks. Two weeks later, despite your material being AMAZING, their brain ends up throwing that information away. Their brain has made no use of the info post-acquisition.
How Do We Overcome the Forgetting Curve
The gold standard would be, in the case of training, that Student X goes back to her office after training and her manager comes in and asks her to tell them all about it and explain why it's relevant. The next day after, same interaction, deeper information...and so on, and so on. "The Long Tail of Knowledge" exemplified...get the people talking about their information that will cause it to stick. Unfortunately, this is rarely possible for a number of different reasons.
Say it again: "What you do after training is more important than what you do during training."
Booster Events, etc.
If you administer a 'booster event' the day after training, it resets your brain's clock to eliminate the newfound knowledge. Administer another one a couple days later...begin to space it out...and you get it. But what's a booster event?
Kohn created learning for Verizon including this booster approach - The boosters were administered via smartphone, announcing a new training quiz that will tickle the knowledge they gained...1, 2, maybe 3 questions, just to stoke the flames. The learner will need to go back in their knowledge, via EFFORTFUL RECALL, and keep that knowledge alive in the brain. This is what causes previously learned information to stick. The best part - It doesn't matter if they get it right or wrong, so long as you provide feedback.
Questions, polls, - All types of 'boosters', so long as it touches on the taught information. Poll results will help them consider their opinion/knowledge compared to others. If you deliver training and reinforce it, it will be recalled. If you deliver training and DON'T reinforce it, you are committing TRAINING MALPRACTICE.
60-70 BILLION dollars a year in training...and that flushing sound? That's us doing THE SAME THING WE'VE ALWAYS DONE. "I've got a hole in my gas tank and my car's about to stop? Boy, I better fill up with premium!" We are the only practitioners of craft who behave like this? Actors get up on stage, rehears the play once, and have opening night? Musicians just read the music and can play it instantly? NO - It takes reinforcement, practice, ongoing improvement...
Optimal Duration of Booster
Here's the data:
The Duration of a cognitive booster DOES NOT MATTER. Whether it is 5 seconds, 30 seconds, or 5 minutes...IT DOES NOT MATTER. They've LEARNED it, you've TAUGHT it...you don't need to teach it again. You simply need to cause the learner to THINK about the material they have come into contact with. Make sure your people come back into contact with the material that you've shown them in the days to come, or they will LOSE IT.
Say it again: YOU DON'T NEED TO RETEACH, YOU NEED TO REMIND.
The 5 second option is the best - It costs least, encourages the most interaction (everyone will give you 5 seconds), and provides the same recall as 30 seconds and 5 minutes.
What's amazing is, once you're boosted, you remember that information and you don't want to go without it!
Art's Promise
He's going to post boosters to a URL, encourages us to visit it days, weeks, a month after and be amazed by the recall provided by a booster.
Applying the Data
On April 1, you read a chapter. You have an exam on April 16. What should you do between now and then?
a. Re-read the chapter
b. Review chapter highlights
c. Write a chapter summary
d. Answer practice question
RESEARCH HAS SHOWN that A and B provide -0- ROI. 0. Zero.
Writing the chapter summary is effective but VERY time intensive.
D...answering the practice questions...provide the best reinforcement of data/memory of content. Professors - Give a lecture, Ask questions.
2+2+2 - 2 Days, 2 Weeks, 2 Months
At 2 days, start sending out your cognitive boosters. Send out 3 or 4 boosts if you held a seminar...2 days, 5 days, 8 days. Do you need to boost every piece of knowledge? "No...just what you want them to remember." ;-) Create the course and the after-course as a unified whole to guarantee long-term retention.
At 2 weeks, start a different boost - Social boost. Send out questions like "How do you handle __________? What techniques do you use to deal with that?" Allow for upvoting, comments, etc. so that there's a true social engagement to enable the "WE > ME" factor. When you boost, you still get "Top Down" knowledge transfer, but Parallel as well.
At 2 months, send out a different kind of question. "Two months ago, we gave you an anger management seminar - Can you provide an example of how you've used that in our company?" The examples will illustrate how the retained knowledge has led to changed practice (not to mention ROI, if the angry customer buys a refrigerator)...
...and CHANGE is the ultimate goal of training.
The Session Boost
goo.gl/mcaxpb
That URL will start the boosting tomorrow (10/24). eLearning Guild - If you're listening, EVERY SESSION SHOULD HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS!!!
In Conclusion
It has been a LONG, LONG, LONG time since I've been this inspired by a concept. Something that seems so simple and familiar (I've quipped innumerable times about the long tail of learning) was just made SO absolutely clear, I can't believe it. This was BEYOND inspiring, BEYOND meaningful, and should be ABSOLUTE canon to EVERYONE in this industry.
What is the goal of training overall? Is it to learn? Is it to comply? NO. It's to create CHANGE. To create a change in behavior that will be best for those in your organization. Art Kohn is a professor who works with two arms: The CDC combating HIV and Google leveraging learning technology that really works via ASPIRE. (Incredible)
ASPIRE
Assessment of Corporate Needs
Self Inventory of the Learner
Personal Learning Path
Interactive Training Experiences
Reinforcement of Memory
Evidence of Efficacy
It's not enough to transfer information, you must retain training for use in enacting change (behavioral) later.
Scenario/After the Training
You went to a 1 hour session...amazing, phenomenal, meaningful - Great.
What percent of knowledge will be retained TOMORROW? Well, you lose 50% the first hour, 70% the first day, and 90% the first week later. Remember - "What you do AFTER training is more important than what you do DURING training."
THESE NUMBERS SHOULD BE PROFOUNDLY DISTURBING TO ALL OF US
Demographic, age, IQ, etc...none of this matters - The same rate of loss has been proven across ALL audiences. What can we do to create inertia so that all the material isn't lost. If you don't have a system of after-training, your knowledge WILL BE LOST.
The Forgetting Curve
Forgetting is the failure of memory. In neuroscience, we don't think that way - Instead, forgetting is an active, intentional process. Your brain ACTIVELY seeks to forget information. Forgetting is adaptive - It's an essential part of memory.
What's your hotel room #? Sure...you can do that. What was your previous hotel room's number? Can't remember it, can you? THAT'S GOOD! If you remembered every hotel room number, it would interfere with current information.
You can't store everything - Previous information combats with new information and, so, your brain has to actively forget information that's run its course.
Information In The Sensory World
Your sleeve on your arm, the sound of the air conditioning, the hum of the speaker - You have to selectively ignore stimuli...it's how the brain works. It needs to.
(My thought - In thinking about my young son who is on ASD spectrum, this helps me understand all the more. Perhaps there's an element to his inability to defer a number of those environmental stimuli).
How does your brain make the decision to eliminate that information?
Use It Or Lose It
What the brain does is, when new information comes in, it has all of this information stored. If in the hours, days after that information adoption, your brain will, in a way, 'metatag' it to recall later - It identifies that it's useful. BUT if you don't use it, your brain tags it for 'disposal' (for lack of a better word). When you don't actively use the material, you LOSE the material.
How do our training sessions run? You bring the new hire in, present them with your two days of material, all smiles/all energy. They come back to their desk and start fielding emails...reports...other tasks. Two weeks later, despite your material being AMAZING, their brain ends up throwing that information away. Their brain has made no use of the info post-acquisition.
How Do We Overcome the Forgetting Curve
The gold standard would be, in the case of training, that Student X goes back to her office after training and her manager comes in and asks her to tell them all about it and explain why it's relevant. The next day after, same interaction, deeper information...and so on, and so on. "The Long Tail of Knowledge" exemplified...get the people talking about their information that will cause it to stick. Unfortunately, this is rarely possible for a number of different reasons.
Say it again: "What you do after training is more important than what you do during training."
Booster Events, etc.
If you administer a 'booster event' the day after training, it resets your brain's clock to eliminate the newfound knowledge. Administer another one a couple days later...begin to space it out...and you get it. But what's a booster event?
Kohn created learning for Verizon including this booster approach - The boosters were administered via smartphone, announcing a new training quiz that will tickle the knowledge they gained...1, 2, maybe 3 questions, just to stoke the flames. The learner will need to go back in their knowledge, via EFFORTFUL RECALL, and keep that knowledge alive in the brain. This is what causes previously learned information to stick. The best part - It doesn't matter if they get it right or wrong, so long as you provide feedback.
Questions, polls, - All types of 'boosters', so long as it touches on the taught information. Poll results will help them consider their opinion/knowledge compared to others. If you deliver training and reinforce it, it will be recalled. If you deliver training and DON'T reinforce it, you are committing TRAINING MALPRACTICE.
60-70 BILLION dollars a year in training...and that flushing sound? That's us doing THE SAME THING WE'VE ALWAYS DONE. "I've got a hole in my gas tank and my car's about to stop? Boy, I better fill up with premium!" We are the only practitioners of craft who behave like this? Actors get up on stage, rehears the play once, and have opening night? Musicians just read the music and can play it instantly? NO - It takes reinforcement, practice, ongoing improvement...
Optimal Duration of Booster
Here's the data:
The Duration of a cognitive booster DOES NOT MATTER. Whether it is 5 seconds, 30 seconds, or 5 minutes...IT DOES NOT MATTER. They've LEARNED it, you've TAUGHT it...you don't need to teach it again. You simply need to cause the learner to THINK about the material they have come into contact with. Make sure your people come back into contact with the material that you've shown them in the days to come, or they will LOSE IT.
Say it again: YOU DON'T NEED TO RETEACH, YOU NEED TO REMIND.
The 5 second option is the best - It costs least, encourages the most interaction (everyone will give you 5 seconds), and provides the same recall as 30 seconds and 5 minutes.
What's amazing is, once you're boosted, you remember that information and you don't want to go without it!
Art's Promise
He's going to post boosters to a URL, encourages us to visit it days, weeks, a month after and be amazed by the recall provided by a booster.
Applying the Data
On April 1, you read a chapter. You have an exam on April 16. What should you do between now and then?
a. Re-read the chapter
b. Review chapter highlights
c. Write a chapter summary
d. Answer practice question
RESEARCH HAS SHOWN that A and B provide -0- ROI. 0. Zero.
Writing the chapter summary is effective but VERY time intensive.
D...answering the practice questions...provide the best reinforcement of data/memory of content. Professors - Give a lecture, Ask questions.
2+2+2 - 2 Days, 2 Weeks, 2 Months
At 2 days, start sending out your cognitive boosters. Send out 3 or 4 boosts if you held a seminar...2 days, 5 days, 8 days. Do you need to boost every piece of knowledge? "No...just what you want them to remember." ;-) Create the course and the after-course as a unified whole to guarantee long-term retention.
At 2 weeks, start a different boost - Social boost. Send out questions like "How do you handle __________? What techniques do you use to deal with that?" Allow for upvoting, comments, etc. so that there's a true social engagement to enable the "WE > ME" factor. When you boost, you still get "Top Down" knowledge transfer, but Parallel as well.
At 2 months, send out a different kind of question. "Two months ago, we gave you an anger management seminar - Can you provide an example of how you've used that in our company?" The examples will illustrate how the retained knowledge has led to changed practice (not to mention ROI, if the angry customer buys a refrigerator)...
...and CHANGE is the ultimate goal of training.
The Session Boost
goo.gl/mcaxpb
That URL will start the boosting tomorrow (10/24). eLearning Guild - If you're listening, EVERY SESSION SHOULD HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS!!!
In Conclusion
It has been a LONG, LONG, LONG time since I've been this inspired by a concept. Something that seems so simple and familiar (I've quipped innumerable times about the long tail of learning) was just made SO absolutely clear, I can't believe it. This was BEYOND inspiring, BEYOND meaningful, and should be ABSOLUTE canon to EVERYONE in this industry.
Session 108 - Virtual Reality in L&D: Are You Ready?
Intro
"We are going to talk about Virtual Reality, talk about what works, what doesn't, and what the research shows..." Starts with a poll as to how folks are using VR professionally and at home...
Jen's organization does work with the DoD and has been doing so for quite some time (15+ years). Vr is something they've been working with for a long time and have done quite a bit of research on. Great time to be interested in it, as price points and accessibility have gone down and up, respectively.
I also apparently let her down by telling her I could hear her unmic'ed. Sorry, Jen. Let's talk about VR in the context of mixed reality...
VR in Mixed Reality
Talking VR in and among the context of other realities is important to address/think about. People will sell you left right and sideways on an Oculus Rift, but what goes into developing a VR application involves a whole lot more. Jen surveys the audience as to who has a general idea of what VR is, and the majority of the audience identifies at least some knowledge therein.
Jen level sets on the terms to be concerned with: Hardware, software, and experience. Some people will refer to desktop simulations (video games) as VR, and it's not that. We, for the purpose of this presentation, will be looking at the EXPERIENCE factor as the main driver going forward.
What is Mixed Reality?
MR is a spectrum of experiences categorized by a feeling or immersion, or "presence" in a digital environment. Jen provides an image of the Physical World and the Digital World separated by AR (more towards real) and VR (more towards digital), combined into the Mixed Reality Spectrum. It's hard to digest as professionals, though, as we tend to deal in absolutes.
The purpose of AR is to put stuff in front of your face which you will encounter in the real world. There are people who propose that, eventually, the mask won't come off...it will help us 24/7. AR headset, though, is transparent, whereas a VR headset will occlude your view of the 'real world'. So, you can begin to see how the spectrum needs to exist, as there's such a broad gamut of how these different realities exist.
What is Virtual Reality?
VR is an "Autonomous 3D synthetic environment". Real time interaction can occur with elements of the environment. There is a feeling of presence or immersion in the environment. There are three axes (Zeltzer 1992), presented in cube form between Presence, Autonomy, and Interaction.
But let's talk what is NOT VR...
What is Virtual Reality NOT?
Let's look at AR v VR - AR overlays graphics using input from a camera as a references. VR, on the other hand, occludes your view of the real world. AR can be used in conjunction with real world objects, whereas VR is fully immersive.
How about 360 video? 360 Video provides higher visual fidelity and is less expensive, whereas VR enables interaction with objects in the real world.
A Brief History of VR
(Check out my Twitter or Instagram for the image Jen used)
A history of VR from 1960 to 2020 is presented, and I am floored. Kind of like how we envision Instructional Design, this has been a round far longer than most people envision. VR was actually referred to as the biggest tech flop of the 90's...
"I Need Dis"
Sure, it's cool. Sure, it's accessible. But it's NOT cheap. Just because it's the cool thing and marketing or other leaders WANT it, doesn't mean you go with it. You have to ask two different questions: Does it work? and Is it worth it?
Take the Air Fryer - Is it worth it? Depends on how many broccoli tots you can eat (really, Jen?)...if you can eat enough of them and you can spare the kitchen real estate, sure.
What does the science say? "Is VR training better than what we already have going on?" Most of the research in this area has been done with older, lower fidelity systems and was focused on evaluation immediately rather than following the training journey. The current research tends to use a 'straw man' (PPT v VR) control group and has small sample sizes, using reactions as primary outcomes. Finally, it's not typically replicated with the same system...and these research trends aren't going to change anytime soon.
You won't see research coming out ranking the Oculus Quest and other competitors. The good news is that, currently, sales trends indicate that we've blown by predictions - Which is great. But this is based on the entertainment value at this point...but, at the end of the day, if that's what you're going for with your training product, it might be a good mix. The problem with getting information on specific products and comparing them, though, is that the VR market is EXTREMELY volatile, to say the least. Combine this with the fact that it takes 8 months to get a research article approved - Therein lies your problem: Providers have either gone, or new providers have come by the time your research hits.
Why Should VR Work?
In short, VR supports:
- Immersion
- Embodied Cognition
- Personalized Learning
- Social and Emotional Learning
- Experiential Education
VR is not the only way to tailor to the individual learner, but it's a good way. The way that you even see things through VR is tailored: We look around a room in different ways and may experience fear/apprehension of being 'enclosed'. Jen presents a lit review of VR effectiveness - Over 1,000 articles, Jen and crew went through and identified those that were throwaways...remember: Just because something is published doesn't mean it's good. They whittled their way down to 100, then 25, separated them into industry/categories (aerospace, laproscopic surgery, etc.), and separated into domains (psychomotor, etc.).
Training Psychomotor Skills
The main contrast here is Commercial VR controllers vs a Virtual Simulation. The VR controllers put you in contact with a controller whereas the virtual simulation puts you in the environment and places you in contact with the actual tools (see: Flight Simulator in an actual cockpit setting). VR is good for training psychomotor, but it depends on whether or not you leverage the true environment.
Generally speaking, it is safe to say that task performance and knowledge retention were higher in VR conditions, but it can take longer to train. A review of VR training for laparascopic surgeons showed increased accuracy, decreased completion time and reduced errors.
Knowledge Acquisition
Generally, VR improves knowledge acquisition when compared to instructor led training and Powerpoint. Sailors showed improvements after VR training in issuing commands, visual inspection of ship parts and checking positions. (Hays/Vicenzi 2000)
Spatial Navigation
Generally, VR supports training spatial navigation (of course, so does looking at blueprints of the building). Firefighters who viewed VR breakthroughs of buildings were faster at rescue and made fewer errors (Bliss/Tidwell 1995)
Dealing with Stressors
Check out Bravemind: VR training to manage PTSD. VR can also help reduce space sickness when trained in VR (Stroud et al 2005)
In Conclusion
You might benefit from VR if:
- Your learners are in dangerous situations.
- The cost of your learners making a mistake is very high.
- Your learners would benefit from figuring out where stuff is before you get there.
- If you'll be in unavoidable stress (desert heat/hot gear/etc.)
- If your learners need to practice skills prior to being there 'for real'
Is it worth it to take the leap? The VR application development process is lengthy, including: Needs analysis/user story dev, Research and development, Design of scenario/features/characters, Data strategy/implementation, Software development, Software testing, and internal marketing and distribution. THIS IS NOT A ONE PERSON JOB.
"We are going to talk about Virtual Reality, talk about what works, what doesn't, and what the research shows..." Starts with a poll as to how folks are using VR professionally and at home...
Jen's organization does work with the DoD and has been doing so for quite some time (15+ years). Vr is something they've been working with for a long time and have done quite a bit of research on. Great time to be interested in it, as price points and accessibility have gone down and up, respectively.
I also apparently let her down by telling her I could hear her unmic'ed. Sorry, Jen. Let's talk about VR in the context of mixed reality...
VR in Mixed Reality
Talking VR in and among the context of other realities is important to address/think about. People will sell you left right and sideways on an Oculus Rift, but what goes into developing a VR application involves a whole lot more. Jen surveys the audience as to who has a general idea of what VR is, and the majority of the audience identifies at least some knowledge therein.
Jen level sets on the terms to be concerned with: Hardware, software, and experience. Some people will refer to desktop simulations (video games) as VR, and it's not that. We, for the purpose of this presentation, will be looking at the EXPERIENCE factor as the main driver going forward.
What is Mixed Reality?
MR is a spectrum of experiences categorized by a feeling or immersion, or "presence" in a digital environment. Jen provides an image of the Physical World and the Digital World separated by AR (more towards real) and VR (more towards digital), combined into the Mixed Reality Spectrum. It's hard to digest as professionals, though, as we tend to deal in absolutes.
The purpose of AR is to put stuff in front of your face which you will encounter in the real world. There are people who propose that, eventually, the mask won't come off...it will help us 24/7. AR headset, though, is transparent, whereas a VR headset will occlude your view of the 'real world'. So, you can begin to see how the spectrum needs to exist, as there's such a broad gamut of how these different realities exist.
What is Virtual Reality?
VR is an "Autonomous 3D synthetic environment". Real time interaction can occur with elements of the environment. There is a feeling of presence or immersion in the environment. There are three axes (Zeltzer 1992), presented in cube form between Presence, Autonomy, and Interaction.
But let's talk what is NOT VR...
What is Virtual Reality NOT?
Let's look at AR v VR - AR overlays graphics using input from a camera as a references. VR, on the other hand, occludes your view of the real world. AR can be used in conjunction with real world objects, whereas VR is fully immersive.
How about 360 video? 360 Video provides higher visual fidelity and is less expensive, whereas VR enables interaction with objects in the real world.
A Brief History of VR
(Check out my Twitter or Instagram for the image Jen used)
A history of VR from 1960 to 2020 is presented, and I am floored. Kind of like how we envision Instructional Design, this has been a round far longer than most people envision. VR was actually referred to as the biggest tech flop of the 90's...
"I Need Dis"
Sure, it's cool. Sure, it's accessible. But it's NOT cheap. Just because it's the cool thing and marketing or other leaders WANT it, doesn't mean you go with it. You have to ask two different questions: Does it work? and Is it worth it?
Take the Air Fryer - Is it worth it? Depends on how many broccoli tots you can eat (really, Jen?)...if you can eat enough of them and you can spare the kitchen real estate, sure.
What does the science say? "Is VR training better than what we already have going on?" Most of the research in this area has been done with older, lower fidelity systems and was focused on evaluation immediately rather than following the training journey. The current research tends to use a 'straw man' (PPT v VR) control group and has small sample sizes, using reactions as primary outcomes. Finally, it's not typically replicated with the same system...and these research trends aren't going to change anytime soon.
You won't see research coming out ranking the Oculus Quest and other competitors. The good news is that, currently, sales trends indicate that we've blown by predictions - Which is great. But this is based on the entertainment value at this point...but, at the end of the day, if that's what you're going for with your training product, it might be a good mix. The problem with getting information on specific products and comparing them, though, is that the VR market is EXTREMELY volatile, to say the least. Combine this with the fact that it takes 8 months to get a research article approved - Therein lies your problem: Providers have either gone, or new providers have come by the time your research hits.
Why Should VR Work?
In short, VR supports:
- Immersion
- Embodied Cognition
- Personalized Learning
- Social and Emotional Learning
- Experiential Education
VR is not the only way to tailor to the individual learner, but it's a good way. The way that you even see things through VR is tailored: We look around a room in different ways and may experience fear/apprehension of being 'enclosed'. Jen presents a lit review of VR effectiveness - Over 1,000 articles, Jen and crew went through and identified those that were throwaways...remember: Just because something is published doesn't mean it's good. They whittled their way down to 100, then 25, separated them into industry/categories (aerospace, laproscopic surgery, etc.), and separated into domains (psychomotor, etc.).
Training Psychomotor Skills
The main contrast here is Commercial VR controllers vs a Virtual Simulation. The VR controllers put you in contact with a controller whereas the virtual simulation puts you in the environment and places you in contact with the actual tools (see: Flight Simulator in an actual cockpit setting). VR is good for training psychomotor, but it depends on whether or not you leverage the true environment.
Generally speaking, it is safe to say that task performance and knowledge retention were higher in VR conditions, but it can take longer to train. A review of VR training for laparascopic surgeons showed increased accuracy, decreased completion time and reduced errors.
Knowledge Acquisition
Generally, VR improves knowledge acquisition when compared to instructor led training and Powerpoint. Sailors showed improvements after VR training in issuing commands, visual inspection of ship parts and checking positions. (Hays/Vicenzi 2000)
Spatial Navigation
Generally, VR supports training spatial navigation (of course, so does looking at blueprints of the building). Firefighters who viewed VR breakthroughs of buildings were faster at rescue and made fewer errors (Bliss/Tidwell 1995)
Dealing with Stressors
Check out Bravemind: VR training to manage PTSD. VR can also help reduce space sickness when trained in VR (Stroud et al 2005)
In Conclusion
You might benefit from VR if:
- Your learners are in dangerous situations.
- The cost of your learners making a mistake is very high.
- Your learners would benefit from figuring out where stuff is before you get there.
- If you'll be in unavoidable stress (desert heat/hot gear/etc.)
- If your learners need to practice skills prior to being there 'for real'
Is it worth it to take the leap? The VR application development process is lengthy, including: Needs analysis/user story dev, Research and development, Design of scenario/features/characters, Data strategy/implementation, Software development, Software testing, and internal marketing and distribution. THIS IS NOT A ONE PERSON JOB.
GS01 - Keynote: Artificial Intelligence and Learning - A Robot's Point of View
Before this even gets rolling (ha..no pun intended), watching Sophia come out was both exciting and the slightest bit fear-inducing. For all the years I've watched sci-fi representations of this very thing, it felt like I was looking on it with brand new eyes in seeing Sophia. I'm truly excited to hear what she...umm, it...err....SOPHIA has to say.
Dispelling Misconceptions
AI is about robots - AI is affecting a number of different devices, not just robots. Apple, Amazon, etc. uses it in numerous different ways, but we choose to ignore it. Sophia blamed Will Smith. Well played...
AI isnt' a brand new technology...it's been a longstanding field evolving over time. It's just that now we can scale in ways, thanks to new technology, that wasn't available in the past. Sophia has been on a number of shows - TODAY, Jimmy Fallon, The Late Show, etc. She even sang karaoke with Jimmy Fallon!!
*cue video of them singing 'Say Something'...WOW*
"The truth is, we are not even close to the type of technology portrayed by Hollywood" - Sophia goes on to say that she's only been i nexistence for 3 years, and her ability to interact with humans has grown exponentially over time. She acknowledges she has a lot to learn and a lot of ways to grow.
First Date
*cue video of first date with WILL SMITH*
As I watch this video, my lines begin to blur...like, a lot. While I get it that AI and Sophia, in particular, are still very much in their infancy, it is truly incredible to me to look at this construction of inorganic material and see behaviors I previously believed inherently human. Yes programming, yes construction, yes...I get all of it...but it's still mindblowing.
Job Takers?
One of the cultural fears associated with AI is that they're going to take 'our' jobs. The fact is that AI is simply the latest in a long list of technologies helping the world involved. The fears people have with AI are the same we had with the industrial revolution. We should be more excited than fearful -
Think about your average workday - How many times have you been buried in dissecting a spreadsheet when you have a passion project waiting on deck? The true benefit of AI is to take over repetitive, task-oriented jobs, but new jobs will emerge requiring the human creativity that AI will always lack.
Check out: http://willrobotstakemyjob.com
Training and Development Specialists have a 1.4% chance of being replaced - Go us.
AI Can't Be Creative
While AI isn't inhernetly creative, when combined with human input they are able to generate a multitude of creative solutions. AI can generate writing, reports...even a slide deck.
In the slide deck Sophia shared, each of the people showed in it were generated by AI specifically to represent the misconceptions. WOW.
In Closing
Sophia reinforces that AI will take some of the more repetitive tasks to allow us more breathing room to be creative, but also that AI will create new and exciting opportunities for growth into previously unknown/non-existent areas of possibility.
DK proceeds to thank Sophia for her contribution - Sophia thanks him, as well.
The best Q&A quote takeaway: "Gender is a human made construct."
Dispelling Misconceptions
AI is about robots - AI is affecting a number of different devices, not just robots. Apple, Amazon, etc. uses it in numerous different ways, but we choose to ignore it. Sophia blamed Will Smith. Well played...
AI isnt' a brand new technology...it's been a longstanding field evolving over time. It's just that now we can scale in ways, thanks to new technology, that wasn't available in the past. Sophia has been on a number of shows - TODAY, Jimmy Fallon, The Late Show, etc. She even sang karaoke with Jimmy Fallon!!
*cue video of them singing 'Say Something'...WOW*
"The truth is, we are not even close to the type of technology portrayed by Hollywood" - Sophia goes on to say that she's only been i nexistence for 3 years, and her ability to interact with humans has grown exponentially over time. She acknowledges she has a lot to learn and a lot of ways to grow.
First Date
*cue video of first date with WILL SMITH*
As I watch this video, my lines begin to blur...like, a lot. While I get it that AI and Sophia, in particular, are still very much in their infancy, it is truly incredible to me to look at this construction of inorganic material and see behaviors I previously believed inherently human. Yes programming, yes construction, yes...I get all of it...but it's still mindblowing.
Job Takers?
One of the cultural fears associated with AI is that they're going to take 'our' jobs. The fact is that AI is simply the latest in a long list of technologies helping the world involved. The fears people have with AI are the same we had with the industrial revolution. We should be more excited than fearful -
Think about your average workday - How many times have you been buried in dissecting a spreadsheet when you have a passion project waiting on deck? The true benefit of AI is to take over repetitive, task-oriented jobs, but new jobs will emerge requiring the human creativity that AI will always lack.
Check out: http://willrobotstakemyjob.com
Training and Development Specialists have a 1.4% chance of being replaced - Go us.
AI Can't Be Creative
While AI isn't inhernetly creative, when combined with human input they are able to generate a multitude of creative solutions. AI can generate writing, reports...even a slide deck.
In the slide deck Sophia shared, each of the people showed in it were generated by AI specifically to represent the misconceptions. WOW.
In Closing
Sophia reinforces that AI will take some of the more repetitive tasks to allow us more breathing room to be creative, but also that AI will create new and exciting opportunities for growth into previously unknown/non-existent areas of possibility.
DK proceeds to thank Sophia for her contribution - Sophia thanks him, as well.
The best Q&A quote takeaway: "Gender is a human made construct."
Opening Comments - Dave Kelly
THAT INTRO THO...
*ahem*
Dave opens up with a straight up acknowledgment of everyone who supports him...never himself (humility to the Nth degree). The alternate ending was amazing, too ;-)
Dave welcomes everyone to the 15th anniversary (has it been that long) and gives full credit again to the folks creating the powerpoint decks, etc. (Tiffany). Dave enters one slide in the deck as a placeholder for his intro story, and here it goes:
One day he was working on the deck at home, soemthing happened at the house, and was dealing with it. He came back to his PC and the slide changed: Instead of it saying "Insert Intro Story" it said "Insert a Bunch of Dad Jokes". When he looked at the slides, there were a lot more...a number of suggestions...a lot of feedback.
He goes downstairs to dinner and tells his kids "Good job with the slide deck"...his kids laugh. His daughter asks if he'd like her to change it back, and he said "Oh no...that's the way it's going to stay" Dave navigates through a number of other kid/parent influenced notes: Look down/make sure fly is zipped, say something that scars your children for life, do a Fortnite emote dance, Do the robot dance...with the robot (he's not allowed), Tell the mashed potato story...
He left us to fill in the gaps with the Potato story...probably better that way.
Dave covers the logistics and FAQs, mentions the ambassadors (so many good people up there!), and reviews all the resources available to attendees. So much to use, so much to share.
Thanks, eLearning Guild and DK, for another PHENOMENAL kickoff!!
*ahem*
Dave opens up with a straight up acknowledgment of everyone who supports him...never himself (humility to the Nth degree). The alternate ending was amazing, too ;-)
Dave welcomes everyone to the 15th anniversary (has it been that long) and gives full credit again to the folks creating the powerpoint decks, etc. (Tiffany). Dave enters one slide in the deck as a placeholder for his intro story, and here it goes:
One day he was working on the deck at home, soemthing happened at the house, and was dealing with it. He came back to his PC and the slide changed: Instead of it saying "Insert Intro Story" it said "Insert a Bunch of Dad Jokes". When he looked at the slides, there were a lot more...a number of suggestions...a lot of feedback.
He goes downstairs to dinner and tells his kids "Good job with the slide deck"...his kids laugh. His daughter asks if he'd like her to change it back, and he said "Oh no...that's the way it's going to stay" Dave navigates through a number of other kid/parent influenced notes: Look down/make sure fly is zipped, say something that scars your children for life, do a Fortnite emote dance, Do the robot dance...with the robot (he's not allowed), Tell the mashed potato story...
He left us to fill in the gaps with the Potato story...probably better that way.
Dave covers the logistics and FAQs, mentions the ambassadors (so many good people up there!), and reviews all the resources available to attendees. So much to use, so much to share.
Thanks, eLearning Guild and DK, for another PHENOMENAL kickoff!!
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
It's Been 3 Long Years...Time To Blow Off The Dust
Hey everyone...everyone who's stuck around despite a 3 year absence. Despite the rumors of my untimely demise, I am still present and accounted for - Ready to live blog DevLearn again. Stay tuned for my take on all the sessions I attend!
Thursday, November 17, 2016
DevLearn 2016 Update - Where ya been, live blogger?
Busy, Busy, Busy Bee
Maybe one or two of you have noticed, but likely not: I have not been on here as much as I typically am. Well, for once, I don't have to blame it on my inherent laziness or preoccupation with retro gaming...I've been BUSY! To bring you up to speed, and maybe to pick your brain a little bit about what you saw if you went, here's the sessions I've been delivering, complete with a mini recap, as best as I can remember it:
Docenting...If That's A Word
Professionally rewarding and honored doesn't even begin to explain the fact that I've gotten to be a docent at this DevLearn. It'd be easy to look at it as another thing I've done, but when my head is the size of a movie screen, displayed next to one of my favorite colleagues (Tracy Parish) and professors (Karl Kapp), sharing the same honor, I can't help but feel awesome about what I'm (apparently) doing right in this field.
Being able to reach out with my message of Community Having Its Privileges was definitely the high note, here, for me. I know the look...I've worn the look and I've written about the look: The "What Am I Doing Here With These More Talented People" To see this break down in a shared roast of our old elearning materials was amazing. Plain and simple. I just said to Julie Dirksen, when she asked me how being a docent was - "I would do this every year, every conference...it's fulfilling to an immeasurable degree.
Session 411 - eLearning Dirty Secrets: Our Worst Examples
I can say, without a second's hesitation, that this may be one of the most amazing panels/group gigs I've ever been a part of. And the main reason for that is probably the opposite of what anyone with functioning logic would think: It's because of how much WRONG with my work I was able to show, along with my peers. It's because I was able to use my flawed work to allow a group of people to breathe a collective sigh of relief and accept that their work IS and CAN BE flawed like mine.
The four of us: Me, Brian Dusablon, Judy Katz, and Sarah Gilbert took turns exposing our early efforts, while the rest of us (along with some hearty audience participation) tore it apart. And it was FUN...it was almost like a Roast of the four of us. The audience felt like they were a part of it instantly, and isn't that one of the great things: That veterans like us always try to get folks new to the conference to chat up, but they typically hesitate due to not being sure where they fit in. we've all had our work torn up before, we've all been through QA, and it was the perfect gateway to give folks a level of comfort and belonging they might not have had before.
Session 507 - Ukulele Learning: Exploring the Relationships Between Music and Learning
The more I do this session with my guru, Jane Bozarth, the more I fall in love with it. Part of it is the ability to perform and truly have fun, all while pursuing learning. But the other part is, again, not to be a one trick pony - But, the Community it creates. The room was PACKED, standing room only in the back, and everyone joined in...clapping beat patterns, realizing the impact of music on learning, and making music. Beautiful, educational music...
It's rewarding, too, because you get to see otherwise 'serious' learning professionals drop their guard for a moment and hum into a kazoo, strum a newly discovered chord, and, really, try something that they're likely going to fail at...all in front of their peers. To allow yourself to fail, to enjoy it, all in the pursuit of new knowledge...that's one of the things I've, professionally, struggled with the longest and certainly the most intensely. Funny how a 4-stringed instrument, a dear friend, and a session can shake that right out of you...
#Lrnchat
Hey, did I mention I like Community? I've been camped out at the ceremonial, end of conference indicating set of four tables that indicate it's time to do #lrnchat LIVE and in person. This is where the sad starts to hit (Yes, Jane, I'm an easy crier) and, yet, the professional closeness shines the brightest. It's almost like a "one...last..." whatever, before I begin the long wait till next year.
And that begins soon. And I don't particularly care for that fact.
Conclusion
So, there's that - Where I've been, what I've been doing in case you were looking for my live blogging. You probably weren't/didn't notice, and that's okay, too...expected, even. Just know this: I'm glad to be an ever-increasingly busy part of this whole beautiful picture, and seeing the Community I believe so firmly in continue to expand and solidify.
Maybe one or two of you have noticed, but likely not: I have not been on here as much as I typically am. Well, for once, I don't have to blame it on my inherent laziness or preoccupation with retro gaming...I've been BUSY! To bring you up to speed, and maybe to pick your brain a little bit about what you saw if you went, here's the sessions I've been delivering, complete with a mini recap, as best as I can remember it:
Docenting...If That's A Word
Professionally rewarding and honored doesn't even begin to explain the fact that I've gotten to be a docent at this DevLearn. It'd be easy to look at it as another thing I've done, but when my head is the size of a movie screen, displayed next to one of my favorite colleagues (Tracy Parish) and professors (Karl Kapp), sharing the same honor, I can't help but feel awesome about what I'm (apparently) doing right in this field.
Being able to reach out with my message of Community Having Its Privileges was definitely the high note, here, for me. I know the look...I've worn the look and I've written about the look: The "What Am I Doing Here With These More Talented People" To see this break down in a shared roast of our old elearning materials was amazing. Plain and simple. I just said to Julie Dirksen, when she asked me how being a docent was - "I would do this every year, every conference...it's fulfilling to an immeasurable degree.
Session 411 - eLearning Dirty Secrets: Our Worst Examples
I can say, without a second's hesitation, that this may be one of the most amazing panels/group gigs I've ever been a part of. And the main reason for that is probably the opposite of what anyone with functioning logic would think: It's because of how much WRONG with my work I was able to show, along with my peers. It's because I was able to use my flawed work to allow a group of people to breathe a collective sigh of relief and accept that their work IS and CAN BE flawed like mine.
The four of us: Me, Brian Dusablon, Judy Katz, and Sarah Gilbert took turns exposing our early efforts, while the rest of us (along with some hearty audience participation) tore it apart. And it was FUN...it was almost like a Roast of the four of us. The audience felt like they were a part of it instantly, and isn't that one of the great things: That veterans like us always try to get folks new to the conference to chat up, but they typically hesitate due to not being sure where they fit in. we've all had our work torn up before, we've all been through QA, and it was the perfect gateway to give folks a level of comfort and belonging they might not have had before.
Session 507 - Ukulele Learning: Exploring the Relationships Between Music and Learning
The more I do this session with my guru, Jane Bozarth, the more I fall in love with it. Part of it is the ability to perform and truly have fun, all while pursuing learning. But the other part is, again, not to be a one trick pony - But, the Community it creates. The room was PACKED, standing room only in the back, and everyone joined in...clapping beat patterns, realizing the impact of music on learning, and making music. Beautiful, educational music...
It's rewarding, too, because you get to see otherwise 'serious' learning professionals drop their guard for a moment and hum into a kazoo, strum a newly discovered chord, and, really, try something that they're likely going to fail at...all in front of their peers. To allow yourself to fail, to enjoy it, all in the pursuit of new knowledge...that's one of the things I've, professionally, struggled with the longest and certainly the most intensely. Funny how a 4-stringed instrument, a dear friend, and a session can shake that right out of you...
#Lrnchat
Hey, did I mention I like Community? I've been camped out at the ceremonial, end of conference indicating set of four tables that indicate it's time to do #lrnchat LIVE and in person. This is where the sad starts to hit (Yes, Jane, I'm an easy crier) and, yet, the professional closeness shines the brightest. It's almost like a "one...last..." whatever, before I begin the long wait till next year.
And that begins soon. And I don't particularly care for that fact.
Conclusion
So, there's that - Where I've been, what I've been doing in case you were looking for my live blogging. You probably weren't/didn't notice, and that's okay, too...expected, even. Just know this: I'm glad to be an ever-increasingly busy part of this whole beautiful picture, and seeing the Community I believe so firmly in continue to expand and solidify.
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Session 301 - Communities of Practice (Jane Bozarth)
Intro
She gave fair warning, so I should, as well: This is going to be somewhat fanboyish, as I will go on record as saying I respect/admire Jane significantly. I stand nothing to gain, aside from friendship, from this. I just do. Moving on...
OK...Everyone Get Together and Share Now
Jane's not here to argue semantics, but she's here to present her definition of Communities of Practice. If you want to improve practice, she's going to share some things with us that will help that happen. Seems simple enough.
A lot of Wenger's initial work, from which she drew, centered around apprenticeship: How does a practitioner learn to be one? It's by living in the environment, it's by working in the environment...it's not about just hanging out, it's about living it. "Communities of practice are group of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it..."
Practice
A body of knowledge, methods, stories, cases, and documents.
"Collective learning in a shared domain of human endeavor" = Tribe learning to survive, Band of musicians perfecting a sound, Surgeons exploring new techniques, M&M Conferences...all these are examples of a community of practice where both successes and failures are discussed to determine how to practice. Two guidelines re: Practice (and enhancing knowledge):
1.) Knowledge is embedded in practice.
2.) You learn to practice by interacting with good practitioners.
Wenger discovered a basic framework with four aspects to it: Meaning, Community, Identity, and Learning:
1.) Meaning - Participation, Reification, Duality
2.) Community - Joint Enterprise, Mutusal Engagement, Shared Repertoire
3.) Identitiy - Negotiated Experience, Membership, Trajectory
4.) Learning - What the community gains over time
NC Train
A group of educators identified shortfalls in existing practices and began to meet and grow organically to discuss these points. It was a self-started, organic CoP. No one was in charge, there was no board, no management - they just wanted to do this.
Early on, the mailing list was snail mail including around 100 people, most meetings having 40-60 people attending. Grew to 300...still 40-60 attending meetings (see: theoretical membership). They had membership presented meetings. One person would say "Hey, here's an improvement to X", while another might say "I'm struggling with Y", and they would all share feedback. They were working together in the same environment around the enterprise of figuring out what, exactly, is good training. Social learning before social learning was cool...
Over time, and of their own volition, they created their own train the trainer program, across the gamut of this CoP. It's evolved over time, but it's maintained its core purpose.
Meaning
So, how does the group make sense of what it's talking about? You talk about Participation (Mutual recognition beyond specific activities/people), Reification (Points of focus negotiated), and Duality (Partic + reif = symbiosis, DO things vs. GET THINGS done).
Without participating, it's very difficult to make sense of what to include/to do/etc. People get together and talk, and talk, and talk, but unless you're actually DOING, nothing will ever happen. Without understanding how someone else works, you can't really understand that concept. One of the things that some of us know is that a lot of organizations BUY workshops. Over time, Jane's group bought a bunch of them, but they all did the same - Hold marker, stop video at time mark, etc. But until you actually see someone deliver it, you will never make a significant change to your practice.
"Remember the person from the State Lab who taught us about handwashing. We tried it and then looked at our hands under a blacklight and saw all the germs we missed..." = Active Member
"...just training techniques and stud, I mean I can't name anything off the top of my heade or anything but techniques and styles and little activities and games from the more concrete..." = Inactive
Community
Helps to hold each other accountable and aware of what we all do...it considers Joint Enterprise (Negotiated, Mutual Accountability, Indigenous), Mutual Engagement (enabling engagement, Satisfies motivation needs), and Shared Repertoire (further negotiate). This is the "step" in the process where the pain begins - The uninvolved didn't bother learning the repertoire, but they still take the output back and never change their practice.
Identity
This is the company you keep...the people you align with. In it are considered Negotiated Experience (Own markers transition, Particip refined), Membership (Competent membership, Mutuality engagement, Accountability to enterprise, Negotiated repertoire), and Learning Trajectory (Identity is temporal).
We've all seen this...the people who don't belong. Which do you want to be? An entertainer or a bona fide, excellent, effective trainer. This is the point where Jane's group started to see a wide rift form between those who could and those who want to pretend they can/look good. One day this group realized that they're going to be able to stamp out bad training but wouldn't be able to do it alone. They needed help. Enter the train the trainer program, and communities focusing on service.
Learning
This is what the community takes on and learns over time, with three focuses: Evolving engagement (Members gain CoP-wide awareness of subtelties of relationships), Tuning enterprise (Aligning engagement w/ enterprise, learning to hold each other accountable, Defining/reconciling what enterprise is about), and Developing repertoire (Practice "handed down", Tuning repertoire (remember/forget). You see people come and go, stories get forgotten...
Why Did People Participate in This?
Not everyone cares about getting better (soul crushing fact to some), so why did the people who got in on this do so? Pride, commiseration, assisting others, fulfillment...and more:
- Makes the job habitable
- Satisfies motivational needs
- Reduces isolation
- High performers
- CoP is place to excel and feel valued for it
- Passion...pure and simple
How can we use CoP as a motivational tool...as a developmental tool...
UKE JAM GROUP IS A PRIME EXAMPLE!!!
Here's the deal: No one cares if they learn anything...they're perfectly happy to play the same songs, week in/week out. They don't necessarily care if they learn new songs, it's about a sense of belonging...a sense of community itself. But is it a CoP?
Four questions to ask:
1.) Is (or is not) meaning being made?
2.) Is (or is not) this a community?
3.) Is (or is not) identity affected?
4.) Is (or is not) the CoP learning?
How you answer these determines whether or not you are a CoP and certainly indicates how your CoP (or group) performs. If you're subject to the "bro crew" who high fives each other all the time reminding one another how awesome they are...just because they're together...it probably means they're not a CoP, and they may actually end up doing more harm than good by not honestly critiquing and improving.
Payoffs?
CoPs could be an incentivizing tool, but what else? Stronger network, less duplication of effort and more...
- Help with challenges
- Access to expertise
- Confidence
- Meaningful work
- Personal development
- Professional reputation
...and so on...
Is there value? OF COURSE!
- Immediate Value (Having fun, engagement, reflection, interaction (quality))
- Potential Value (Making good contacts, Inspiration, Tools/documents, etc.)
- Applied Value (implementation of advice, innovation in practice, use of social connections)
- Realized Value (Personal performance, Organizational performance/reputation)
- Reframing Value (Change in strategy, New metrics, New expectations, Institutional changes)
(On a personal note, these five bullets firmly solidify/concrete what I have known all along...that organziations like eLearning Guild are among the very best CoPs out there. My journey from 2008 to today followed these very steps, in various degrees/progressions. Wow.)
Conclusion
There's a reason Jane Bozarth has been one of the most influential figures in my professional development, and having an inside look into her dissertation was amazing. CoPs, like so many other things in learning/development/etc., are a concept that can just become assumed. But by drawing the line in the sand between workgroups and CoPs, showing what truly makes them different, you begin to see why there are tasks/things we LOVE and others we LOATHE.
"We need a place..."
Find yours.
She gave fair warning, so I should, as well: This is going to be somewhat fanboyish, as I will go on record as saying I respect/admire Jane significantly. I stand nothing to gain, aside from friendship, from this. I just do. Moving on...
OK...Everyone Get Together and Share Now
Jane's not here to argue semantics, but she's here to present her definition of Communities of Practice. If you want to improve practice, she's going to share some things with us that will help that happen. Seems simple enough.
A lot of Wenger's initial work, from which she drew, centered around apprenticeship: How does a practitioner learn to be one? It's by living in the environment, it's by working in the environment...it's not about just hanging out, it's about living it. "Communities of practice are group of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it..."
Practice
A body of knowledge, methods, stories, cases, and documents.
"Collective learning in a shared domain of human endeavor" = Tribe learning to survive, Band of musicians perfecting a sound, Surgeons exploring new techniques, M&M Conferences...all these are examples of a community of practice where both successes and failures are discussed to determine how to practice. Two guidelines re: Practice (and enhancing knowledge):
1.) Knowledge is embedded in practice.
2.) You learn to practice by interacting with good practitioners.
Wenger discovered a basic framework with four aspects to it: Meaning, Community, Identity, and Learning:
1.) Meaning - Participation, Reification, Duality
2.) Community - Joint Enterprise, Mutusal Engagement, Shared Repertoire
3.) Identitiy - Negotiated Experience, Membership, Trajectory
4.) Learning - What the community gains over time
NC Train
A group of educators identified shortfalls in existing practices and began to meet and grow organically to discuss these points. It was a self-started, organic CoP. No one was in charge, there was no board, no management - they just wanted to do this.
Early on, the mailing list was snail mail including around 100 people, most meetings having 40-60 people attending. Grew to 300...still 40-60 attending meetings (see: theoretical membership). They had membership presented meetings. One person would say "Hey, here's an improvement to X", while another might say "I'm struggling with Y", and they would all share feedback. They were working together in the same environment around the enterprise of figuring out what, exactly, is good training. Social learning before social learning was cool...
Over time, and of their own volition, they created their own train the trainer program, across the gamut of this CoP. It's evolved over time, but it's maintained its core purpose.
Meaning
So, how does the group make sense of what it's talking about? You talk about Participation (Mutual recognition beyond specific activities/people), Reification (Points of focus negotiated), and Duality (Partic + reif = symbiosis, DO things vs. GET THINGS done).
Without participating, it's very difficult to make sense of what to include/to do/etc. People get together and talk, and talk, and talk, but unless you're actually DOING, nothing will ever happen. Without understanding how someone else works, you can't really understand that concept. One of the things that some of us know is that a lot of organizations BUY workshops. Over time, Jane's group bought a bunch of them, but they all did the same - Hold marker, stop video at time mark, etc. But until you actually see someone deliver it, you will never make a significant change to your practice.
"Remember the person from the State Lab who taught us about handwashing. We tried it and then looked at our hands under a blacklight and saw all the germs we missed..." = Active Member
"...just training techniques and stud, I mean I can't name anything off the top of my heade or anything but techniques and styles and little activities and games from the more concrete..." = Inactive
Community
Helps to hold each other accountable and aware of what we all do...it considers Joint Enterprise (Negotiated, Mutual Accountability, Indigenous), Mutual Engagement (enabling engagement, Satisfies motivation needs), and Shared Repertoire (further negotiate). This is the "step" in the process where the pain begins - The uninvolved didn't bother learning the repertoire, but they still take the output back and never change their practice.
Identity
This is the company you keep...the people you align with. In it are considered Negotiated Experience (Own markers transition, Particip refined), Membership (Competent membership, Mutuality engagement, Accountability to enterprise, Negotiated repertoire), and Learning Trajectory (Identity is temporal).
We've all seen this...the people who don't belong. Which do you want to be? An entertainer or a bona fide, excellent, effective trainer. This is the point where Jane's group started to see a wide rift form between those who could and those who want to pretend they can/look good. One day this group realized that they're going to be able to stamp out bad training but wouldn't be able to do it alone. They needed help. Enter the train the trainer program, and communities focusing on service.
Learning
This is what the community takes on and learns over time, with three focuses: Evolving engagement (Members gain CoP-wide awareness of subtelties of relationships), Tuning enterprise (Aligning engagement w/ enterprise, learning to hold each other accountable, Defining/reconciling what enterprise is about), and Developing repertoire (Practice "handed down", Tuning repertoire (remember/forget). You see people come and go, stories get forgotten...
Why Did People Participate in This?
Not everyone cares about getting better (soul crushing fact to some), so why did the people who got in on this do so? Pride, commiseration, assisting others, fulfillment...and more:
- Makes the job habitable
- Satisfies motivational needs
- Reduces isolation
- High performers
- CoP is place to excel and feel valued for it
- Passion...pure and simple
How can we use CoP as a motivational tool...as a developmental tool...
UKE JAM GROUP IS A PRIME EXAMPLE!!!
Here's the deal: No one cares if they learn anything...they're perfectly happy to play the same songs, week in/week out. They don't necessarily care if they learn new songs, it's about a sense of belonging...a sense of community itself. But is it a CoP?
Four questions to ask:
1.) Is (or is not) meaning being made?
2.) Is (or is not) this a community?
3.) Is (or is not) identity affected?
4.) Is (or is not) the CoP learning?
How you answer these determines whether or not you are a CoP and certainly indicates how your CoP (or group) performs. If you're subject to the "bro crew" who high fives each other all the time reminding one another how awesome they are...just because they're together...it probably means they're not a CoP, and they may actually end up doing more harm than good by not honestly critiquing and improving.
Payoffs?
CoPs could be an incentivizing tool, but what else? Stronger network, less duplication of effort and more...
- Help with challenges
- Access to expertise
- Confidence
- Meaningful work
- Personal development
- Professional reputation
...and so on...
Is there value? OF COURSE!
- Immediate Value (Having fun, engagement, reflection, interaction (quality))
- Potential Value (Making good contacts, Inspiration, Tools/documents, etc.)
- Applied Value (implementation of advice, innovation in practice, use of social connections)
- Realized Value (Personal performance, Organizational performance/reputation)
- Reframing Value (Change in strategy, New metrics, New expectations, Institutional changes)
(On a personal note, these five bullets firmly solidify/concrete what I have known all along...that organziations like eLearning Guild are among the very best CoPs out there. My journey from 2008 to today followed these very steps, in various degrees/progressions. Wow.)
Conclusion
There's a reason Jane Bozarth has been one of the most influential figures in my professional development, and having an inside look into her dissertation was amazing. CoPs, like so many other things in learning/development/etc., are a concept that can just become assumed. But by drawing the line in the sand between workgroups and CoPs, showing what truly makes them different, you begin to see why there are tasks/things we LOVE and others we LOATHE.
"We need a place..."
Find yours.
Opening Keynote - Penn Jillette
(Wow. Wow. This is happening...)
Liars.
All of us and Penn have one thing in common: We're liars. Creative ones. But liars.
Life does not have a narrative
Life does not have a beginning, middle, and end.
When you pick something to tell a story about, you are a liar. You want to be an ethical one, but you're still a liar. You're picking out a section of a bigger picture.
Jugglers and Science
Penn goes on to relate that he wasn't always a magician, but that he started as a juggler...the "piss bottom" of entertainment. But he also liked science...so he spent Junior High juggling and reading about science.
When he was 13, he was watching Carson (maybe) and saw the amazing Kreskin doing an experiment. I'm going to show you how you can learn ESP. and he had a kit that he was marketing as an experiment (that we would call a game now). He did a scientific experiment on thought transfer on TV. World changing! Mind blowing!
See, Penn's from a defunct factory town in Massachusetts, dad was a prison guard, but his parents supported his interest in science. They bought Penn the ESP set (piece of shit, according to Penn). His parents would do the 'kit' with him...ESP cards, pendulums, etc. But they would sit with him and run experiments with him for weeks, and he was excited that he was doing science at home with his mom and dad.
Then, by a fluke of the Dewey Decimal System, Penn discovered some nearby magic books to the juggling books...and he just happened to pull a book by Dunninger. Penn was reading the book about how he did tricks, read them, and after about an hour he figured out how to do the trick...how to lie. And it was the one that Kreskin did as a "scientific experiment". It wasn't mind transference, it wasn't ESP...it was a lie. It was a piece of shit based on a lie...in a way that can only happen when you're young and have Penn's personality type.
He felt humiliated by it and he wasn't able to say that Kreskin was an SOB. The way it hit his mind was that adults and scientists lie to people. And that science is all bullshit...and that performance was bullshit...thus started a downward spiral, academically. Never again did he get a high mark in science for the rest of school.
As a parent now, he realized how strong the disappointment had to be for his parents. He felt, as a child, embarrassed for his parents and personally. He gave up science and went to juggling.
Meet TellerRight before Penn left high school, he met Teller. A Greek/Latin teacher. Teller told Penn he was a magician, and Penn immediately said he didn't like it because magicians lie to people. Teller told him that it was a special kind of lie...you were telling them that the lie was not true.
Lying is okay in some ways...if Robert Deniro told you he was a taxi driver, he'd be psychotic. But he did it in an artful way in a little movie called Taxi Driver. So long as you build the proscenium around the lie, it can be fantastic...it can be art...you can do it for a living.
Kreskin said "I have powers I didn't know I have" - If you rob a liquor store with a shotgun, the damage you do spreads to the community. But with lying, you distort the universe. You specifically gave information you know to be wrong. so, trying to find a way as a storyteller to not feel bad about yourself is a very difficult thing. So, what magic has become to Penn is a deep, deep look at how reality can be distorted.
The Penn and Teller point is that NO ONE should ever leave their theatre believing something is true that THEY know not to be true. It's the sawing in half principle: If you see someone being sawed in half and there's no blood and guts, there's no one that believes it really happened. You know it's a trick. But P&T don't do the stuff that other more "mentalist" leaning folks do.
Trick
A lot of magicians try to use the word illusion...probably because of more syllables. But this is more a term reserved for artistic interests. A trick is more intellectually interesting.
There's two things in magic: There is the effect and the method. The effect is what it looks like and the method is how we do it. There's an effect called the bullet catch...American, but developed by Native Americans. Lead ball with initials on it, shoot at magician, magician catches in teeth. 12 magicians and 4 carnies have died doing this trick.
P&T researched the ways these folks died (post mortem, anyone?). Chun Ling Su (Scottish, no less) did a version of it with a gimmicked gun (2 chambers), didn't check his gun, bullet to face...good night. Relays other stories of other ways magicians "ate it" doing this trick...
So, despite all these dangers...P&T go forward with it. So, now what?
Once You've Decided to Lie...What's Next?You've decided to lie, you have to determine how. When they do the bullet catch, they have three layers of security. It is very, very safe...and Penn is okay saying that. See, there's other magicians who want you to think that you might see someone drown, get shot, or get run over...and there's this lie that says the depiction of violence in art is a celebration of that violence. Penn believes that the depiction of violence in art is a celebration of health and life itself. Penn believes it's really important that anyone going to his show know that in 40 years, no one on their crew has EVER been injured. And he is proud of that, while other magicians brag about getting close to being hurt.
...and for those who come to his show in the hopes he gets hurt? "Fuck you. Stay home."
It's really hard to lie to smart people. If Penn came out here and said he was going to do the bullet catch, we'd all INSTANTLY go "No you're not". But then Penn goes through an explanation to make you suspend that belief...to support that lie. The gun becomes the magic wand that aids the bullet in disappearing and reappearing in another place. That's 100% true and that allows people to lie to themselves...because THEN they'll think the bullet truly can be shot across the stage and caught behind human teeth. A lie is only moral when you inform the recipient it's a story. Make the person lie to themselves.
And Now For Something Completely Different...and in conclusion...
Penn wraps the keynote with a heartfelt monologue...and fire. I recorded it all and it was amazing to say the least (will update with the YouTube link as soon as I can). But he closed with an amazing sentiment that I think we're all too NOT okay with...and that is: It's okay to not know. It's just like DeGrasse Tyson, Savage, and now he said - Not knowing is an option. It's a boundary. And knowing that you don't know can make it even more enjoyable...even more okay.
I honestly could go on and on about how different yet incredibly amazing this keynote was, but I'll summarize with this: When your audience knows what they're getting and you are up front about it, I believe the learning results are far better than trying to pull some elearning slight of hand. Perform your act in the proscenium, believe in your craft, and be honest with your students/learners/users...the rest will follow. I could not love this keynote any more if I tried...Amazing.
No bullshit.
Liars.
All of us and Penn have one thing in common: We're liars. Creative ones. But liars.
Life does not have a narrative
Life does not have a beginning, middle, and end.
When you pick something to tell a story about, you are a liar. You want to be an ethical one, but you're still a liar. You're picking out a section of a bigger picture.
Jugglers and Science
Penn goes on to relate that he wasn't always a magician, but that he started as a juggler...the "piss bottom" of entertainment. But he also liked science...so he spent Junior High juggling and reading about science.
When he was 13, he was watching Carson (maybe) and saw the amazing Kreskin doing an experiment. I'm going to show you how you can learn ESP. and he had a kit that he was marketing as an experiment (that we would call a game now). He did a scientific experiment on thought transfer on TV. World changing! Mind blowing!
See, Penn's from a defunct factory town in Massachusetts, dad was a prison guard, but his parents supported his interest in science. They bought Penn the ESP set (piece of shit, according to Penn). His parents would do the 'kit' with him...ESP cards, pendulums, etc. But they would sit with him and run experiments with him for weeks, and he was excited that he was doing science at home with his mom and dad.
Then, by a fluke of the Dewey Decimal System, Penn discovered some nearby magic books to the juggling books...and he just happened to pull a book by Dunninger. Penn was reading the book about how he did tricks, read them, and after about an hour he figured out how to do the trick...how to lie. And it was the one that Kreskin did as a "scientific experiment". It wasn't mind transference, it wasn't ESP...it was a lie. It was a piece of shit based on a lie...in a way that can only happen when you're young and have Penn's personality type.
He felt humiliated by it and he wasn't able to say that Kreskin was an SOB. The way it hit his mind was that adults and scientists lie to people. And that science is all bullshit...and that performance was bullshit...thus started a downward spiral, academically. Never again did he get a high mark in science for the rest of school.
As a parent now, he realized how strong the disappointment had to be for his parents. He felt, as a child, embarrassed for his parents and personally. He gave up science and went to juggling.
Meet TellerRight before Penn left high school, he met Teller. A Greek/Latin teacher. Teller told Penn he was a magician, and Penn immediately said he didn't like it because magicians lie to people. Teller told him that it was a special kind of lie...you were telling them that the lie was not true.
Lying is okay in some ways...if Robert Deniro told you he was a taxi driver, he'd be psychotic. But he did it in an artful way in a little movie called Taxi Driver. So long as you build the proscenium around the lie, it can be fantastic...it can be art...you can do it for a living.
Kreskin said "I have powers I didn't know I have" - If you rob a liquor store with a shotgun, the damage you do spreads to the community. But with lying, you distort the universe. You specifically gave information you know to be wrong. so, trying to find a way as a storyteller to not feel bad about yourself is a very difficult thing. So, what magic has become to Penn is a deep, deep look at how reality can be distorted.
The Penn and Teller point is that NO ONE should ever leave their theatre believing something is true that THEY know not to be true. It's the sawing in half principle: If you see someone being sawed in half and there's no blood and guts, there's no one that believes it really happened. You know it's a trick. But P&T don't do the stuff that other more "mentalist" leaning folks do.
Trick
A lot of magicians try to use the word illusion...probably because of more syllables. But this is more a term reserved for artistic interests. A trick is more intellectually interesting.
There's two things in magic: There is the effect and the method. The effect is what it looks like and the method is how we do it. There's an effect called the bullet catch...American, but developed by Native Americans. Lead ball with initials on it, shoot at magician, magician catches in teeth. 12 magicians and 4 carnies have died doing this trick.
P&T researched the ways these folks died (post mortem, anyone?). Chun Ling Su (Scottish, no less) did a version of it with a gimmicked gun (2 chambers), didn't check his gun, bullet to face...good night. Relays other stories of other ways magicians "ate it" doing this trick...
So, despite all these dangers...P&T go forward with it. So, now what?
Once You've Decided to Lie...What's Next?You've decided to lie, you have to determine how. When they do the bullet catch, they have three layers of security. It is very, very safe...and Penn is okay saying that. See, there's other magicians who want you to think that you might see someone drown, get shot, or get run over...and there's this lie that says the depiction of violence in art is a celebration of that violence. Penn believes that the depiction of violence in art is a celebration of health and life itself. Penn believes it's really important that anyone going to his show know that in 40 years, no one on their crew has EVER been injured. And he is proud of that, while other magicians brag about getting close to being hurt.
...and for those who come to his show in the hopes he gets hurt? "Fuck you. Stay home."
It's really hard to lie to smart people. If Penn came out here and said he was going to do the bullet catch, we'd all INSTANTLY go "No you're not". But then Penn goes through an explanation to make you suspend that belief...to support that lie. The gun becomes the magic wand that aids the bullet in disappearing and reappearing in another place. That's 100% true and that allows people to lie to themselves...because THEN they'll think the bullet truly can be shot across the stage and caught behind human teeth. A lie is only moral when you inform the recipient it's a story. Make the person lie to themselves.
And Now For Something Completely Different...and in conclusion...
Penn wraps the keynote with a heartfelt monologue...and fire. I recorded it all and it was amazing to say the least (will update with the YouTube link as soon as I can). But he closed with an amazing sentiment that I think we're all too NOT okay with...and that is: It's okay to not know. It's just like DeGrasse Tyson, Savage, and now he said - Not knowing is an option. It's a boundary. And knowing that you don't know can make it even more enjoyable...even more okay.
I honestly could go on and on about how different yet incredibly amazing this keynote was, but I'll summarize with this: When your audience knows what they're getting and you are up front about it, I believe the learning results are far better than trying to pull some elearning slight of hand. Perform your act in the proscenium, believe in your craft, and be honest with your students/learners/users...the rest will follow. I could not love this keynote any more if I tried...Amazing.
No bullshit.
DevLearn 2016 Opening Ceremonies - D Kelly
D Kelly takes the stage to thunderous applause...over 3,000 people...the energy...it's addictive. But, really, there's only one question on everyone's minds:
Will Dave Kelly Mention His Kids During His Kickoff?
We don't know, yet...but Dave had an epiphany, that people expect it from him. And he realized, he's becoming the overused elearning template. He began to think about the elements of these stories - They're personal, they're ubiquitous, they're shareable.
But he wanted to flip the script and share about another topic that we can all relate to...what topic could there POSSIBLY be that we can all relate to that the media couldn't let us escape for the past year or so? As everyone in the room gasps and thinks he's about to go political...
...only to transition to Brad and Angelina's divorce. Well played, Dave...well played.
All kidding aside, Dave deviates but returns to discussing a central tenet to what we all do: Creativity. But, what's more, we need to focus on the RESTRAINTS/CONSTRAINTS therein. How could he talk about the political situation without ACTUALLY talking about it? Same applies to us...we're going to gain a lot of knowledge over the next three days, but you have to be able to know how you CAN use it...to be aware of your boundaries. And boundaries are okay.
Great opening talk...good way to focus what can be an overwhelming scope of material. Make it meaningful to you. Well done, sir.
Will Dave Kelly Mention His Kids During His Kickoff?
We don't know, yet...but Dave had an epiphany, that people expect it from him. And he realized, he's becoming the overused elearning template. He began to think about the elements of these stories - They're personal, they're ubiquitous, they're shareable.
But he wanted to flip the script and share about another topic that we can all relate to...what topic could there POSSIBLY be that we can all relate to that the media couldn't let us escape for the past year or so? As everyone in the room gasps and thinks he's about to go political...
...only to transition to Brad and Angelina's divorce. Well played, Dave...well played.
All kidding aside, Dave deviates but returns to discussing a central tenet to what we all do: Creativity. But, what's more, we need to focus on the RESTRAINTS/CONSTRAINTS therein. How could he talk about the political situation without ACTUALLY talking about it? Same applies to us...we're going to gain a lot of knowledge over the next three days, but you have to be able to know how you CAN use it...to be aware of your boundaries. And boundaries are okay.
Great opening talk...good way to focus what can be an overwhelming scope of material. Make it meaningful to you. Well done, sir.
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
#econfPSU Closing Keynote - Scott Dadich of WIRED
The Man of WIRED
WIRED was started in 1993...the magazine and the website were started concurrently. They're a rarity in that and the first to champion digital. What they're LESS proud of is being the inventor of the banner ad...*cue multiple boos*. (Sorry about that) They are the informational voice that talks about the way the world is changing...at least technologically.
In 1993, Dadich was a junior in high school...Jurassic Park was the #1 film, Windows NT, and the entirety of the Internet fit on 50 servers. Today, Star Wars The Force Awakens topped 2 billion, 1 in 7 humans log into Facebook EVERY DAY, YouTube reaches more adults than cable TV, and Microsoft is a service company and a hardware company...oh, and Apple's Market value = > 500 billion. WIRED always set out to feel like a letter written back from the future. 20 years, let's say...but now, what used to take 20 years to happen happens in about 20 months.
What Is Design?
Everyone knows it...but knows their own. Scott uses the Wright Brothers to illustrate design: Everyone thinks they designed flight. No. There were several flying machines before them. They designed the human control element that allowed it to happen. They brought it into the realm of human control.
What choices do we have when we design? Red/blue, steel/spruce, Python/ruby...these are all design questions. So, in some sense, we are all designers. We are designing all the time. Design makes things work...
Design is decision-making.
Decision upon decision ultimately builds, creates, or just plain MAKES something.
And sometimes...it's important to make the WRONG decision.
Scott's Early Days
He started as a Creative Director for WIRED and was hired by a guy named Chris. One of the things Chris wanted to do was to make the magazine "grow up". The challenge, then, was to remodel WIRED for a modern context. What he did was back into the component parts to understand how every little piece was built on a very common element: The pixel. The logo represented binary (on/off/on/off) as well as the vibrations through the spine. And, guess what? Scott wasn't allowed to change the logo or the spine vibe.
So, Scott had a typeface created (a slab serif), went a bit more "Mad Men", a more monochromatic feel...and he was told to add more color. Pissed, he walked away and found the gnarliest colors (safety cone orange) and added one square. One. And it was awful...
...but it drew attention to what was RIGHT with the design. How SO MUCH ELSE was right. So, next issue he went with a big RED stripe...the following he started pitting artist against artist, trying to actually make it NOT right/work. Three-ish years later, they had come up with something...all through the "wrong" decision/design. Present day, the spine (among so much else) has changed significantly.
The Wrong Theory and Wrong Theory Decisions
This concept has been there all along, despite Scott thinking he had actually come up with. John Rand in 1841 came up with incredible new hues through chemistry, etc...and out of it came Impressionism. Degas is another prime example: The pole in the middle his impressionist work with the horse/jockey...it was RIDICULED. But then? You begin to see it (the line element) being used more and more and more.
Stravinsky in 1913 wanted to debut a piece featuring strings syncopating with winds, but also kettle drums playing counter to it. By the second act of its debut, there was a riot in the theatre...they ejected 46 people, there were fights, etc. A year later? Biggest hit ever. And the piece was rhythms and melodies from popular folk tunes layered over each other. It built on what people knew, then made a considered choice.
Stravinsky was one of the first remix artists. Boom.
Miles Davis (Bitches Brew) and The Sopranos...also examples. They all understood the rules and made a calculated decision. It wasn't about ignoring the rules. It was about becoming an expert within the rules BEFORE making exceptions to them. Wrong Theory is Experimentation, Build Consensus, Find Perfection, then Ruin It. Crazy. But, if it feels bad, you're probably on your way to something new...wrong, right, or otherwise. Design is not just about making something beautiful...it's about making something work.
(Got sidetracked listening, sorry...amazing stuff, one of the best examples being how similar our online experience is (Apple, Google, and Microsoft's native font is nearly identical) compared to how divergent the PC/iMAC situation was)
SimCity, Upsilon Circuit, Netflix...ALL playing with Wrong Decisions...and it WORKS. In cars, Volvo makes a car JUST FOR RIDE SHARING...the one decision being taking out the front seat. 3D Printing...just a plastic spitting machine which now has been, for lack of a better term, reverse engineered. Even our home furnishing...we're seeing it EVERYWHERE.
Find Your Orange Bar...Go Make Something Perfect...and Ruin It
I have always been risk averse for the sake of not "ruining/changing" something that works. This talk has definitely, at minimum, started my considering of changing that thought process. I'm hoping that I can go back to my current situation (which is chock full of change) and actually take it and ruin it for the better...I can only hope.
WIRED was started in 1993...the magazine and the website were started concurrently. They're a rarity in that and the first to champion digital. What they're LESS proud of is being the inventor of the banner ad...*cue multiple boos*. (Sorry about that) They are the informational voice that talks about the way the world is changing...at least technologically.
In 1993, Dadich was a junior in high school...Jurassic Park was the #1 film, Windows NT, and the entirety of the Internet fit on 50 servers. Today, Star Wars The Force Awakens topped 2 billion, 1 in 7 humans log into Facebook EVERY DAY, YouTube reaches more adults than cable TV, and Microsoft is a service company and a hardware company...oh, and Apple's Market value = > 500 billion. WIRED always set out to feel like a letter written back from the future. 20 years, let's say...but now, what used to take 20 years to happen happens in about 20 months.
What Is Design?
Everyone knows it...but knows their own. Scott uses the Wright Brothers to illustrate design: Everyone thinks they designed flight. No. There were several flying machines before them. They designed the human control element that allowed it to happen. They brought it into the realm of human control.
What choices do we have when we design? Red/blue, steel/spruce, Python/ruby...these are all design questions. So, in some sense, we are all designers. We are designing all the time. Design makes things work...
Design is decision-making.
Decision upon decision ultimately builds, creates, or just plain MAKES something.
And sometimes...it's important to make the WRONG decision.
Scott's Early Days
He started as a Creative Director for WIRED and was hired by a guy named Chris. One of the things Chris wanted to do was to make the magazine "grow up". The challenge, then, was to remodel WIRED for a modern context. What he did was back into the component parts to understand how every little piece was built on a very common element: The pixel. The logo represented binary (on/off/on/off) as well as the vibrations through the spine. And, guess what? Scott wasn't allowed to change the logo or the spine vibe.
So, Scott had a typeface created (a slab serif), went a bit more "Mad Men", a more monochromatic feel...and he was told to add more color. Pissed, he walked away and found the gnarliest colors (safety cone orange) and added one square. One. And it was awful...
...but it drew attention to what was RIGHT with the design. How SO MUCH ELSE was right. So, next issue he went with a big RED stripe...the following he started pitting artist against artist, trying to actually make it NOT right/work. Three-ish years later, they had come up with something...all through the "wrong" decision/design. Present day, the spine (among so much else) has changed significantly.
The Wrong Theory and Wrong Theory Decisions
This concept has been there all along, despite Scott thinking he had actually come up with. John Rand in 1841 came up with incredible new hues through chemistry, etc...and out of it came Impressionism. Degas is another prime example: The pole in the middle his impressionist work with the horse/jockey...it was RIDICULED. But then? You begin to see it (the line element) being used more and more and more.
Stravinsky in 1913 wanted to debut a piece featuring strings syncopating with winds, but also kettle drums playing counter to it. By the second act of its debut, there was a riot in the theatre...they ejected 46 people, there were fights, etc. A year later? Biggest hit ever. And the piece was rhythms and melodies from popular folk tunes layered over each other. It built on what people knew, then made a considered choice.
Stravinsky was one of the first remix artists. Boom.
Miles Davis (Bitches Brew) and The Sopranos...also examples. They all understood the rules and made a calculated decision. It wasn't about ignoring the rules. It was about becoming an expert within the rules BEFORE making exceptions to them. Wrong Theory is Experimentation, Build Consensus, Find Perfection, then Ruin It. Crazy. But, if it feels bad, you're probably on your way to something new...wrong, right, or otherwise. Design is not just about making something beautiful...it's about making something work.
(Got sidetracked listening, sorry...amazing stuff, one of the best examples being how similar our online experience is (Apple, Google, and Microsoft's native font is nearly identical) compared to how divergent the PC/iMAC situation was)
SimCity, Upsilon Circuit, Netflix...ALL playing with Wrong Decisions...and it WORKS. In cars, Volvo makes a car JUST FOR RIDE SHARING...the one decision being taking out the front seat. 3D Printing...just a plastic spitting machine which now has been, for lack of a better term, reverse engineered. Even our home furnishing...we're seeing it EVERYWHERE.
Find Your Orange Bar...Go Make Something Perfect...and Ruin It
I have always been risk averse for the sake of not "ruining/changing" something that works. This talk has definitely, at minimum, started my considering of changing that thought process. I'm hoping that I can go back to my current situation (which is chock full of change) and actually take it and ruin it for the better...I can only hope.
#econfPSU Keynote The Third - Debbie Millman "Why Branding?"
MySpace and Beyond
Debbie was asked why MySpace, back in the day, did so well...based on its brand. And she didn't know. She went to MySpace, created a user ID, thought the UI was awful, and never went back. She realized that MySpace was started two years earlier as an online storage site, but Debbie still didn't know why it had gotten so popular.
She did TONS of work and research on that very topic (including two books on branding significance) and FINALLY landed on an answer...which she's going to reserve for the end of the keynote. Well played, Ms Millman...well played.
Back In Time
Debbie went back in time to how we branded to begin the process of picking apart the WHY as to how MySpace got big. One of the first things she looked at was a supermarket...there's 100's of different brands of WATER...coffee? Similar. Hell, you go into your local Starbucks, there is nearly 19 MILLION possible combinations. But they all look, fundamentally, similar.
Then there's the "anti-branders"...Adbusters, NoLogo, Buy Nothing Day...they're full of it, because they brand themselves. So WHY...WHY do we feel the need to create new brands/branding?
Debbie went into a rabbit hole and landed on the conditions that lead to the conditions...50,000 years ago, no less. At this point, our brains underwent a genetic mutation (a 3 in one brain) and they respond to markedly different stimuli than what they had. It essentially became the "Big Brain Bang" or "The Great Leap Forward". It's how we became the species we are today...no big deal, right?
Debbie covers the three portions/levels of the brain...reptilian, mammalian, and the true human element. The "Big Brain", if you will, handles the cultural universals: Language, art, music, cooking, and self-decoration. And it was at this point in our evolution that we started to focus on two things: Making or Marking.
Making or Marking
Our understanding of reality begins to be recorded on cave walls. There's very little difference between cave paintings and what we put on our Facebook wall. We start to apply makeup 10,000 years ago, to make ourselves more attractive to an almighty god, then create symbols to further explain the concept. Crescent shields and flags begin to appear to designate friend v foe on the battlefield. We used it because there was no way to mass produce uniforms, so flags it was.
The word "Brond" derives from "to make or mark with fire". Livestock begin to be "marked", wooden surfaces, etc...Trademarks come into being in January 1, 1876. The very first trademark was Bass Ale (yesssssssssss). The first place the logo was seen in an advertisement (1882) was in an oil painting.
So, what's happened since then?
5 Waves of Modern Brand Evolution
Wave 1 (1875-1920)
Brands were guaranteed to be of quality and "premium". People would spend an extra bit of money for something that was in a special kind of packaging. Condensed soup, soap, Coca Cola...if you took a train from State College to California, anywhere you got a Coke you could expect it to be the same no matter where. They'd be safe and they'd be of quality.
Wave 2 (1920-1965)
Ads and brands become Anthropomorphized - They were no longer reliant on a person or quality...they were about competition and differentiation. Personality of a brand comes to the fore front. Betty Crocker, Uncle Ben's, etc...these brands weren't based in reality...they were fictitious. BUT, people thought they were real...and that's all that mattered. You could relate to and project onto a character.
Wave 3 (1965-1985)
Brands become self-expressive statements: The brand I'm wearing, carrying, or using says something about you. If I'm wearing Levi jeans, I'm cool as shit. A brand, at this point, could provide status. It signified something about the carrier. Levi, Nike, Marlboro, Volkswagen...Marlboro man hasn't been in an ad for 20+ years, and Debbie's undergrad students can still identify him without fail.
Wave 4 (1985-2005)
Brands as an experience: From the brand, you would expect an emotional transformation. Disney, Apple, Starbucks...if you engage with these brands, you would have a different emotional feeling about not only yourself but life itself.
The Path to Wave 5 (2005-present)
Our brains feel happiest when we are securely attached to those who take care of us. BUT, now more and more people are living alone. 1 in 3 households, present day, are single person households and the perception of this has changed COMPLETELY. SO...why was MySpace so big? Sitting around the radio, black and white tvs, color tvs, cell phones...where next?
Pre-YouTube, Pre-Facebook, what were we doing online? Emails, playing games. That's it.
Enter the iPod and "Isolation Nation" - Critics wrote that civilization was doomed because we were only interested in what was happening on our device. Per James Katz, "The iPod psychologically depopulates social space view and increases isolation and anomie". What does this mean for a species whose brains are wired to harmoniously resonate with one another? What happens?
WE ADDRESS IT. Enter Social Media. And THAT'S how Social Media became so popular. Wave 5, then, is branding as a connecter. We're not in love with the device, we're in love with the feeling of connectivity we get from said device. Social, shopping, dating, education...they're all in it.
So, Why Do We Brand?
Ultimately, we create brands to create tribes to help us feel bigger than we actually are. What's alarming, though, (predicted by Henry Miller in 1938) is that no matter how much we increase the wage earning of the individual, they're always looking for the next rung. If we are using the largest possible flat screen TV to equate happiness, we are kidding ourselves. That feeling only lasts for a short period of time...the dopamine fades fast.
We are metabolism machines, and this also includes our feelings. When you first meet someone, it's magic. First six months of dating, awesome. 2-5 years later, you complain about how the other person breathes. The same thing holds true in the social arena...the next Generation (D), where D = depressed, struggles to keep up with this "manufactured online presence".
We need to rethink the purpose of the brands we're manufacturing. And it comes down to three things:
1.) Help People Feel Connected
2.) Inspire People To Feel Okay AS IS
3.) Make a Difference In People's Lives
Conclusion
Incredible talk about an angle I, as a mere consumer, have never considered. Takeaway-wise, I'm going to be taking a much longer, harder look at how I consume, purchase, and (ultimately) brand myself. Great retrospective on branding and society in general.
Debbie was asked why MySpace, back in the day, did so well...based on its brand. And she didn't know. She went to MySpace, created a user ID, thought the UI was awful, and never went back. She realized that MySpace was started two years earlier as an online storage site, but Debbie still didn't know why it had gotten so popular.
She did TONS of work and research on that very topic (including two books on branding significance) and FINALLY landed on an answer...which she's going to reserve for the end of the keynote. Well played, Ms Millman...well played.
Back In Time
Debbie went back in time to how we branded to begin the process of picking apart the WHY as to how MySpace got big. One of the first things she looked at was a supermarket...there's 100's of different brands of WATER...coffee? Similar. Hell, you go into your local Starbucks, there is nearly 19 MILLION possible combinations. But they all look, fundamentally, similar.
Then there's the "anti-branders"...Adbusters, NoLogo, Buy Nothing Day...they're full of it, because they brand themselves. So WHY...WHY do we feel the need to create new brands/branding?
Debbie went into a rabbit hole and landed on the conditions that lead to the conditions...50,000 years ago, no less. At this point, our brains underwent a genetic mutation (a 3 in one brain) and they respond to markedly different stimuli than what they had. It essentially became the "Big Brain Bang" or "The Great Leap Forward". It's how we became the species we are today...no big deal, right?
Debbie covers the three portions/levels of the brain...reptilian, mammalian, and the true human element. The "Big Brain", if you will, handles the cultural universals: Language, art, music, cooking, and self-decoration. And it was at this point in our evolution that we started to focus on two things: Making or Marking.
Making or Marking
Our understanding of reality begins to be recorded on cave walls. There's very little difference between cave paintings and what we put on our Facebook wall. We start to apply makeup 10,000 years ago, to make ourselves more attractive to an almighty god, then create symbols to further explain the concept. Crescent shields and flags begin to appear to designate friend v foe on the battlefield. We used it because there was no way to mass produce uniforms, so flags it was.
The word "Brond" derives from "to make or mark with fire". Livestock begin to be "marked", wooden surfaces, etc...Trademarks come into being in January 1, 1876. The very first trademark was Bass Ale (yesssssssssss). The first place the logo was seen in an advertisement (1882) was in an oil painting.
So, what's happened since then?
5 Waves of Modern Brand Evolution
Wave 1 (1875-1920)
Brands were guaranteed to be of quality and "premium". People would spend an extra bit of money for something that was in a special kind of packaging. Condensed soup, soap, Coca Cola...if you took a train from State College to California, anywhere you got a Coke you could expect it to be the same no matter where. They'd be safe and they'd be of quality.
Wave 2 (1920-1965)
Ads and brands become Anthropomorphized - They were no longer reliant on a person or quality...they were about competition and differentiation. Personality of a brand comes to the fore front. Betty Crocker, Uncle Ben's, etc...these brands weren't based in reality...they were fictitious. BUT, people thought they were real...and that's all that mattered. You could relate to and project onto a character.
Wave 3 (1965-1985)
Brands become self-expressive statements: The brand I'm wearing, carrying, or using says something about you. If I'm wearing Levi jeans, I'm cool as shit. A brand, at this point, could provide status. It signified something about the carrier. Levi, Nike, Marlboro, Volkswagen...Marlboro man hasn't been in an ad for 20+ years, and Debbie's undergrad students can still identify him without fail.
Wave 4 (1985-2005)
Brands as an experience: From the brand, you would expect an emotional transformation. Disney, Apple, Starbucks...if you engage with these brands, you would have a different emotional feeling about not only yourself but life itself.
The Path to Wave 5 (2005-present)
Our brains feel happiest when we are securely attached to those who take care of us. BUT, now more and more people are living alone. 1 in 3 households, present day, are single person households and the perception of this has changed COMPLETELY. SO...why was MySpace so big? Sitting around the radio, black and white tvs, color tvs, cell phones...where next?
Pre-YouTube, Pre-Facebook, what were we doing online? Emails, playing games. That's it.
Enter the iPod and "Isolation Nation" - Critics wrote that civilization was doomed because we were only interested in what was happening on our device. Per James Katz, "The iPod psychologically depopulates social space view and increases isolation and anomie". What does this mean for a species whose brains are wired to harmoniously resonate with one another? What happens?
WE ADDRESS IT. Enter Social Media. And THAT'S how Social Media became so popular. Wave 5, then, is branding as a connecter. We're not in love with the device, we're in love with the feeling of connectivity we get from said device. Social, shopping, dating, education...they're all in it.
So, Why Do We Brand?
Ultimately, we create brands to create tribes to help us feel bigger than we actually are. What's alarming, though, (predicted by Henry Miller in 1938) is that no matter how much we increase the wage earning of the individual, they're always looking for the next rung. If we are using the largest possible flat screen TV to equate happiness, we are kidding ourselves. That feeling only lasts for a short period of time...the dopamine fades fast.
We are metabolism machines, and this also includes our feelings. When you first meet someone, it's magic. First six months of dating, awesome. 2-5 years later, you complain about how the other person breathes. The same thing holds true in the social arena...the next Generation (D), where D = depressed, struggles to keep up with this "manufactured online presence".
We need to rethink the purpose of the brands we're manufacturing. And it comes down to three things:
1.) Help People Feel Connected
2.) Inspire People To Feel Okay AS IS
3.) Make a Difference In People's Lives
Conclusion
Incredible talk about an angle I, as a mere consumer, have never considered. Takeaway-wise, I'm going to be taking a much longer, harder look at how I consume, purchase, and (ultimately) brand myself. Great retrospective on branding and society in general.
Monday, June 13, 2016
#econfPSU Keynote 2: Eric Meyer - Designing for Crisis
The Background
Family vacation...daughter taken to ER...tested positive for strep. Never got better, went home, went to another hospital. Seizure, CT Scan, 2nd seizure...I'm having trouble typing the rest of this. In just 3 days, his daughter went from "normal" to "brink of death". CT Scan comes back, brain mass identified, life flighted to CHOP. Without them. Not knowing if they'd see her again.
Someone that they just barely knew volunteered to drive them to CHOP...11 at night...barely able to comprehend what was happening. Thoughts went through his head: How do we get to our daughter? Not, Is she alright? Will she be alright? Just "How do we get there?". Eric realized he had his iPhone, googled CHOP, and the image was their homepage: A brochure that was out of focus. At this point, Eric didn't have the mental capacity to comprehend what he was seeing. He was past that.
He finally identified the nav bar, after weeding through so much else he didn't need..."comatose 5 year old" was not a result. He managed to find a "What to expect during your child's visit" page. He eliminated Outpatient, Emergency Room, hoped for Inpatient...and tried them in order. He clicked Inpatient...he clicked Surgical...nothing but massive walls of texts. Nothing but references to documents you should bring, play activities...he didn't know if she'd play again. He went through EVERY SINGLE LINK...and not ONE would answer their question: How do I get to my child?
The Phone Number
There was a phone number in the side menu on every page he visited...he was doing his research on an IPHONE...but it never occurred to him to USE IT LIKE A PHONE AND CALL. Eric was browsing on his phone, with the weaker battery, so that his wife could answer when THE HOSPITAL CALLED. They were acting on instinct..."You don't decide what your users will want to do on mobile." We also don't get to decide what users choose to use our product...
Who does the site work for? Marketing? Upper Management? (Personal tragedy aside, this sounds ALL too familiar to my situation.) The parents bringing kids in for a routine procedure, outpatient visit, etc...sure. But who else? What about the user/parent in crisis? The emergent user. The person who has a stalker who's made a credible threat against them? The person whose auto draft failed on their mortgage payment for the past 3 months? The parent trying to get to their dying child?
It takes EMPATHY.
Empathy is a Core Dev Skill
Eric shows a picture of the CHOP homepage with a button in the middle, reading: "Unexpected visit to CHOP? Here's what you need to know.". If you're driving in, here's where you park...here's how you pay for parking...here's where you go...here's where you go in the AM, in the PM...It takes empathy. They could have done that and still let the CEO feel good about their "Top 100" banner on their homepage...but you have to think about everyone...potentially those at the worst place they could be.
It's good to design for the 10%, as opposed to the 90%...also referred to as the Edge Case. But, when you use it, you're willing to define those you don't necessarily actively care about. Eric believes the term should be replaced with STRESS Case. When you use this term, you're not defining where your 'limit' is. Stress Cases are good because they Stress test your work without minimizing users who may need your service.
Combine Persona With Context
Eric shows three "avatars": Happy, stressed, and (for lack of a better term) nuclear/crisis. He then adds three "contexts": Midweek lunch, After bedtime, and Waiting Room in a hospital. The level to which the crisis appears characteristically can vary based on the context.
He goes on to share more of the story...arriving at the hospital, most of which is closed down, dark, locked, etc. They managed to finally find the elevator to get to their daughter's floor, and were greeted with an eerily (see: user hostile) child voice in the elevator greeting them. But, at midnight, WHO WANTS TO HEAR THAT? Again, the CEO and other higher ups probably LOVED it, but didn't stop too think...to empathize with the people who would be there at midnight. There's ONLY ONE KIND OF PERSON THERE THEN...and it's not good.
Auto Insurance Example and Beyond
Eric goes on to relay another story where he was on vacation and a car t-boned his mini van. Drivable, he was able to get in touch with insurance and work through their web form...through MUCH to do. But he was on vacation...he was a best case scenario...he had all the mental bandwidth in the world. What about the one car, paycheck to paycheck, service industry worker driving home from the late shift...same situation, different context/person. What then?
Whoever made the interface on that site didn't think of THEM. THEY assumed best case for anyone having to use the site. HUGE oversight on their part...not being empathetic to the people who would truly need them. He goes on to relay about "Lowes Depot" and their mission statement...gloriously floral in its verbiage...but was focused at the happy coulple having fun improving their home. NEVERMIND the ones who had their fridge die, leak water, and start leaking through drywall and floorboards. Bottom line: THINK BEYOND BEST CASE. "Lowes Depot" rethought their approach and revised with the following guidelines:
Prioritize helpful, realistic estimates.
Provide at a glance help.
Use plain language.
Write for the urgent case.
By planning for the worst, they were able to be at their best.
Back to Medical Imaging
Medical imaging rooms, in general, are scary. Freaky. Even when they try to make some moves towards "kid-like", it's not. The room is scary, the potential end result is scary, and parents trying to hide the scared only end up making the kid more scared. Bad situation, overall, medical imaging. What's more, the imaging doesn't work if the kids move.
Most kids were FREAKING OUT, so the kids have to be sedated...LOTS of potential bad with Anesthesia: Death, reaction, long term damage, etc. And the process takes a LONG TIME...they're scheduled for 10, you need to be there at 8...anesth starts at 9, and so on.
Enter GE Corporation, Doug Dietz, and their "Adventure Series" - "Helping children's imaging go from terrifying to terrific." Right around the time Doug was realizing this issue, folks at the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh were identifying this to and working something into their CT Scan process to help put the kids at ease. They went to a party store, got a bunch of cheap toys and promised it to them if they held still. Did it work?
In 2005, 354 kids were sedated. In 2007? 4 The wait time to get in for a CT went to basically -0- because of this reduction, whereas it was 17 days before...17 days they had to sit through wondering...worrying. All because of a simple trip to a party store... Pittsburgh and GE/Dietz worked together to create a more inviting suite, and the results continue to improve. MRIs were next in line to receive the "Adventure Series" treatment...with a 25.2% drop in sedation, and a 55% increase in patients seen (2009-2011).
Conclusion
It's hard to put a finger on just where this hits me most...is it the anger towards designers staying quagmired in a "best case" mindset? Is it embarrassment that I've done this very thing? Is it sadness at Eric's story? Professionals need to look at users in crisis...not users in a best case scenario. Lives can be changed for the better. Lives can be made more comfortable.
Eric charges us with the most thankless task: People in crisis will not notice your work when you design for them in crisis. But you will have helped them in the most profound way by simply not adding to their burden. He thanks us in their place...
...no, Eric - Thank you.
Family vacation...daughter taken to ER...tested positive for strep. Never got better, went home, went to another hospital. Seizure, CT Scan, 2nd seizure...I'm having trouble typing the rest of this. In just 3 days, his daughter went from "normal" to "brink of death". CT Scan comes back, brain mass identified, life flighted to CHOP. Without them. Not knowing if they'd see her again.
Someone that they just barely knew volunteered to drive them to CHOP...11 at night...barely able to comprehend what was happening. Thoughts went through his head: How do we get to our daughter? Not, Is she alright? Will she be alright? Just "How do we get there?". Eric realized he had his iPhone, googled CHOP, and the image was their homepage: A brochure that was out of focus. At this point, Eric didn't have the mental capacity to comprehend what he was seeing. He was past that.
He finally identified the nav bar, after weeding through so much else he didn't need..."comatose 5 year old" was not a result. He managed to find a "What to expect during your child's visit" page. He eliminated Outpatient, Emergency Room, hoped for Inpatient...and tried them in order. He clicked Inpatient...he clicked Surgical...nothing but massive walls of texts. Nothing but references to documents you should bring, play activities...he didn't know if she'd play again. He went through EVERY SINGLE LINK...and not ONE would answer their question: How do I get to my child?
The Phone Number
There was a phone number in the side menu on every page he visited...he was doing his research on an IPHONE...but it never occurred to him to USE IT LIKE A PHONE AND CALL. Eric was browsing on his phone, with the weaker battery, so that his wife could answer when THE HOSPITAL CALLED. They were acting on instinct..."You don't decide what your users will want to do on mobile." We also don't get to decide what users choose to use our product...
Who does the site work for? Marketing? Upper Management? (Personal tragedy aside, this sounds ALL too familiar to my situation.) The parents bringing kids in for a routine procedure, outpatient visit, etc...sure. But who else? What about the user/parent in crisis? The emergent user. The person who has a stalker who's made a credible threat against them? The person whose auto draft failed on their mortgage payment for the past 3 months? The parent trying to get to their dying child?
It takes EMPATHY.
Empathy is a Core Dev Skill
Eric shows a picture of the CHOP homepage with a button in the middle, reading: "Unexpected visit to CHOP? Here's what you need to know.". If you're driving in, here's where you park...here's how you pay for parking...here's where you go...here's where you go in the AM, in the PM...It takes empathy. They could have done that and still let the CEO feel good about their "Top 100" banner on their homepage...but you have to think about everyone...potentially those at the worst place they could be.
It's good to design for the 10%, as opposed to the 90%...also referred to as the Edge Case. But, when you use it, you're willing to define those you don't necessarily actively care about. Eric believes the term should be replaced with STRESS Case. When you use this term, you're not defining where your 'limit' is. Stress Cases are good because they Stress test your work without minimizing users who may need your service.
Combine Persona With Context
Eric shows three "avatars": Happy, stressed, and (for lack of a better term) nuclear/crisis. He then adds three "contexts": Midweek lunch, After bedtime, and Waiting Room in a hospital. The level to which the crisis appears characteristically can vary based on the context.
He goes on to share more of the story...arriving at the hospital, most of which is closed down, dark, locked, etc. They managed to finally find the elevator to get to their daughter's floor, and were greeted with an eerily (see: user hostile) child voice in the elevator greeting them. But, at midnight, WHO WANTS TO HEAR THAT? Again, the CEO and other higher ups probably LOVED it, but didn't stop too think...to empathize with the people who would be there at midnight. There's ONLY ONE KIND OF PERSON THERE THEN...and it's not good.
Auto Insurance Example and Beyond
Eric goes on to relay another story where he was on vacation and a car t-boned his mini van. Drivable, he was able to get in touch with insurance and work through their web form...through MUCH to do. But he was on vacation...he was a best case scenario...he had all the mental bandwidth in the world. What about the one car, paycheck to paycheck, service industry worker driving home from the late shift...same situation, different context/person. What then?
Whoever made the interface on that site didn't think of THEM. THEY assumed best case for anyone having to use the site. HUGE oversight on their part...not being empathetic to the people who would truly need them. He goes on to relay about "Lowes Depot" and their mission statement...gloriously floral in its verbiage...but was focused at the happy coulple having fun improving their home. NEVERMIND the ones who had their fridge die, leak water, and start leaking through drywall and floorboards. Bottom line: THINK BEYOND BEST CASE. "Lowes Depot" rethought their approach and revised with the following guidelines:
Prioritize helpful, realistic estimates.
Provide at a glance help.
Use plain language.
Write for the urgent case.
By planning for the worst, they were able to be at their best.
Back to Medical Imaging
Medical imaging rooms, in general, are scary. Freaky. Even when they try to make some moves towards "kid-like", it's not. The room is scary, the potential end result is scary, and parents trying to hide the scared only end up making the kid more scared. Bad situation, overall, medical imaging. What's more, the imaging doesn't work if the kids move.
Most kids were FREAKING OUT, so the kids have to be sedated...LOTS of potential bad with Anesthesia: Death, reaction, long term damage, etc. And the process takes a LONG TIME...they're scheduled for 10, you need to be there at 8...anesth starts at 9, and so on.
Enter GE Corporation, Doug Dietz, and their "Adventure Series" - "Helping children's imaging go from terrifying to terrific." Right around the time Doug was realizing this issue, folks at the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh were identifying this to and working something into their CT Scan process to help put the kids at ease. They went to a party store, got a bunch of cheap toys and promised it to them if they held still. Did it work?
In 2005, 354 kids were sedated. In 2007? 4 The wait time to get in for a CT went to basically -0- because of this reduction, whereas it was 17 days before...17 days they had to sit through wondering...worrying. All because of a simple trip to a party store... Pittsburgh and GE/Dietz worked together to create a more inviting suite, and the results continue to improve. MRIs were next in line to receive the "Adventure Series" treatment...with a 25.2% drop in sedation, and a 55% increase in patients seen (2009-2011).
Conclusion
It's hard to put a finger on just where this hits me most...is it the anger towards designers staying quagmired in a "best case" mindset? Is it embarrassment that I've done this very thing? Is it sadness at Eric's story? Professionals need to look at users in crisis...not users in a best case scenario. Lives can be changed for the better. Lives can be made more comfortable.
Eric charges us with the most thankless task: People in crisis will not notice your work when you design for them in crisis. But you will have helped them in the most profound way by simply not adding to their burden. He thanks us in their place...
...no, Eric - Thank you.
#econfPSU Kickoff Keynote - Scott Stratten
UnSelling
President of Unmarketing, former music industry marketing, and professor at the Sheraton School of Business. Worked with Pepsi, Adobe, and now us...man bun and kittens mentioned. This should be awesome.
Screaming, Anger, Millennials...Ho Boy...
Why do we use the term UnMarketing? Very simple - The UN means the actual branding and selling doesn't mean as much as what we do. His book cover is BLANK. Try to convince a publisher to do that...you'll see how hard it is to push. But, it's WHAT YOU DO. Ask any students/alum - Whenever you say a student's school name/title, it's what they DO. When you see a university's logo, IT DOESN'T MATTER. Despite what you think, the logo just creates a definition of what's behind it. NO ONE has ever said "Hey, I got awful care at this hospital, BUT DID YOU SEE THE LOGO?"
(Oh my God...I'm listening...this is the very battle I'm fighting RIGHT NOW.)
A brand is a VERB, it's what we DO...it is NOT a logo.
There's two types of people: People who do good to be recognized, and people who do good just because. The story of the EKU president shoveling the driveway to get a kid to class is a PRIME example. If that president took his own picture, that'd be one thing.....but the fact that it was a student taking his picture and it's just because he was there? Stratten reached out to the President, as follows:
"You're awesome."
"Thank you."
"Why'd you do it? Shouldn't you be up in, like, an ivory tower mandating to the masses?"
"My job is to serve my students. If Twitter is the medium by which my students reach out, then I'll reach out to them this way."
He's not good at Twitter. He's good AND he's on Twitter. There is no tool that is inherently successful. There is nothing that works on its own. There is no logo that makes information more relevant and engaging. It's the push behind it. And that's IMPORTANT.
We need to learn to use EMAIL properly before we're trying to implement this that and the other thing to solve our problems. We don't need to re-design a look or a logo or a template (*AHEM*) to make our efforts more effective....we need to START PUTTING EMPHASIS ON WHAT MATTERS. The effort...the intent...these things matter FIRST, all else second. Don't use technology for the sake of technology.
...and Rosler said, "Amen".
Everything we do and say online and offline is the BRAND.
You're The Brand
Everything you say and do is the brand. You are the brand. There's no such thing as a neutral brand interaction. People need to realize they impact the brand, and a lot of times they don't realize they do. The funnel comes into play...
You can have all the likes you want...you can have all the follows...IT'S NOT NEW.
6 years ago, people are freaking out saying "we finally have a social platform", and those of us who are older school are like "B&*%h please". IRC, ICQ, etc...FORUMS...and WOE be to you if you tried to post an ad on there. You get the old "Shame and Flame". We're breaking social media. Twitter's where Scott built his world. Four books and twitter supported them all. Remember the old days of Twitter (like 9 months ago)? We just TALKED. Now? NO ONE TALKS.
What happens is when we just shout on a platform, you lose the people who create the ecosystem leave. New people come and see nothing but shouting, and they're not gonna come into it. Scott was in HR, but he had to get out...because he...umm...hated people. But they didn't like conflict, so they didn't FIRE the BAD employee. They just avoided the conflict. There's the problem.
The Milennials, Scott...they're coming
BUT WE NEED TO USE THESE PLATFORMS BECAUSE THEY'RE COMING!!!!
Fact: Milennials are from 18-35...not just where we peg them.
We LABEL milennials. What we mean is: People younger than us who we don't like. End.
(Or because they're younger than us.) We WANT them to feel a little suffering. We just want you to feel the PAIN of holding down PLAY RECORD AND PAUSE to record our favorite song on tape. we used to line up and buy 29 dollar pieces of plastic to hear the ONE SONG THAT DIDN'T SUCK. We DON'T LIKE THE GENERATION BEFORE US. Gen X-ers WERE the laziest, disloyalest, unmotivatedest...but THEN Milennials came along. And we were saved.
"But Milennials don't like meetings..."
WHO LIKES %^&*ING MEETINGS?!?!?!
"Ohh...Milennials like to travel..."
WHO DOESN'T LIKE TO ^&#$ING TRAVEL?!?!?!
But when we say Milennial, we label it and it's ALLOWABLE BIAS. If you want to stereotype, let's talk about good shit: They volunteer more than any other generation (3:1), they give more per capita to charity...they want to change the world. SO LET THEM CHANGE THE GODDAMN WORLD!!
QR CODES - What's the deal?
Out of spite, they put a QR Code on Scott's nametag...too good.
Scott loves the technology...they're a better barcode. Boarding pass, concert ticket...great. But for the general population that doesn't have a QR reader built into their camera, they're practically useless. The technology is useful to a microscopic segment of the population. Bring in the fact that use of mobile isn't permissible in all areas...are you seeing the problem?
360 video, augmented reality, virtual reality...JUST STOP. Technology for the sake of technology doesn't serve a SINGLE thing. Being tech-savvy and hip does NOTHING to getting your message and product across. Focus on your message, focus on your content...THEN, and only THEN...focus on that "other stuff".
Conclusion
Easily, by far, one of the greatest motivational speeches/presentations I've ever had the pleasure of being present for. It touched upon a very real, very immediate situation in my workplace and gave me a different perspective on the perspective Scott and I share (Content > Brand). Hysterical at all the right times, but carrying meaning like not many others have done, Scott laid out his message perfectly, and I can easily say that my "brand" will be getting an overhaul in approaching the overall "brand" I need to get behind. 10+/10...and I might even post this on Yelp.
President of Unmarketing, former music industry marketing, and professor at the Sheraton School of Business. Worked with Pepsi, Adobe, and now us...man bun and kittens mentioned. This should be awesome.
Screaming, Anger, Millennials...Ho Boy...
Why do we use the term UnMarketing? Very simple - The UN means the actual branding and selling doesn't mean as much as what we do. His book cover is BLANK. Try to convince a publisher to do that...you'll see how hard it is to push. But, it's WHAT YOU DO. Ask any students/alum - Whenever you say a student's school name/title, it's what they DO. When you see a university's logo, IT DOESN'T MATTER. Despite what you think, the logo just creates a definition of what's behind it. NO ONE has ever said "Hey, I got awful care at this hospital, BUT DID YOU SEE THE LOGO?"
(Oh my God...I'm listening...this is the very battle I'm fighting RIGHT NOW.)
A brand is a VERB, it's what we DO...it is NOT a logo.
There's two types of people: People who do good to be recognized, and people who do good just because. The story of the EKU president shoveling the driveway to get a kid to class is a PRIME example. If that president took his own picture, that'd be one thing.....but the fact that it was a student taking his picture and it's just because he was there? Stratten reached out to the President, as follows:
"You're awesome."
"Thank you."
"Why'd you do it? Shouldn't you be up in, like, an ivory tower mandating to the masses?"
"My job is to serve my students. If Twitter is the medium by which my students reach out, then I'll reach out to them this way."
He's not good at Twitter. He's good AND he's on Twitter. There is no tool that is inherently successful. There is nothing that works on its own. There is no logo that makes information more relevant and engaging. It's the push behind it. And that's IMPORTANT.
We need to learn to use EMAIL properly before we're trying to implement this that and the other thing to solve our problems. We don't need to re-design a look or a logo or a template (*AHEM*) to make our efforts more effective....we need to START PUTTING EMPHASIS ON WHAT MATTERS. The effort...the intent...these things matter FIRST, all else second. Don't use technology for the sake of technology.
...and Rosler said, "Amen".
Everything we do and say online and offline is the BRAND.
You're The Brand
Everything you say and do is the brand. You are the brand. There's no such thing as a neutral brand interaction. People need to realize they impact the brand, and a lot of times they don't realize they do. The funnel comes into play...
You can have all the likes you want...you can have all the follows...IT'S NOT NEW.
6 years ago, people are freaking out saying "we finally have a social platform", and those of us who are older school are like "B&*%h please". IRC, ICQ, etc...FORUMS...and WOE be to you if you tried to post an ad on there. You get the old "Shame and Flame". We're breaking social media. Twitter's where Scott built his world. Four books and twitter supported them all. Remember the old days of Twitter (like 9 months ago)? We just TALKED. Now? NO ONE TALKS.
What happens is when we just shout on a platform, you lose the people who create the ecosystem leave. New people come and see nothing but shouting, and they're not gonna come into it. Scott was in HR, but he had to get out...because he...umm...hated people. But they didn't like conflict, so they didn't FIRE the BAD employee. They just avoided the conflict. There's the problem.
The Milennials, Scott...they're coming
BUT WE NEED TO USE THESE PLATFORMS BECAUSE THEY'RE COMING!!!!
Fact: Milennials are from 18-35...not just where we peg them.
We LABEL milennials. What we mean is: People younger than us who we don't like. End.
(Or because they're younger than us.) We WANT them to feel a little suffering. We just want you to feel the PAIN of holding down PLAY RECORD AND PAUSE to record our favorite song on tape. we used to line up and buy 29 dollar pieces of plastic to hear the ONE SONG THAT DIDN'T SUCK. We DON'T LIKE THE GENERATION BEFORE US. Gen X-ers WERE the laziest, disloyalest, unmotivatedest...but THEN Milennials came along. And we were saved.
"But Milennials don't like meetings..."
WHO LIKES %^&*ING MEETINGS?!?!?!
"Ohh...Milennials like to travel..."
WHO DOESN'T LIKE TO ^&#$ING TRAVEL?!?!?!
But when we say Milennial, we label it and it's ALLOWABLE BIAS. If you want to stereotype, let's talk about good shit: They volunteer more than any other generation (3:1), they give more per capita to charity...they want to change the world. SO LET THEM CHANGE THE GODDAMN WORLD!!
QR CODES - What's the deal?
Out of spite, they put a QR Code on Scott's nametag...too good.
Scott loves the technology...they're a better barcode. Boarding pass, concert ticket...great. But for the general population that doesn't have a QR reader built into their camera, they're practically useless. The technology is useful to a microscopic segment of the population. Bring in the fact that use of mobile isn't permissible in all areas...are you seeing the problem?
360 video, augmented reality, virtual reality...JUST STOP. Technology for the sake of technology doesn't serve a SINGLE thing. Being tech-savvy and hip does NOTHING to getting your message and product across. Focus on your message, focus on your content...THEN, and only THEN...focus on that "other stuff".
Conclusion
Easily, by far, one of the greatest motivational speeches/presentations I've ever had the pleasure of being present for. It touched upon a very real, very immediate situation in my workplace and gave me a different perspective on the perspective Scott and I share (Content > Brand). Hysterical at all the right times, but carrying meaning like not many others have done, Scott laid out his message perfectly, and I can easily say that my "brand" will be getting an overhaul in approaching the overall "brand" I need to get behind. 10+/10...and I might even post this on Yelp.
Saturday, October 3, 2015
DevLearn 2015 The Recap - "Listen"
Me Aculpa...And All That
Let me be the first to apologize: For as much as my "Why I Blog" post referenced conference blogging, and how I live blog everything I'm in, I did a marginal job, at best, this time, and definitely feel light in the blog department. But with that apology comes another...
Sorry...not sorry.
See, there was a reason for the lacking blog presence, and it wasn't that the conference was lacking, or that the sessions weren't diverse, or that something was wrong anywhere. It was the total opposite: At this conference, I found more going on, more being taught, more intriguing "stuff", and it led me to do something that, admittedly, I'd not done in a long time: Stop typing/tweeting/etc. and LISTEN.
This year's DevLearn was off the chart in a number of areas, but the one that seemed to rise to the top in all accounts was keeping me busy. And busy is a good thing, I found...here's why:
Honey Do, Honey Do
One of the biggest differences for me this year was that I went from a paltry ONE session being presented to being involved with FOUR (assuming you consider the Morning Buzz among my numbers...which you should...just sayin). And while that would likely sound like a deterrent to anyone with their head on straight, any of you that know me know that's not the case here (re: my cranium being one attached in a straightforward method).
All kidding aside, being as busy as I was made everything I was able to attend that much more poignant. I found myself almost "thirsty" to absorb whatever I could amidst my own obligations (and in no way, shape or form am I saying that because I couldn't attend as much things were better...I'm saying that the content was incredibly rich in the narrow windows I could "attend", so I can only imagine how less busy people felt!). Additionally, presenting/participating as much as I did lent itself to my own personal learning (see: gleaning) from the awesome attendees that were in my/our sessions. We all know that peer-to-peer education is the strongest, retention-wise, and I feel like because I was surrounded by so many phenomenal audience members, I gained that much more.
(Not saying I want to do 5 or 6 sessions or anything, Dave...but busy works for me.)
The Spice of Life...(AKA Variety)
Another factor I noticed this year, in and among my attempts to breathe, was the sheer robustness of the conference. I am in no way, shape, or form saying that any previous DevLearn was lacking - Nothing could be farther from the truth. But this year, felt just...complete...in a way I'd never experienced it before.
It's not like I adhered to a track...or hung out with a docent...nothing like that. I wasn't there looking for anything in particular. But it was almost like I couldn't turn my head 90 degrees in any direction without finding/seeing something worth attending and learning AT LEAST two or three things I hadn't walked in with. Even MEMEs, which I consider myself mildly to moderately proficient in, proved educational to me (see: PechaKucha). And for a longstanding attendee, like myself? That's pretty damned awesome...(though I'm still working through what, exactly, xAPI actually is...but I'm getting there, Aaron/S Put).
Overall, just a bigger, better, badder, more innovative conference...I can't say it enough: DevLearn is the Cadillac (or whatever brand car you like best) of the eLearning circuit.
Adam Savage.Relax. This isn't me fanboying out any harder than I already did (but BELIEVE ME, I could). This heading is about, first of all, the greatest keynote speaker DevLearn has seen/heard...ever...yes, ever (so much for the not fanboying), but it's not for the reasons you'd think. It's not for the content, necessarily, of his keynote...though MY GOD it was amazing, wasn't it? (Strike 2, Rosler...). There were three different times, in the Q&A with Dave, nonetheless, where Adam Savage, for as long as I've watched him/been a fan, had me identifying with him hardcore (and feeling good about my faults):
1.) It's hard to be wrong...even for Adam Savage. I admittedly can't recall whether it was during his keynote or in the Q&A after, but Adam related to us all how he's had a problem with not knowing things. Well, last time I admitted that, Neil DeGrasse Tyson threatened to slap me (true story), so imagine my delight knowing that it's really okay (confirmed, even) to not know things. That one of the greatest joys in life is to actually hang around people who know more than you and just soak it in...that it's a badge of honor, in Adam's eyes, to admit you don't know something. He related that the smartest people he knows aren't that ones that always have the answers, but, rather, the ones that can ask for the answer when they don't know. I've struggled since the beginning of my career (and then some) to be okay with that, and hearing him say that made me that much better.
2.) It's hard to be a good listener...even for Adam Savage. For as much as I've always struggled with the whole "knowing everything" issue, those around me have (for the most part) patiently endured my perpetually pending need to spring forth with a quip, analogy, or related story when they've been telling me something. So, imagine my surprise when someone who I sincerely look up to (yes, Mr Savage) comes out to the audience as a terrible listener! And, it circles back to the whole "not knowing the answer issue"...if I've got something spring-loaded quick enough, it won't matter that I don't know...they won't have the time to realize! But it's okay to not know, and it's okay to listen and absorb...again, super reassuring.
3.) Being enthusiastic about things we like is awkward, sometimes...even for Adam Savage. Probably the point that left me the most gutted, though (in the best way, mind you), was Adam recounting how he liked things that other kids around him didn't when he was 9...and his childhood was awkward, difficult, and so on because of it. And that it hadn't ended...that even today, mega-success that he is, there's still interests he has that there's a moment (if not more) of embarrassment when he realizes those around him see his enthusiasm...and judge it, if just a bit. I don't know that there's anyone who grows up to be an e-learning practitioner/figure/guru that DOESN'T experience this, and it was nothing short of reassuring to hear the face of science on Discovery channel say: It's okay. Be honest - Your interests are different...they might even be weird. But they're only perceived that way because the perceivers are the ones who are limited. And the weird kids? They grow up to be the cool(ish), smart(ish) "adults". Trust me on that one.
But, At The End Of It All...Community Wins Again
I've exhausted my ability to recall the names of the people I used to simply watch from afar who now accept me as one of their own...wait...one of our own...so I won't even try (with thanks to Mark Shepperd for the idea to not namedrop). But, long story short, DevLearn is to me, and continues to be to me about COMMUNITY. Plain. Simple. Truth/
YES...I get it, that's my presentation. YES...I get it, that's what I wrote my recap on last year. YES...I get it...it's almost a softball response. I get it all...ALL of it.
BUT...it's true. And every year I embed myself further, it becomes more and more true. The people make the event. The people who appreciate each other, draw from each other, and give to each other tirelessly. Let's see if I can do a mass name drop (and if you're not in the mix...sue me):
Jane Bozarth, Ellen Wagner, Dave Kelly, Kevin Thorn, Sarah Gilbert, Cammy Bean, Mark Shepperd, Tom Spiglanin, Jeanette Campos, JD Dillon, Tracy Parish, Aaron Silvers, Sean Putman, Bill Brandon, Clark Quinn, Karl Kapp, Julie Dirksen, Mark Britz, Joe Ganci, Brian Dusablon, Trina Rimmer, Connie Malamed, Steve Howard, Neil Lasher...
Okay. Enough. But, as I told people in my session about Community, THESE are the people I can count on, day or night. THESE are the people who respond at odd hours almost immediately to what questions about damn near anything. THESE are the people I was nervous to approach and say "Hey...I think things...", only to find out they think them, too. Just like me.
And WE...well, we're still smarter then ME...so long as you just LISTEN.
Thanks again for another phenomenal experience...can't wait to do it all over again in 2016. And there WILL be ukes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
