Given the ASSURE Model’s constructivist epistemology and successful implementation in early 21st Century educational contexts, you may be surprised to learn that the ASSURE methodology has it’s roots very firmly located the venerable, behaviorist-influenced (and occasionally criticized) Events of Instruction, devised by Robert M. Gagne.*

Now read on…

According to Kevin Kruse (2006)

Robert Gagne is considered to be the foremost researcher and contributor to the systematic approach to instructional design and training. Gagne and his followers …focus [...] on the outcomes – or behaviors – that result from training.

I would assert that familiarity with Gagne’s work, and educators’ drive to continually investigate the New have perhaps led to a certain disregard (in some quarters) for the substantial contribution Gagne made to our discipline. For example, to characterize Gagne as a Behaviorist is, in my view, to underestimate the sophistication of his theories, the elegance of his models, and the relevance of his work today. Indeed, Walter Wager (2004) states that

Gagne didn’t feel that the behaviorist theories were adequate to explain human learning. Rather, Gagne should be considered one of the early cognitive psychologists.

(p.296)

As I have previously indicated, his work still influences theorists and learning practitioners today. During his career, Gagne primarily concerned himself with understanding "the process of learning" (1972, p.1). In his life, he was central to the development of five instructional theories:

1. the five domains of learning
2. events of instruction
3. conditions of learning
4. role of the media
5. integrated goal theory (Wager, 2004)

Gagne’s text The Conditions of Learning (first published in 1965) attempted to identify and describe the cognitive processes that occur in learning: the eponymous ‘conditions of learning.’ His philosophy was influenced by the concepts of cognitive mapping, as well as the information processing interpretation of the events that occur when (adult) learners are presented with various stimuli. In The Conditions of Learning, Gagne argued that that internal and external conditions of learning must be created to stimulate the desired learning response.

To understand the sequence of activities needed to support learning, Gagne suggested that tasks for

acquiring the intellectual skills needed should be organized according to complexity.

(Hriko, 2008, p.353)

He argued that information underwent a series of internal processes before being stored in long-term memory; he developed a nine-step process called the Events of Instruction to represent the manifestation of the external factors that influenced the acts associated with the process, which "correlate to and address the conditions of learning" (Hriko, 2008 p.353). Table 1 shows these instructional events in the left column and describes the associated mental processes in the right column.

Table 1. Nine Events of Instruction (after Gagne, 2004)

More…

* Yes, his name is Robert Gagné (with an acute aigu ), but English speakers typically don’t enter accents into Google, and I’m nothing if not pragmatic…
___________

References:

Gagne, R. M., (1972). Domains of learning. Interchange 3(1),pp.1-8.

Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. and Keller, J.M. (2004). Principles of Instructional Design (5th.Ed.). Wadsworth Publishing Co Inc.

Kruse, K. (2006). Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction: An Introduction. E-Learning Guru. Internet: Available from: http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art3_3.htm Accessed 12 June 2009

Hriko, M. (2008) Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction. In: Tomei, L.A., Morris, R. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Information Technology Curriculum Integration. Information Science Reference

Wager, W. (2004) Robert M. Gagne. In: Kovalchick, A., and Dawson, K. (Eds.), Education & Technology: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO

–

According to Morrison et al, there are nine key elements to instructional design:

1. Identify instructional problems, and specify goals for designing an instructional program.
2. Examine learner characteristics that should receive attention during planning.
3. Identify subject content, and analyze task components related to stated goals and purposes.
4. State instructional objectives for the learner.
5. Sequence content within each instructional unit for logical learning.
6. Design instructional strategies so that each learner can master the objectives.
7. Plan the instructional message and delivery.
8. Develop evaluation instruments to assess objectives.
9. Select resources to support instruction and learning activities.

These elements are independent of each other, in that they do not need to be considered in a linear fashion and there is no particular start- and end point. The oval shape of this model (see Figure 1) is constructed to convey the idea that the design and development process is an iterative cycle that needs constant planning, design, development and assessment to ensure effective instruction.

Figure 1. The Morrison-Ross-Kemp Model
[Click to enlarge]

The model is systemic and nonlinear; it encourages designers to work in all areas of ID as appropriate. The use of ovals emphasizes this flexibility visually; the graphical design communicates a continuous non-linear cycle that requires iterative planning, design, development and assessment.  The inner oval (surrounding the core) illustrates that revision/formative evaluation activities can be undertaken at each stage of the development process, something that is not always built into other models, usually because of the constraints of time and money.

The outer oval includes a typical post-instruction activity (summative evaluation) and also highlights three elements usually absent from other models – namely project planning, project management, and support services. The latter are required both for the project itself while it is in development, and afterwards to support the actual instruction.

We can say that it describes a holistic approach to instructional design that considers all factors in the environment; the starting point and order in which the designer addresses them is not prescribed, though the elements in the model may form a logical design sequence when read anti-clockwise (see Figure 2).

Figure 1. The ADDIE steps applied to the M-R-K Model
(after Morrison, Ross & Kemp 2004, p.29)
[Click to enlarge]

The flexibility of this approach is reinforced by the absence of lines or arrows that would dictate a specific design sequence (see Dick and Carey’s Model) as a comparison. According to Presenera (2002) the Kemp Model is designed to primarily to appeal to (classroom-based) teachers, who may not have specific instructional design experience.

The Morrison-Ross-Kemp model has three characteristics that differentiate it from some other models:

• instruction is considered from the perspective of the learner
• the model takes a general systems or even object-oriented view towards instructional development
• the model emphasizes management of the instructional design process

Using the model

Using this model the instructional designer begins by asking six questions related to the skills or knowledge to be learned: required level of learner readiness; instructional strategies and media that are be most appropriate for the content and the target population; level of learner support required; measurement of achievement; and strategies for formative and summative evaluation.

(Morrison, Ross, and Kemp, 2004, p. 4).

Because of the lack of connectivity between elements and the facility for IDs to start at any place within the model, a designer can examine the entire scope of a project – or just as effectively work on a single learning object or lesson. Using this classroom-oriented model, an individual with little instructional design skill can develop a piece of instruction using few or no additional resources and with minimal front-end analysis. Similarly, there is no requirement to conduct formative and summative evaluation on the final materials (Gustafson and Branch 2002, p.16). A more experienced designer (or one with access to more resources) can also use this model in the design of a complex and widely-distributed learning program.

___________

References:

Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). What is instructional design? In R.A. Reiser & J. A. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 16-25). Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

Kemp, J. E. (1985). The instructional design process. New York: Harper & Row.

Kemp, J. E., Morrison, G. R., & Ross, S. V. (2004). Design effective instruction, (4th Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons

Prestera, Gus. (2002). Instructional Design Models [Internet]. Available from: http://www.effectperformance.com/sites/prestera/html/M4/L1%20-%20ISD/M4L1P1.htm#kemp Accessed: 3rd June 2009

–

Design models can be defined as the visual representations of an instructional design process, displaying the main phases and relationships. Each phase has an outcomes that feeds the subsequent phase. Currently, there are more than one hundred different ISD models.

(p.164)

The most commonly known models include:

• The Dick and Carey Model
• The Kemp Model
• The iCARE Model
• The ASSURE Model

I will be looking at these models over the next few posts, beginning today with the Dick and Carey Model.

In discussing the Dick and Carey Model, Boettcher et al describe Walter Dick and Lou Carey as the "torchbearers" (p.164) of the Systems Approach, as outline in the former’s "authoritative" text The Systematic Design of Instruction.

The Encyclopedia asserts that the Dick and Carey model is "very popular" in current ISD development. This model is based upon the Behaviorist assumption that there is a predictable link between a stimulus and the  response that it elicits in the learner. It describes the phases of instruction (see Figure 1) as an iterative process that starts by identifying instructional goals and concludes with evaluation.

The Dick and Carey method is to break instruction down into smaller components or granular objectives that collectively constitute the competency to be acquired. Next, the stimulus and strategy for its presentation that builds each sub-skill are defined.  The steps in the model are shown in the Figure 1, and described briefly below.

Figure 1 The Dick and Carey Model
[Click to enlarge]

Phases in the Dick and Carey method:

1. Determine the instructional goal
2. Analyze the instructional goal
3. Analyze the learners and contexts
4. Write performance objectives
5. Develop assessment instruments
6. Develop instructional strategy
7. Design and conduct formative evaluation
8. Revise instruction
9. Undertake summative evaluation

Phases 1 and 2 align very closely with Robert Mager’s approach (1988). He suggests a five-step process in the translation of a vague instructional goal to a set of rigorously defined desired performances, which the author elucidates in a very practical manner:

1. Write down the goal using whatever abstract terms express the intent and be sure the statement is written in terms of outcomes rather than process. For example, “Have a favorable attitude to…” rather than “Develop a favorable attitude to…”.
2. Think about achieving the goal in terms of people performance. What would people have to do or say or stop doing and saying before you would be willing to say that they represent the goal? List as many performances as you can think of.
3. Sort the list. Many of the items will be ‘fuzzy’ and not describe anything about performance per se. As SMEs to undertake steps 1 and 2 again. Continue until there is a list of performances that collectively represent the goal – until it can be said that if someone did these things and did not do these other things that would represent the goal.
4. Expand the words and phrases on the list into complete sentences that tell when or how often the performance is expected to occur. This will help to establish limits around the expected performance. It will enable the instructional designer to say “how much" performance is satisfactory to undertake the task successfully. For example, a goal analysis on security consciousness might include the item ‘no unattended documents’. When expanded into a complete sentence it may read “Employee always locks sensitive documents in safe before leaving room.”
5. Test for completeness. Review the performances on your list and ask:

If someone did these things would I be willing to say that he or she is _____________”.

(Mager, R. Making Instruction Work. 1988, pp 45-46)

If this is the case, the goal analysis is finished. If not, return to step 2 and add the missing performances.
___________

References:

Boettcher, J. V., Justice, L., Schenk. K., Rogers P. L., & Berg, G. A (2005). Encyclopedia of Distance Learning. Idea Group Reference

Carey, L. and Dick, W. (2004). The Systematic Design of Instruction (6th Ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Mager, R. (1988). Making Instruction Work. Belmont , CA: Lake Publishing Co.

1. Describing the Target Audience
2. Objectives Writing

Target Audience Description
The Target Audience Description describes the key characteristics of the learners that you’re designing instruction for. It assists in the selection of objectives, examples, terminology, typical work practices, and cultural issues.

Typical headings include:

• Age
• Gender
• Culture – organizational / ethnic / socio-economic
• First and other languages
• Education
• Existing skills and skill sets
• Professional and life experience
• Values
• Motivators
• Interests
• Taboos
• Current job
• Career history

An effective approach to elicit this information is to ask the SME to describe someone he knows who would be a typical audience member: what kinds of things would that person relate, react, and respond to?

Understanding organizational culture is important from the perspective of gaining learner acceptance when developing customized training.  The instructional designer should find out about vocabulary/argot, typical topics of conversation, clichés, conversation buzzwords, TLAs, corporate beliefs, do’s and don’ts, examples of successful and unsuccessful people and performance; speed of organizational feedback, and symbols (logos, mission statement, mottos etc).  Considering these factors will help paint a realistic picture of the people in the examples, scenarios and problems covered in the learning program.

Similarly (and particularly in e-learning and web-based training) there will likely be a need for a visual depiction of the audience profile – age, sex and particularly dress code (i.e. customer-facing organizations typically wear formal business clothes or uniforms, clean room production workers bunny suit).

Objectives Writing
Objectives are the key learning outcomes desired from the instruction. They emerge from the previous analyses – performance, task and goal – to provide the objectives that learners need to have mastered to perform the associated tasks competently.

Classically, instructional objectives have three elements: conditions, performance, and standards (see Table 1):

Table 1 Instructional Objectives

It’s quite common to find aims disguised as objectives in training materials. However, there is a fundamental difference between the two.  Broadly speaking, we can say that an aim (or goal) is a general statement of intent. They are not especially helpful for deciding an appropriate (1) teaching strategy or (2) assessment procedures.

Examples of aims include:
•    An awareness of the types of breakdowns electric motors are  prone to.
•    An understanding of how silicon chips are produced.
•    An appreciation of potential hazards in an industrial plant.

Objectives are precise: both learner and instructor know exactly what is required to master the learning activity. An example of an aim translated into an objective might read as follows:

The learner will, without using reference materials, draw and label accurately a use case which shows all the stages involved in a human-computer interaction.

Conditions
A performance of any kind will always have important conditions surrounding it.  The nearer these conditions can be to the actual work situation, the more accurate the objective will be.  For example, it is one thing for a worker to be able to repair a piece of  equipment in a workshop with every sort of tool available, but quite another to expect him to repair the same piece of equipment somewhere on-site, far from home base.

Conditions must be realistic.  Learners must be asked to carry out the performance objectives under normal conditions. For example, use the Hitachi Chip Etching Tool to set as a condition ‘using an electric drill’, would be pointless (and irrelevant) if there was no silicon blank, no fabrication facility, or the person concerned did not have a cleanroom space suit.

Performance
A statement of actual performance is of primary importance and is central to writing of good objectives. This performance must be an observable action of some kind.  Words and phrase such as "understand," "appreciate," "feel a sense of pride," "know," "feel deeply about," are irrelevant when deciding learning objectives. If you have any doubt about the appropriateness of a verb to describe a performance, just place the phrase "Watch me…" at the start of a sentence containing the verb.

For example,

• Watch me appreciate this piece of hardware (!)

or

• Watch me etch this 45 nanometer silicon chip processor core.

It is obvious which is the observable performance (the second one).

Standards
When developing courseware, instructional designers must consider the level or standard of the performance – how well must it be done?

For example a performance objective describing an  activity relating to some aspect of workplace safety demands a 100% standard. If a serious accident occurs, an employee won’t get a second chance to do the task more carefully.

Just as the conditions need to be defined with real, everyday situations in mind, so too do the standards. When setting the standard for an objective, always consider the level of performance required in that particular situation.

Next Time: Objectives Analysis

–

1. Providing complex learning environments that incorporate authentic activity. Constructivists argue that learners should learn to solve the types of complex problem they will face in real life. Learning how to do this is difficult unless complex and authentic learning environments are available to the learners.
2. Providing for social negotiation as an integral part of learning. Bruner (1986) explains that learning is a cultural interchange between group members. Collaboration creates an opportunity for learners to share their understandings with others and to have others do the same with them. This provides multiple perspectives to each learner, and this negotiation process between peers should lead to enhanced understanding.
3. Support multiple perspectives and the use of multiple modes of representation. Because learning skills, behaviors and knowledge can be diverse and complex, constructivists believe that to achieve complete understanding the learner must examine the material from multiple perspectives. If they are not supported in this endeavor, the learner will achieve only a partial understanding of the material. Multiple modes of representation allow the learner to view the same content through different sensory modes.
4. Nurture reflexivity. Duffy and Cunningham (1996) characterize reflexivity as “the ability of students to be aware of their own role in the knowledge construction process.” (p.172). It could also be described as the learner taking ownership of their own thinking and learning processes. Driscoll (1994) assets that reflexivity and by extension critical thinking are central attributes in the constructivist methodology, as it enables learners to understand how and why cognition creates meaning. This enables learners to attain goals such as reasoning, understanding multiple perspectives, and expressing and defending their own beliefs.
5. The last condition Driscoll describes is to “emphasize student-centred instruction.” Bruner (1966) calls this “discovery learning”. By obtaining knowledge by themselves, learners select and transform information, construct knowledge, and make decisions in the context of a cognitive structure that provides meaning and organization to experiences and allows the individual to “go beyond the information given”. Students are actively engaged in determining what and how they will study or gain understanding.

These principles and conditions position the constructivist approach to learning as an appropriate orientation for learning sans frontiers; using technologies like the Internet, websites and virtual learning environments, applying collaborative learning, problem-based learning and goal-based mechanisms, making Open Source Software and Course- and Content Management Systems accessible to learners, and using e-learning applications like online conferencing and collaboration tools could be the foundation for these multiple constructivist conditions for learning. (Duffy & Cunningham 1996, Driscoll 1994, Schank 1994)

These characteristics provide an appropriate framework for knowledge workers to learn (and for the learning intervention), given that their ongoing development is based in the context of already-established cognitive schemata (from the learners’ perspective), the knowledge and skills are applied to solve real-world problems, and their expertise (behaviors) are typically used in collaboration with their peers to enhance the performance of organizations.

___________

References:

Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston, MA. Allyn & Bacon.

Duffy, T. M. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996) Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. IN: Jonassen D. H. (Ed) Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp.170- 198). New York: Simon & Shuster Macmillan.

Schank, R. (1994) Active Learning Through Multimedia, IEEE Multimedia, 1(1), pp.69-78.

–

Here’s an unusual but potentially very useful instructional strategy, one that takes advantage of peoples’ need for resolution or for closure. The Zeigarnik effect states that people remember uncompleted or interrupted tasks better than completed ones.

Russian psychologies Bluma Zeigarnik first studied the phenomenon in the late 1920’s after her professor, Gestalt psychologist Kurt Lewin, noticed that waiters remembered orders only as long as the order was in the process of being served.

Research indicates that:

1. the Zeigarnik effect is likely to appear if the subject is “ego-involved” in the task to some extent (such as in a learning activity)
2. the effect is more likely to appear if the task doesn’t seem to be part of the training plan
3. the effect is most likely to appear if the subject has set a genuine level of aspiration in the interrupted task

Musicians intuitively use this effect when writing musical ‘hooks,’ or for concluding pieces of music. By using a “suspended” chord, where the third has been displaced by either of its dissonant neighbouring notes, forming intervals of a major second or (more commonly) a perfect fourth with the root. The resulting unexpected dissonance is then satisfyingly resolved by introducing the displaced note.

This can be heard to great effect in the main musical theme of Pinball Wizard by The Who (which transitions from a F#sus4 to a F#maj), or more sophisticatedly, as a plagal or “Amen” cadence in the final phrase of The Beatles’ She’s Leaving Home, or the coda (with typically Baroque flourishes) of Bach’s Canon alla Decima, Contrapuncto alla Terza.

In Gestalt psychology, the Zeigarnik effect has been used to demonstrate the general presence of Gestalt phenomena: not just appearing as perceptual effects, but also present in cognition.

The implication of this is that learners who wish to remember material better should take breaks in unrelated fields or games before completing exercises.

… so the next time you see me playing Civilization 4 when I’m supposed to be writing that white paper, I’m learning.

–

Here’s an unusual but potentially very useful instructional strategy, one that takes advantage of peoples’ need for resolution or for closure. The Zeigarnik effect states that people remember uncompleted or interrupted tasks better than completed ones.

Russian psychologies Bluma Zeigarnik first studied the phenomenon in the late 1920’s after her professor, Gestalt psychologist Kurt Lewin, noticed that waiters remembered orders only as long as the order was in the process of being served.

Research indicates that:

1. the Zeigarnik effect is likely to appear if the subject is “ego-involved” in the task to some extent (such as in a learning activity)
2. the effect is more likely to appear if the task doesn’t seem to be part of the training plan
3. the effect is most likely to appear if the subject has set a genuine level of aspiration in the interrupted task

Musicians intuitively use this effect when writing musical ‘hooks,’ or for concluding pieces of music. By using a “suspended” chord, where the third has been displaced by either of its dissonant neighbouring notes, forming intervals of a major second or (more commonly) a perfect fourth with the root. The resulting unexpected dissonance is then satisfyingly resolved by introducing the displaced note.

This can be heard to great effect in the main musical theme of Pinball Wizard by The Who (which transitions from a F#sus4 to a F#maj), or more sophisticatedly, as a plagal or “Amen” cadence in the final phrase of The Beatles’ She’s Leaving Home, or the coda (with typically Baroque flourishes) of Bach’s Canon alla Decima, Contrapuncto alla Terza.

In Gestalt psychology, the Zeigarnik effect has been used to demonstrate the general presence of Gestalt phenomena: not just appearing as perceptual effects, but also present in cognition.

The implication of this is that learners who wish to remember material better should take breaks in unrelated fields or games before completing exercises.

… so the next time you see me playing Civilization 4 when I’m supposed to be writing that white paper, I’m learning.

–

Now read on…

If you’re not familiar with the latter two concepts here’s a little background: the idea of the strength of weak ties is a theory from sociology; according to its originator Mark Granovetter

the argument asserts that our acquaintances (weak ties) are less likely to be socially involved with one another than are our close friends (strong ties). Thus the set of people made up of any individual and his or her acquaintances comprises a low-density network (one in which many of the possible relational lines are absent) whereas the set consisting of the same individual and his or her close friends will be densely knit (many of the possible lines are present).

It follows, then, that individuals with few weak ties will be deprived of information from distant parts of the social system and will be confined to the provincial news and views of their close friends. This deprivation will [...] insulate them from the latest ideas.

(1983, pp.201-202)

The concept of the long tail is something both Jay Cross and Tony Karrer have recently discussed and is example of how the Web (and particularly Web 2.0 technology) changes the way assets – whether physical artifacts like books, or knowledge and informational assets persist for an extended period beyond their supposed “sell-by” date:

Long tails for the enterprise occur when the power to create and publish is widely held, the content can be distributed at near-zero cost and a market exists that connects knowledge workers with a nearly infinite number of content creators.

(Kilian, D. 2007)

Here’s a pertinent example of how these ideas manifest themselves in the workplace: last week, I suffered from a niggly problem with my Outlook e-mail client – it wouldn’t poll the Exchange server and update itself every 20 minutes as it was supposed to do. So I logged a snag on the corporate Bugzilla implementation about the issue. The IT person, who I would describe as being a a journeyman level of competence (has passed their certification exams and is no longer a novice, but is not yet an expert) wen though all the things your supposed to do to resolve such issues

• ran ScanPST.exe
• checked my e-mail profile
• consulted MSDN
• looked at forums for similar issues based on the Error ID

… as well as some “beyond the call of duty” activities (a time-consuming MS Office reinstall).

All to no avail.

So I got my laptop back and had resolved myself to living with this seemingly intractable minor inconvenience, when a third contributor (a more knowledgeable IT support person), working from home, happened to encounter the issue when scanning through Bugzilla, entered the discussion with a simple “I know what this is.”

So, by accessing my laptop via a PC-sharing application, the issue was resolved in about 20 minutes, after 5 days of dead ends and frustration.

The moral of the story is: by developing a corporate culture that encourages wide-ranging participation, and by providing a corporate knowledge-sharing environment (Bugzilla in this case), you increase the chances that somebody you’re associated with, no matter how loosely, will have the appropriate knowledge and expertise to find a solution to an issue. The added learning benefit from the journeyman contributors perspective, is that they have added to their knowledge experientially, by interacting with the More Knowledgeable Other. I would suggest that the knowledge asset acquired by being involved in this problem-solving activity has been aggregated into their personal experience schema, enabling them to grow a little more knowledgeable (or even wiser).

Oh yes… the solution to the Outlook issue?

Delete and recreate your profile in Outlook.

_______________

References:

Cross, J. (2008) Strength of weak knowledge sources. [Internet] Available from: http://internettime.com/2008/04/21/strength-of-weak-knowledge-sources/ Accessed 1 July 2008

Granovetter, M. (1983) The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited. Sociological Theory, Volume 1, 201-233. State University of New York,
Stonybrook. [Internet] Available from: http://www.si.umich.edu/~rfrost/courses/SI110/readings/In_Out_and_Beyond/Granovetter.pdf Accessed 1 July 2008

Karrer, T. (2008) Corporate Learning Long Tail and Attention Crisis : eLearning Technology. [Internet] Available from: http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/2008/02/corporate-learning-long-tail-and.html Accessed 1 July 2008

Kilian, D. (2007) The Learning Organization Meets the Long Tail (Part 2). [Internet] Available from:
http://www.clomedia.com/guest-editorial/2007/October/1949/index.php Accessed 1 July 2008

Now read on…

If you’re not familiar with the latter two concepts here’s a little background: the idea of the strength of weak ties is a theory from sociology; according to its originator Mark Granovetter

the argument asserts that our acquaintances (weak ties) are less likely to be socially involved with one another than are our close friends (strong ties). Thus the set of people made up of any individual and his or her acquaintances comprises a low-density network (one in which many of the possible relational lines are absent) whereas the set consisting of the same individual and his or her close friends will be densely knit (many of the possible lines are present).

It follows, then, that individuals with few weak ties will be deprived of information from distant parts of the social system and will be confined to the provincial news and views of their close friends. This deprivation will [...] insulate them from the latest ideas.

(1983, pp.201-202)

The concept of the long tail is something both Jay Cross and Tony Karrer have recently discussed and is example of how the Web (and particularly Web 2.0 technology) changes the way assets – whether physical artifacts like books, or knowledge and informational assets persist for an extended period beyond their supposed “sell-by” date:

Long tails for the enterprise occur when the power to create and publish is widely held, the content can be distributed at near-zero cost and a market exists that connects knowledge workers with a nearly infinite number of content creators.

(Kilian, D. 2007)

Here’s a pertinent example of how these ideas manifest themselves in the workplace: last week, I suffered from a niggly problem with my Outlook e-mail client – it wouldn’t poll the Exchange server and update itself every 20 minutes as it was supposed to do. So I logged a snag on the corporate Bugzilla implementation about the issue. The IT person, who I would describe as being a a journeyman level of competence (has passed their certification exams and is no longer a novice, but is not yet an expert) wen though all the things your supposed to do to resolve such issues

• ran ScanPST.exe
• checked my e-mail profile
• consulted MSDN
• looked at forums for similar issues based on the Error ID

… as well as some “beyond the call of duty” activities (a time-consuming MS Office reinstall).

All to no avail.

So I got my laptop back and had resolved myself to living with this seemingly intractable minor inconvenience, when a third contributor (a more knowledgeable IT support person), working from home, happened to encounter the issue when scanning through Bugzilla, entered the discussion with a simple “I know what this is.”

So, by accessing my laptop via a PC-sharing application, the issue was resolved in about 20 minutes, after 5 days of dead ends and frustration.

The moral of the story is: by developing a corporate culture that encourages wide-ranging participation, and by providing a corporate knowledge-sharing environment (Bugzilla in this case), you increase the chances that somebody you’re associated with, no matter how loosely, will have the appropriate knowledge and expertise to find a solution to an issue. The added learning benefit from the journeyman contributors perspective, is that they have added to their knowledge experientially, by interacting with the More Knowledgeable Other. I would suggest that the knowledge asset acquired by being involved in this problem-solving activity has been aggregated into their personal experience schema, enabling them to grow a little more knowledgeable (or even wiser).

Oh yes… the solution?

Delte and recreate your profile in Outlook.

_______________

References:

Cross, J. (2008) Strength of weak knowledge sources. [Internet] Available from: http://internettime.com/2008/04/21/strength-of-weak-knowledge-sources/ Accessed 1 July 2008

Granovetter, M. (1983) The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited. Sociological Theory, Volume 1, 201-233. State University of New York,
Stonybrook. [Internet] Available from: http://www.si.umich.edu/~rfrost/courses/SI110/readings/In_Out_and_Beyond/Granovetter.pdf Accessed 1 July 2008

Karrer, T. (2008) Corporate Learning Long Tail and Attention Crisis : eLearning Technology. [Internet] Available from: http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/2008/02/corporate-learning-long-tail-and.html Accessed 1 July 2008

Kilian, D. (2007) The Learning Organization Meets the Long Tail (Part 2). [Internet] Available from:
http://www.clomedia.com/guest-editorial/2007/October/1949/index.php Accessed 1 July 2008

• Learning is an active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge and
• Instruction is a process of supporting that construction rather than communicating knowledge.

(Duffy and Cunningham, 1996. p.171).

Bruner’s 1966 text Toward a Theory of Instruction described the key principles of constructivism (p.225):

Table 1 Principles of constructivism

Extending from these basic constructivist principles as well as from the work of other key figures in the constructivist school, Driscoll (1994) outlines five conditions for learning (p.382-3). Very much like the multiple approaches and interpretations that exist in constructivism, a number of conditions must be met for the approach to be implemented. It is useful to elaborate briefly on these conditions, as they are relevant to the learning approach discussed in the rest of this part of the blog.

1. Providing complex learning environments that incorporate authentic activity. Constructivists argue that learners should learn to solve the types of complex problem they will face in real life. Learning how to do this is difficult unless complex and authentic learning environments are available to the learners.
2. Providing for social negotiation as an integral part of learning. Bruner (1986) explains that learning is a cultural interchange between group members. Collaboration creates an opportunity for learners to share their understandings with others and to have others do the same with them. This provides multiple perspectives to each learner, and this negotiation process between peers should lead to enhanced understanding.
3. Support multiple perspectives and the use of multiple modes of representation. Because learning skills, behaviours and knowledge can be diverse and complex, constructivists believe that to achieve complete understanding the learner must examine the material from multiple perspectives. If they are not supported in this endeavour, the learner will achieve only a partial understanding of the material. Multiple modes of representation allow the learner to view the same content through different sensory modes.
4. Nurture reflexivity. Duffy and Cunningham (1996) characterise reflexivity as “the ability of students to be aware of their own role in the knowledge construction process.” (p.172). It could also be described as the learner taking ownership of their own thinking and learning processes. Driscoll (1994) assets that reflexivity and by extension critical thinking are central attributes in the constructivist methodology, as it enables learners to understand how and why cognition creates meaning. This enables learners to attain goals such as reasoning, understanding multiple perspectives, and expressing and defending their own beliefs.
5. The last condition Driscoll describes is to “emphasise student-centred instruction.” Bruner (1966) calls this “discovery learning”. By obtaining knowledge by themselves, learners select and transform information, construct knowledge, and make decisions in the context of a cognitive structure that provides meaning and organisation to experiences and allows the individual to “go beyond the information given”. Students are actively engaged in determining what and how they will study or gain understanding.

These principles and conditions position the constructivist approach to learning as an appropriate orientation for learning sans frontiers; using technologies like the Internet, websites and virtual learning environments, applying collaborative learning, problem-based learning and goal-based mechanisms, making Open Source Software and Course- and Content Management Systems accessible to learners, and using e-learning applications like online conferencing and collaboration tools could be the foundation for these multiple constructivist conditions for learning. (Duffy & Jonassen 1992, Driscoll 1994; Schank 1994)

These characteristics provide an appropriate framework for knowledge workers to learn (and for the learning intervention), given that their ongoing development is based in the context of already-established cognitive schemata (from the learners’ perspective), the knowledge and skills are applied to solve real-world problems, and their expertise (behaviours) are typically used in collaboration with their peers to enhance the performance of organisations.

___________________

References:

Bruner, J. S. (1966) Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston, MA. Allyn & Bacon.

Duffy, T. M. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996) Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. IN: Jonassen D. H. (Ed) Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp.170- 198). New York: Simon & Shuster Macmillan.

Jonassen, D. H., (1994). Thinking Technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(3), 34-37.

Schank, R. (1994) Active Learning Through Multimedia, IEEE Multimedia, 1(1), pp.69-78.

–