Why the iPad really could change everything

Assuming the iPad is a successful product--not a given based on early reactions--this looks like a product that could finally bring textbooks into the web 2.0 world. Not because the iBooks functionality is particularly advanced. An eBook reader is an eBook reader, and all eBook readers are Web 1.0, as I have mentioned in previous posts. The iPad has not, at first blush anyway, seriously moved the game forward. You're still reading a flat page on a highly interactive mechanism, and you're still not taking much advantage of "the crowd."

But the iPad has huge possibilities in the textbook arena nonetheless, in my view. There are two reasons for this, neither of which were part of the hoopla of the grand unveiling: iTunes, and EPUB. The iBookstore may not seem like an advance over Amazon for buying books--how could it compete with that megalith? But the promise is not in the transaction, it's in the transformation. Don't forget what iTunes did to the music industry. It deconstructed the CD, the decades of "album" sales, and brought the single back to the forefront of music. Consumers loved it. Publishers... well, not so much. The promise is that Apple will move the textbook publishing industry in that direction as well, selling chunks, or chapters, or just the media associated with a textbook--whatever is of value to students or faculty within a textbook. Is that their plan? Yes, it is. How do I know this? Because of EPUB.

EPUB is an open standard for eBooks. Kindle's is proprietary, as are most of its competitors. Imagine this for a moment... Apple, the undisputed king of the vertical integration, the company that owns the hardware and the operating system and the software, is using open standards for its eBooks. Why is that? Why would they do that? Because they know that in the textbook publishing world, there is as yet no such thing as a "single." The textbook is the equivalent of a CD, or an album. That's easy--they're big, they're expensive, and you're always buying more than you want in order to get the stuff you do want. But what is the parallel to the song? It's not a chapter, because a chapter typically can't stand alone. The answer is, it doesn't exist. But it could exist. There could easily be a digital something that is designed to meet a certain clearly defined learning objective. Several of these somethings could be strung together into a "playlist" that assisted greatly in meeting course learning objectives. And if several publishers were publishing these somethings, these "singles," then a course "playlist" could include singles from Macmillan as well as ones from Pearson.

I think Apple gets this. I further think they're wise enough to know that they can't invent or create these singles themselves. They can transform the textbook industry with iBooks the way iTunes transformed the music industry, but only if they get a lot of help with the songs. Thus, the open standard... they will use a technical platform that anyone can adopt. Do a deal with Macmillan, sure, but leave the door open for the future-thinkers at Pearson to create something that will be a game changer.

I like what Apple has done. I like it a lot.

Article from MacWorld: http://www.macworld.com/article/145940/2010/01/ibooks.html

Want to change behaviors? Forget education.

Here's my premise: If you want to change core behaviors, forget education or training. Neither one will do the job. It may sound shocking, but you already know this is true. You know you can teach a kid all day long how to clean up his room, but until he fears the consequences of not doing it more than he dreads the drudgery of doing it, he won't do it. You can train an employee step by step on how to properly handle the package/liquid/customer/whatever, but until her desire to do it differently exceeds her comfort level with her habitual approach, she won't do it the way you want her to. Show as many films, provide as many lectures, give as much instruction as you want, but behaviors change only when the motivation is sufficient. It's not about knowledge. It's not even about learning. It's about core motives. And it takes a whole lot of motivation to change established behaviors.

Why am I bringing this up? Because it seems to me everyone in education and training is missing a major tool in the toolbox when it comes to behavior change. To a man who has only a hammer, it's been said, every problem looks like a nail. And I'm thinking that there are a lot of bolts and screws and wing nuts being hammered out there in our field, problems being solved with classes and online training courses and instructional seminars, when there is another tool, much more effective, at our fingertips. One that is proven to change behaviors.

This tool has been used, refined, improved, and finally proven beyond question for something like 50 years. No educator doubts its effectiveness. No training professional has any question about its power. But we never use it. Why not? Because it doesn't sound like training. It doesn't look like education. It doesn't pass the smell test. It won't fit into the centuries-old categories that allow us to feel comfortable doing our jobs. But if anyone had the guts to give it a try, I'd bet it would work. In fact, I am betting it will work--and I'm not likely to lose this one.

The tool I'm talking about is the advertisement. More specifically, the TV commercial.

Before you scratch your head and dismiss these as the ravings of a lunatic mind, give it a think. How many millions, billions of dollars are poured into television commercials every year? Why does that happen? Why do otherwise sane companies pay over a million dollars for 30 seconds of Super Bowl airtime? I'll tell you what you already know. It's because they expect an even bigger return. What is that return? A change in behaviors. Oh, you might say, they're just getting their name out there. It's about brand recognition. Well, I respond, that's the same thing. Name recognition that doesn't drive change is worthless. These commercials are driving change. These companies want, assume, and fully expect that if they can get the right message in front of millions of people, some significant percentage of them will, if not immediately then soon, change their behaviors and buy a different product. Their product. And they are almost never disappointed. It simply works. If it didn't, the whole thing would collapse.

But the key phrase is, "the right message." You won't see the sophisticated behavior-changers yelling about how many Camrys are available for how much down and how much a month. You will see them presenting an attractive image. A feel. A sensibility about a product that suggests it's cool, it's important, it's right, it's delightful--it's attractive--to make this change. Good commercials toy with your core motivations. Your identity. They make you want to change. And they know how to do it.

They also know how not to do it. They stay as far away from education and training as possible. When was the last time you saw a commercial that seriously educated you on the particulars of the product in question? Not one that left you aware of the particulars (that buttery-soft leather interior!) but one that took even a remotely somber training approach, a textbook approach, to detailing the facts about the product. (Our leather is made from the hide of cows. The tanning process begins just after slaughter...) Nobody does that. Why not? Because it won't change your behaviors. It is an odd and ironic thing that companies spend millions upon millions getting just the right message out to customers in bite-sized, delightful nuggets, knowing it will pay off, while at the same time slathering their own employees with coat after coat of deadly dull, heavy, and tedious training that doesn't work well by anyone's measure.

What am I suggesting? Simply this: if our goal is to change behaviors, we should never again go back to the dry well of painstakingly dull knowledge. Of course a knowledge base needs to be established, and we must teach. But when the goal is to change behavior, to get over the hump, to get people to want to institute the new processes, the new approaches, we should abandon the assumption that if our charges simply know it, or know how to do it, they will therefore do it. We should abandon even the assumption that if we tell them how important it is, they will do it. The fact is, there is a well-known and proven way to get them to want to change. We should be students of this field of knowledge. We should study commercials. We should camp out with the advertisers until we understand what makes the good ads good. And we should apply that knowledge to training and education.

And if we must make a video, we should consider spending our meager monies on 60 seconds of pure delight rather than 60 minutes of step-by-step tedium.

The radical little interview

Many thanks to Keith Hampson for posting a simple, four-question interview with me at his LinkedIn blog, Higher Education Management Group. I've had many hits on my blog because of it, but no one has left any comments there. I re-read my answers, and had a little aha moment of my own. I'm now trying to determine if there's anyone in the higher education establishment/industry that I didn't manage to offend in some way:

Academics and their quality, check...
Textbook publishers, check...
LMS providers, check...
Learning technologists, check...

Really, I meant only to speak the truth as I see it, and as I have been watching it unfold lo these many years. And I can't really take anything back, nor can I apologize except to say that offense was not my purpose, nor was any disrespect intended. I hold education in the highest regard. I simply believe that in many ways and instances, the process of providing education has overtaken the place of honor that should be reserved for the product, the learning itself.

Let me explain. There is something in 3D virtual games, the MMO's like World of Warcraft, called "the grind." This is a pejorative term, defined in Wikipedia as "the process of engaging in repetitive and/or non-entertaining gameplay in order to gain access to other features within the game." Gamers don't like it, but the game-makers couldn't come up with enough interesting battles or quests to really make you earn something over time, so they just said, "Here, do this about twenty-seven more times and then you'll get what you want."

Replace a few gaming words in that definition with a few scholastic ones, and you have what I don't like about formal education. So little in education needs to fit into the category of "the grind" any more, and yet we continue to let it drive us. We ask them to crank out something (a paper, a project, homework, a quiz) without real substance or interest but that can be graded and managed and documented, thereby qualifying as an academic result. And thereby covering the appropriate expanse of derriere. This happens so much it isn't even questioned by many. It's just what we do and how it's done.

So, I guess in the end I'm not very contrite. But I am hopeful. If you read to the end of that interview, you'll see why.

The radical little quiz

There's got to be a ton of research on this, right? When it comes right down to it, most of the Pearson MyLab products, which I have spun out a good number of electrons praising in this space, is learning by testing. And then remediating. After all, when is a person's mind more focused than when trying to get the answers right?

I posited an interest in the question of learning by quiz during my session on the End of Book Learning at Elliott Masie's Learning 2009 conference, and I got a follow-up from an energetic attendee who wanted me to discover SpacedEd. Which I have now done, and about which I can now say... okay, cool.

http://www.spaceded.com/

Here's what it does. You sign up for a course, and you get one quiz question a day. Or, every other day if that's too much for your hectic lifestyle. They email you the question. You answer it. They tell you if you're right or wrong. They provide some feedback, reasons, material that further explains the correct answer. Then they tell you when they're going to send you the same question again. Which you can opt out of. In addition, there is a place to make comments and read comments, so that the wisdom of the crowd can add context and application, not to mention some occasional humor.

That's it. Ho hum. Except that this little thing is based on two very well-researched principles: The Spacing Effect, and the Testing Effect. Both are well-explained at spaceded.com. Here's something about the former, lifted from the SpacedEd website:

"Since its discovery in the late 19th century by the German psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus, the spacing effect has been extensively studied. Even though this research has repeatedly demonstrated the spacing effect’s potent ability to improve learning retention, these findings have only had limited translation into formal educational practice. Recently, the spacing effect was found to have a distinct neurophysiological basis: Sisti et al (2007) showed that spaced learning in rats improved neuronal longevity in the hippocampus (a region of the brain which is important for long-term memory). "

I love this. Not just because of the reference to a rat's hippocampus, which you rarely get in educational literature these days, but also because I think this is important. I think it's innovative. And it has some very Web 2.0 implications. There's a reason no one has paid attention to this research, and that is because it doesn't fit the process of education. But now, because of Web 2.0, the traditional process of education is all set up to be deconstructed and reconstructed based on research and practice just like this.

Think about it; the entire structure of the education edifice up through and including Web 1.0 was based on the Learning Herd Effect. I just made that term up, but what I mean is that most of the peculiarities of education spring directly out of the need to run large numbers of students through a gamut of some sort and have them come out the other side educated. The Industrial Revolution required, or at least inspired, educators to create grade levels, classes, semesters, credit hours, letter grades, grade-point averages... all for what purpose? To organize the great Herd of Learners. The problems solved by our now-rarely-questioned infrastructure were similar in nature to the problems solved by Disney in the Magic Kingdom, or EPCOT. How do we get huge numbers of people in limited physical space to have the same or similar experience day after day, year after year, at an acceptable level of quality?

Now let's think about the problems that this solution created. It required all learning to take place inside the boxed walls of some room. The boxes may be labs, or simple classrooms, and there may be an occasional field trip, but the point stands. It assumed, by necessity, that all learning, ALL learning mind you, could be divided up into equal parts and be delivered in regular, timed intervals within those boxes. It further assumed that everyone could be made to learn at the same pace, at least everyone who was within the same box at the same time. The teacher was required to do the herding, and to whatever extent possible, leveling of material. So what we got from all that is what we still have, a process-based education that really has little bearing on what the outcome of the process may be. Some students may have learned a lot, some only a little. Some will have been just-shoot-me bored, others just-shoot-me challenged. Doesn't matter, we're solving a people-moving problem, so sit back down and listen up.

Enter Web 1.0. What did we do? We created little boxes online. We even called them classrooms. We boxed the same couple of dozen learners together, following along the same process, dividing the learning up into the same weekly, semester-long schedule. We brought the people-moving solution into a world where there was no people-moving problem.

Now we've got a Web 2.0 world. That means that we can think about what the web can do that can't be done in the physical world. We finally understand that an online environment is not "virtual reality," it is reality using technology, just as we grew up knowing that a phone call is not "virtual conversation," but real conversation using technology. We're no longer stuck with mimicking the physical world and its people-moving problems. And yet we still do it. Most of the Web 2.0 solutions being brought into online Learning Management Systems and Course Management Systems are tacked on, preserving the classes, class sizes, semesters, schedules, all of it. We still artificially divide all the learning up into equal-sized chunks, and we still require learners to group up and let some be bored while others drown.

Which brings us back to this little SpacedEd community. What I like is that it breaks most if not all those structures. It is designed from the learner back, from the research back, and it doesn't give a hoot and a half about any of the Learning Herd Effect solutions. It's about what you can learn when you aren't tethered.

Now you could argue that this device has its own artificial structures, built into the one-question-a-day method. What if I want two questions a day? Or three? And I wouldn't have much with which to argue back. But the point is not whether this structure is better than that one. The point is that here is a radical little quiz that is making an enormously good case for the power of Web 2.0 to upend the mammoth Learning Herd structure of education, and replace it, or even just parts of it, with real, provable, outcomes-based learning that fits no other mold. The box is entirely gone, vanished, beside the point. Learning is the point.

And I like that.

Everyone knows something.

It wasn't one of the most crowded sessions at Learning 2009, but it was well attended, and it impressed everyone who was there. I overheard several people talking it up later, even the next day, and in fact I did some of that myself. Not that it was an enormous breakthrough in terms of technology; it wasn't. But it had everyone's head spinning up questions like, "Why couldn't that work for all sorts of learning?" And with that thought, the light of a fundamental, far-reaching shift in the creation of learning experiences seemed to dawn.

You may not know of Cash America, but it's an enormous national chain of pawn shops. Don't snicker, they have a billion dollars in annual revenue and are publicly traded on the NYSE. So what have they done with learning? Their tiny corporate training department created a very simple system that allows store employees to create short, YouTube style videos and post them to train others. The content can be anything, but it started with tips and training on product. As you might imagine when the inventory walks in the front door all day, Cash America has something like 10 times the number of different items to sell that a Best Buy or a Wal-Mart has. Anyone can pawn anything, and employees need to know how to assess an item's value on the way in, and discuss its features on the way out.

Theirs was a simple concept. Those employees who know something about a product, whether it's Fender guitars or video game consoles or designer purses can make a video, using Flip cameras supplied by the home office, if needed (not always needed--they tend to have a lot of cameras in inventory!), and post it to the site created by corporate. And then everyone else can watch it, comment, provide other details. We were shown a video in which an associate ran through a list of differences between a particular designer purse and a well-made knock-off. The company saves over $200 every time an employee can spot the fake on the way in. It was YouTube quality video, but it was highly effective, even with a few errors.

Yes, there were errors. But like its big brother YouTube, Cash America's version is self-correcting. Within days, other employees posted comments that pointed out a couple of minor errors and omissions. And so far, there has been no need to actually reshoot the video. Associates who watch the video also read the comments.

Now, think about this in the context of the statement, "No one knows everything, but everyone knows something." Imagine if this was the primary mode of creating training in corporate America, not some off-the-wall idea way out at the fringes. What if sales training was created this way? What would that do to the level of authenticity, of reality, in the training? Take it to an extreme, what if college faculty didn't create courses based on the fullest extent of their own limited knowledge, but built these course assets up year after year by managing content created by themselves, by other faculty, by invited experts, graduates, even current students? What kind of rich environment would that be for a student, who could now gain knowledge from a wide range of perspectives, with the faculty as content mediator (yes, it still has to be managed) so that the doors and windows of knowledge stay wide open?

They call it harnessing "the wisdom of the crowd," or when used to create a product, "crowdsourcing." And for online learning, I think there's a lot of future packed in there.

Still the best learning conference

What have I seen and done at Learning2009? I've interacted with organizations engaged in using social media for learning. User-generated video for training. 3D virtual worlds for leadership development. Twitter for business. I've seen an iPhone application for new employee orientation developed in three days by a cadre of college kids, invited for the purpose. I've heard captain Sully Sullenberger and Malcolm Gladwell talk about learning and training and growing. I've watched Second City not only deliver but develop their comedy. And I went to a concert by a Beatle cover band, Fab Faux, that was so good, I found myself thinking... if the Beatles in their 60's were actually playing here, they would not sound as much like the Beatles of the 60's as these guys do.

Elliot Masie's conferences border on the goofy or the giddy at times. I didn't need to see him do the salsa with a talented Latina, while he stayed on his ubiquitous Segway. But what Elliott has never forgotten, what he never lost, apparently, is the joy of learning. I'm talking about the native, intense fun that is bound up in discovery, what most of us remember about learning from kindergarten or first grade, when it was all still exciting and the world was nothing but possibilities. I'm talking about that sense of wonder that was then systematically dredged from us by the ninth or tenth grade until "learning," "education," and "drudgery" were pretty much synonymous.

I am pleased to have been able to present in this context, glad to have offered some value. More on the specifics later, and there's more to do here today, but I wanted to share these overall impressions.

And the overriding overall impression is this: Elliott Masie still puts on the best elearning conference.

On being a learning consultant

I have been asked to sit on a panel at Learning 2009 to discuss independent consulting in the learning space. The program guide blurb is a bit provocative:

So You Want to Be a Learning Consultant: Look Before You Leap
Meet a panel of people who have been there and done that: independent consulting that is. Learn from their mistakes and embrace their successes... hints and tips plus a Q&A session where no relevant question is refused! If you are even vaguely contemplating the life of an independent Learning Consultant and feel that it could suit you, join us or live to regret it! ...Honest answers to questions you're afraid to ask anywhere else.

Here's a little stream of consciousness as I mentally and emotionally prepare...

Greatest mistakes a consultant can make:
1. Neglect your network. Building a network starts day one of your career. Cutting anyone out, looking down on anyone, assuming you will never need someone again, these are all enormous errors that will come back to haunt you. Fortunately, even though I had serious differences of opinion and grappled long and hard with people in the building of three different businesses in two states over a decade or two, I have found that they respect me as much as I do them. I have had compensated gigs from former employees, former software vendors, former publishing vendors, and former employers. And from people who know those people.
2. Assuming what made you successful from inside an organization will translate to success from the outside. I'm a person who can create a vision, get others to see it, and lead the charge to take the hill. This was without exception a benefit when I sat in the leader's saddle with troops gathered around me. When you begin to approach the leaders of other troops with the idea that you're there to help, such an attitude can spook the horses, not to mention their riders.
3. Get the balance wrong between what you do to win the business and what you get paid to do once you've won it. Insisting on a day rate for time spent building a proposal, even if it's your client's proposal to another client, in some cases will rule you out. In other cases, that is precisely what you're being paid to do. The bigger the business opportunity, generally, the more time you're going to have to spend winning it.
4. Wait until you're getting to a contract to wrestle out all the details of an engagement. Agree verbally to exactly what you're going to do before engaging in contract discussions. I lost my first opportunity haggling over contract language, when in fact it wasn't the contract but the project that posed issues. I was addressing the problem at the wrong point. Once you agree to clear, simple deliverables, then use a simple template that's easy to sign, And be flexible.

Must-have tips for success:
1. Be prepared to spend a year or two building up your book of business. This is no different than any other business in that regard. These things take time.
2. Be there to help. Listen, understand, ponder. Even if you think you know the answer immediately, and actually, even if you do, let it simmer. No one will believe it if it comes too quickly. Become a part of the solution process.
3. Keep in touch. Follow up. Learn how to do the quick catch-up email, keep a tickler file, use it. And use the social media. I blog, I tweet, I post my tweets in Facebook, and start discussions in groups in LinkedIn. This hasn't generated a lot of business yet, but it has certainly kept me in touch.
4. Build and lean on a small circle of support. Keep your family, particularly your spouse, engaged and involved. "Independent" often means "alone," and humans don't always see the forest for the trees when wandering through the woods by themselves. Use any mentors you have. Make sure you have friends who can listen to the down sides as well as the upside (and don't confuse them with your clients!)
5. Take a lot of people out for coffee or lunch.

Now, we'll see what sort of questions I get that people may be "afraid to ask anywhere else." And we'll find out if I'm afraid to answer them!