On practicing what you preach

I am a card-carrying member of the scholar-practitioner special interest group in the Academy of Human Resource Development and a big advocate of grounding my everyday work in the research and theoretical underpinnings of our field.  But I’ve caught myself maybe not doing that when I should. 

I’ve recently had occasion to try to conceptualize some pretty tricky activities in our work – how we create a business case, how we “do” instructional design, how to use social media for learning, how we think about questioning in the context of consulting… What I have been able to do, I think, is craft solid explanations that are very practical and easy to understand.  I’ll give myself applause there.  But what I started to wonder was whether these explanations about “what works” were grounded in theory and research. 

Grounding our work usually involves outreach to find the research studies and theoretical models that can help us clearly conceptualize a practice and give us guidelines to ensure effectiveness.  I didn’t do that outreach in these instances.  But I have a great deal of experience in these areas, and I know if I had to find research support for the ideas that I have put together, I certainly could.  What I realized is that while I didn’t actually go looking for other models and study results, I wasn’t exactly flying blind because I do keep up with writing in our field.

Still, even though the material I’ve put together is supportable, I bet it would have been stronger if I had taken the time to validate my thinking against the thinking of others who write on the same concepts and issues.  We professionals keep up a constant balancing act between getting our work done quickly and taking time to study the matter.  I realize that the “stuff” I absorb from reading and attending conferences helps me a great deal in being able to respond quickly with a level of confidence.  At the same time, I don’t want to let myself off the hook that easily.  Grounding work in research and theory isn’t just for the high profile projects; it’s for the everyday ones as well.

In this day and age, we have internet tools at our disposal that can really help us to find articles and other materials with just a few keystrokes.  I need to get more in the habit of taking just an hour or so at the start of these kinds of day-to-day projects to get the lay of the land in terms of what other academics and practitioners have discovered in their own work.  It will make my own practices more robust and effective in the long run, and being able to discover a foundation others have laid will certainly be worth my time.

PS – If this kind of think is important to you, consider attending the Emerging Scholars Pre-Conference at the Academy of HRD conference later this month.  I’m one of the presenters, and I’m really excited about the program that we’ve put together.

On Learning in 3D

As noted in last week’s post, I don’t intend to become an expert in 3D learning.  But that doesn’t mean I’m not keenly interested in the new book on Learning in 3D written by the highly respected Karl Kapp and Tony O’Driscoll. 

What I most like about the book is the way that it outlines a clear vision for architecting 3D learning environments.  Karl and Tony ground their work in a solid set of design principles that highlight the importance of identifying business goals, contextualizing activities, making activities first-person real to the learners, taking advantage of collaboration as a learning tool, and prompting reflection and synthesis of learning.  Their 3D learning experience architecture then identifies what they call “macrostructures” and “archetypes” – important aspects of design and specific techniques that are available in 3D immersive environments.  I can’t do their conceptualization of 3D architecture justice without lifting out chapter 4 in its entirety, but I tell you it is very well thought out.  I  urge learning professionals who work with simulations in any environment (3D or otherwise) to get your hands on a copy of this book. 

At a panel discussion last week, Tony shared his observation that 3D learning “hits all the marks of disruptive technology” (and as a professor on the subject, he should know).  Tony believes that it’s not a matter of if we want to get on board, but when.  Just leafing through the book, Learning in 3D, really helped me to get a handle on why the platform can be so impactful.  Studies have clearly demonstrated that interacting in this kind of immersive environment can really help to develop skills, and the 3D space with live interactions is more realistic and challenging than pre-programmed simulation environments.

I agree that 3D learning will continue to grow, and will eventually lose its considerable barriers to entry, making it more likely that some day I may actually have to create an avatar alter-ego.  It’s still not an area of the field that I want to explore deeply in the near term, but I’m really glad we have great thinkers like Karl Kapp and Tony O’Driscoll leading the way here.

See: Learning in 3D: Adding a New Dimension to Enterprise Learning and Collaboration, by Karl M. Kapp and Tony O’Driscoll (2010).  Pfeiffer. Highly recommended!

Keeping up

I spent some time over the weekend catching up on others’ predictions for 2010 (see sources at end of post). It got me thinking… how will I ever keep up?  3D learning, open learning, mobile learning, informal learning, social learning, game-based learning, new tools, new gadgets…  It’s clear that the need for learning and the potential avenues to get support for learning are both exploding – what’s a learning professional to do to stay current so she can be effective in her role?

For me, it’s a balancing act between knowing a little bit about a lot of the landscape and a lot about a little bit of the landscape. While it’s critical that I maintain a grasp of all of the tools and techniques for learning, I have to make choices about where I want to establish and maintain my expertise.

The core of my work requires that I have a deep understanding of adult learning principles and techniques… and maintaining that expertise will help me to imagine how all of the tools can be put to use to support learning.  Upon that foundation, I can be helpful and influential in strategizing broad-based learning environments that integrate a number of resources, tools, and techniques.  Another part of my work requires that I know the latest in instructional design practices and processes, and keeping up with new approaches will help me to understand how these can be applied regardless of what is being designed. 

I love the work I do in designing formal learning for delivery in classroom and online learning environments, but I focus in on facilitating learning in adult learning theory and instructional design rather than honing an ability to design for any topic. (I believe there will always be a place for formal learning, so I’m not feeling vulnerable that I hold that as an area of expertise.) I also love researching and writing and focus my efforts there (like here in this blog) on those same topics.

I’m not likely to ever create a flash-based e-learning component. I won’t be designing an electronic performance support system. I still don’t own a smart phone, and designing “an app for that” isn’t in the cards for me. Learning games and simulations are very powerful, but I won’t be designing one anytime soon. 3D learning isn’t going to figure into my own work in the near future.

Our landscape in the learning and development field is so very varied and complex that we really need to be able to rely on each other to develop particular areas of expertise so that we can work together to create the kind of learning environments in which learners can flourish and from which businesses can benefit. I am constantly amazed at how various social learning media have allowed me to tap into the minds of deep thinkers in those areas in which I have no expertise… they are critical to my ability to know “a little bit about a lot of the landscape.” Thank you to all of you out there posting blogs and sharing links in your Tweets!

My to-learn list for 2010 includes deepening my understanding of constructivist learning theory and research, as well as studying more on brain-based learning concepts and their relationship to cognitivist and constructivist approaches.  I plan on honing skill in creating online courseware and creating online learning communities. And I’ll be using various opportunities to develop skill in researching, writing, and communicating ideas. That’s enough for one person.

My sources for predicitons for 2010:  The Big Question for January in the Learning Curcuits blog, and the 2010 Horizon Report from the New Media Consortium and Educause.  All interesting reading – thank you for sharing!

Misadventures in scholarly practice

I had a rude awakening this week when I was asked by a colleague to identify and share research that could help guide a project she was working on. A funny thing happened… I knew what theory and research would advise about the issue, but putting my hands on a specific theory or piece of research proved much more difficult. 

I found myself browsing my bookshelf and searching my EndNotes citations and wondering… Where did I read that? Which theorist had that model? Who did that research? As I slowly uncovered some of what I was looking for, I realized that in “knowing” what theory and research would advise, I was extrapolating from a wide range of material.  There was no “killer” piece that I could point to as having the perfect perspective. In the end, I lucked out because my colleague really just needed me to give her advice based on my knowledge base and experience, not to support it with specific justification.

It got me thinking about the challenges of scholarly practice (a.k.a. evidence-based practice). On the one hand, good for me that I’ve paid enough attention that I knew what might be helpful for my colleague’s situation. On the other hand, I would have been hard-pressed to name my sources. I have a terrible memory for names and other details (inherited from my mother, I’m sure, who had six children and never got our names right on the first try). 

I really need to have good system for recording some of my favorite references and compiling good models that can guide practice. I’ve frequently thought about this, and have kept up some good practices, like recording EndNote citations, tagging material to my Delicious account, keeping a file of my favorite models, and the like. I’m also thinking that I’d like to cast my net a little wider, expanding beyond the academic publications and thought-leader blogs that I currently frequent. 

I’m thinking that’s a pretty good new year’s resolution. I’m going to be taking a look at material on connectivism, personal learning environments, and personal knowledge management for advice on this (at least I know where to find resources on those concepts!) Please share your thoughts on specific record-keeping techniques as well as favorite academic journals in learning and development.

Progress

A study reported in January’s Harvard Business Review* found that the most important factor for motivation at work was…. progress!  Now, there’s a blinding flash of the obvious.  I have to agree that my best days, at work or at home, are those days on which I feel like I’ve made progress on something that’s important to me.

I’m taking that insight to heart as I embark on an ambitious 2010. A little less spending time cleaning out e-mail inbox and surfing the net. A little more time making at least incremental progress on the many projects I want to get done, books I want to read, adventures I want to have, and oh, the things I still want to learn.  I’m setting my resolutions and to-learn list up so that the goals are as much about making progress as about grand accomplishment. Sure, the grand accomplishments are the real goals, but some have seemed too daunting to tackle in the time between other commitments. I think those researchers may be on to something.

BTW, another thing that turned up high on the list of things that motivated people was collaboration. I guess that means I should get out of my head more.    I’m looking forward to the Academy of HRD conference in February, building an online scholar-practitioner community with AHRD, working with a new committee at work, and many other ways I get to work with some brilliant and fun people who keep me energized and focused.

I don’t know about you, but I love turning the page on a new year. I allow myself that clean-slate, fresh start feeling and revel in compiling a list that will take the whole year to complete. Here’s to 2010.  Happy New Year!

* See What Really Motivates Workers by Teresa M. Amabile and Steven J. Kramer – #1 on the HBR List of Breakthrough Ideas for 2010.

Design Decisions

The following is truly a work in progress, and I’d be happy to hear comments…

Last weekend, I completely redesigned the way I teach “what is design?” for my advanced instructional design course, and we had two sessions on the subject this week (which went pretty well).   Nonetheless, I’m still mulling over how to best explain this “inside your head” process.

“Design” is a bit of a slippery concept, and I’ve taken to describing it as the result of a number of decisions made in the context of your overall project. 

Designing involves decisions regarding targeted audience, goals and objectives, scope and content, delivery methods, techniques and activities, and structure and timing.  While it might appear that these decisions are made in a linear fashion, they are in practice made through a kind-of balancing act wherein the designer thinks through the consequences and risks of each decision, adjusting here and there until he or she is satisfied that a solid design has been outlined. 

In addition to balancing all these decisions against one another, the designer also needs to consider other factors like cost, time to launch, capabilities of facilitators and developers, logistical possibilities and limitations, and preferences of designers, facilitators, and clients.  All of this must be underpinned by a deep understanding of adult learning and how to promote it in the environment that your learners work in every day.

Slippery concept indeed.

Here’s how I outlined the major decisions that eventually constitute a design.  In class, we talked about component design rather than curriculum or learning environment design, but I think the same decisions are made at the “grand” level and the table below reflects both perspectives.   Feedback is welcome.

Design Decision	Grand Design (e.g.  learning envrionment, curriculum)	Component Design (e.g. course, learning resources)
Audience(Who)	Who is the audience? How might the audience be subdivided (if at all)?	For whom is the component piece being designed? What are the critical audience characteristics to account for in design?
Objectives(Why)	What are the business goas and performance objectives?	What are your business goals and performance objectives, and your learning goals and objectives? How complex are your learning objectives?
Content(What)	What knowledge and skill areas need to be “covered”? What aspects of these topics are in scope and out of scope?	What information, procedures, skill models, etc. will be shared with learners? What is in scope and out of scope for the component?
Delivery Method(Where)	What delivery methods will best accommodate the needed techniques, the overall environment, and learner preferences? What is the entry interface (e.g. learning suite, LMS, web site)?	How are you going to deliver your component? What tools will be used to develop materials?
Techniques and Activities(How)	What techniques will best support the learning you are trying to promote?	What techniques will best contribute to the achievement of your objectives? What is the high level design of the activities?
Structure and Timing(When)	What aspects of the learning need to be self-directed (pulled) vs need to be instructed (pushed)? What apects of the learning need to be organized vs. what aspects can be available as needed? Is there an overall arc or specific order to the learning? How will the learning be tied together across multiple components or courses (thematically, graphically)? What is the intended overall duration of the grand scheme?	How do we organize the delivery of the components?   How do modules break down within a component? What order will the activities take (and does it matter)? How do we represent the content (graphics, sound)? What will materials look like (graphics, package)? How long will it take to complete individual activities or components? What is the intended overall duration of the component?

 

Here are some of the things I’m still grappling with…

The “theme” decision.  I originally had a seventh design decision that I called “theme” but it felt a bit out of place especially when I realized I could tag all the other decisions with the famous questions, who, what, when, where, why, and how.  But I’m still waffling.  Coming up with a unifying metaphor, a graphic, a mnemonic, or a color and graphics scheme are important aspects of design that may need their own category.  Most of us don’t have graphic designers who take over that role for us, and our success often depends on creating something memorable. 

The structure and timing decision.  I may want to break this decision category up.  The way I’ve described it, structure decisions are about modularization, sequence, and graphical theme (see above).  Timing decisions are about pull vs push approaches, seat time, and duration.  Here are the issues with having them all as one decision category:  it’s a lot to absorb in one category; the category doesn’t align as well with one question (when); and the complexity of the decisions might get buried.

The other factors.  I need to consider how to represent the “other factors” so they don’t come across as an aside.  Cost, time, capabilities, logistics, preferences, and adult learning are critical influences.

Thanks for letting me share my musings – any comments or insight you might provide will help me fine-tune this for the next time I teach it, so please feel free to critique!

ADDIE Deconstructed

Every where I turn these days, I’m thinking about the instructional design process.  I’m teaching an advanced ID course that begins with an overview of a number of different approaches to instructional design and an in-depth discussion about what each brings to the table.  We talk about how designers use these models in their day-to-day work, and about the ID Debate – the occasional round of blog posts that take a stand on whether or not ADDIE is dead.  I’ve also been reading up on constructivist ID, which has a slightly different take.  And at work, we’re in the midst of a reevaluation of our ID process, looking to get LEAN in our approach to getting the work done. 

With all that input, I’m beginning to think that part of the problem is that we try to conceive an overarching process when it might be more fruitful and useful to break the process apart so that we give each aspect the attention and flexibility needed to get the job done.  One process just can’t handle all the potential variety.  Think about it…

Analysis comes in many shapes and sizes.  Organizational analysis, performance analysis, learning environment analysis, job/task analysis, learner analysis, and more – each conducted using any number of possible data collection approaches.

Design is a creative, heady part of the process that almost defies definition. A variety of important decisions get made during design, including delivery method and choice of instructional techniques or activities. And as we move to more specific detail design, new flavors of design are needed: game design, web site design, simulation design, social media design – techniques that weren’t much in the picture when most instructional design models were outlined.

Development needs to be managed on a case-by-case basis, because these days we could be developing anything - a traditional classroom program, a series of podcasts, a user-populated web site, a stand-alone e-learning program, or a combination of any or all of the above and more besides.  One development process can’t be conceived to fit all of these situations.

Implementation requires facilitation of many different kinds of live events – on-the-job training, coaching, webinars, online learning and traditional classroom-based events.  Administrative implementation requires its own expertise and might involve rules regarding elevation of web materials, set-up on a learning management  system, or reserving and configuring physical rooms or virtual classrooms. 

Evaluation seems to be the one area stuck in place – we still haven’t found widely accepted approaches to supplement or replace traditional models.

So with all that in the mix, maybe we should hone in on deconstructing ADDIE and using our best judgement to tackle each aspect of the process as it comes to the forefront.  I really like knowing the features and strengths of a variety of approaches so that I can consider well how each project should be managed.  A little of this and a little of that may seem at first to be too unstructured, but I don’t think so.  All ID seems to be following an overarching ADDIE arc, but our watchwords are flexibility and iteration. 

The only problem is, newer designers need and want more definition than that, and we need to figure out how to help people become skilled at crafting an appropriate process in relatively short order.  Like all arts, it takes practice and experience to do it well.

Objectives – Starting point for ID?

Anyone who knows me knows that I am something of a stickler about objectives.  I advocate for a set of tri-level or “cascading” objectives and insist that these objectives be established at the very beginning of a design project.  My logic is that in order to create something that is effective, you have to start by knowing what your client is trying to achieve in business terms (business objectives), the context for how the learning you engender is meant to be applied (performance objectives), and what your learning solution will address (learning objectives). 

But I’ve been teaching a course on constructivist learning environments, and constructivism is a perspective that matches a lot of what I believe about adult learning.  In his book about constructivist instructional design, Jerry Willis has this to say about objectives:

The beginning of a project is probably the worst time to create specific detailed objectives.  That is when there is the least agreement about what should be learned.  The beginning is also the worst time to complete learner, task, and concept analyses.  Such work can begin there, but that understanding will emerge across the design process and will be of much higher quality than information and perceptions gained primarily at the beginning.  Knowledge and understanding will emerge across the design and development process.

Mmm…  That may sound easy to dismiss when you’ve been trained to conduct thorough front-end assessment and to define your objectives as the starting place for the design process.  And I want to dismiss it – truly I do – my friends at work will gasp aloud if I don’t dismiss it and argue, as I always have, for the idea that objectives come first.  But…

We recently held a course review session at work that also really caught my attention on the subject of objectives.  The course that we discussed was really terrific… it was performance-based; the activities were interesting and engaging (and not the same-old same-old); the discussions were designed to go deep; and the course had a nice e-simulation at the end that brought everything together.  There was only one problem.  On the question of whether the course met the objectives as defined, the answer was an unequivical “no.”  As written, the course’s objectives required that participants would be able to perform complex tasks, and there wasn’t near enough individual practice activities to achieve that end. 

In discussions about this particular project, a couple of things came to light… it was possible that the objectives for the course were actually written after the course was designed (kind-of similar to how middle school students go back and write the required outline after they’ve finished the essay).  Of course, if you’re writing objectives after the fact, it should be easier to write objectives that match what you did.  But regardless, this terrific course was likely the result of having a real strong understanding of the performance we were going after, and designing learning activities that would help employees get there, maybe without ever solidifying the learning objectives in behavioral terms.  Mmm…

As I read further into Jerry Willis’ conceptualization of constructivist design, I found that his description of the design process rang true for my own practice of doing design.  I’ve always recognized that ADDIE (or any ADDIE-like instructional design process you might pick) is iterative, not linear.  As such, while I craft objectives to get started, I constantly compare how the end product is shaping up against those objectives.  And when the design and the original objectives don’t match, I’m more likely to change the objectives than I am to change the design.  I’ll add in some objectives that I find I need to address but failed to account for up front.  Or I’ll decide I don’t have time to go as deeply into an area that I might have liked, and so I have to cut back on more ambitious objectives.  By the time I’m done, the course meets the objectives – or is that the objectives effectively preview the course I have created? 

Mabye it’s semantics, but maybe we don’t have objectives when we start.  (Gasp!)  Maybe the objectives “emerge across the design and development process.”

As I’ve taught this constructivist design course, I’ve advised students that we need to understand the business and performance objectives of the learning solution we’re designing, but we don’t have learning objectives in the same sense that we do when we are creating and instructional solution.  (The specific constructivist techniques taught in my course include: experiential learning, reflective practice, action learning, job rotation, developmental relationships, communities of practice, online collaboration, webquest, problem-based learning, simulation, case study, and more.)  The constructivist perspective is that learners construct their own meaning, we can’t guarantee they will learn specifically what we intend, but we can craft an environment that is likely to help them to develop ideas and practices that are in alignment with what we hope.  (I probably just got myself in trouble with a lot of constructivists… I’m sort-of a practical constructivist.)

So here’s where I think I’m landing… 
It’s ridiculous to think that we can nail everything we need to know about a project before we even begin to design the solutions.  The world is too complicated for that, and the variables that influence decisions too numerous.  That doesn’t mean we work without objectives.  Developing a strong understanding of business and performance objectives has to be among our first priorities – they help us to decide whether the project is worth the investment of time and energy, and they give us a starting place for analyzing whether learning is an important input to the desired performance.  It’s an important practice to draft learning objectives early and to constantly compare them against the emerging program so that by the end of the project, the objectives are a true reflection of what is accomplished in the program.

I’m going to stop this post here (it’s already too long), but there are tons of implications…related to handoffs (to my colleagues at work: like between Consult and Produce?!), decision-making authority, validation of learning, client relationship management, and more.  I’d be pleased to hear reactions, questions, and other perspectives…

Quote source:  A General Set of Procedures for Constructivist Instructional Design by Jerry Willis (p. 317).  In Constructivist Instructional Design: Foundations, Models, and Examples (2009) edited by Jerry W. Willis.

To regular readers… thanks for your patience regarding the long pause since my last post.  So much to do, so little time…

Edupunk

In the September issue of Fast Company magazine, an article entitled “Who Needs Harvard?” gives the low-down on a growing internet trend.  With more and more colleges and universities posting their syllabi, lectures, exercises, tests, etc. online, “edupunk” entrepreneurs are actively working on ways to support a new way of gaining an education that’s a lot cheaper than a formal degree program, and arguably more targeted to a learner’s specific needs.

Mmm…  There’s a lot to think about regarding this “edupunk” movement.  It’s exciting to see all of the material available… I get lost just browsing the titles.  But, as author Anya Kamenetz points out, “there’s still a big gap between viewing such resources as a homework aid and building a recognized, accredited degree out of a bunch of podcasts and YouTube videos.”

While I’m not worried that Edupunk will eliminate my job as an adjunct faculty member anytime soon, I realize that I must be at the top of my game as a professor.  Because if all I am doing is delivering content – students can get that through other avenues.  The value that I provide is my perspective, my guidance in thinking more deeply about a subject, my ability to coach students and encourage them to really wrestle with the challenges of the profession. 

But I do wonder if Ms. Kamenetz misses an important point with the comment about whether we can build a “recognized, accredited degree” out of all this.  It will be interesting to see over time if people stop worrying so much about aggregating a check-box list of credits for a degree and instead seek to link up with the smartest minds teaching on a given subject and learn in a more open market.  If a potential employee could show that he or she studied with known experts and collaborated with them on a variety of projects, would it matter so much if that candidate achieved a specific degree at the end? 

We take pride that our degree programs cover a specific set of content and skill areas, but how often do these exactly match what the student really needs at the moment?  Would it be better for people to take a longer-term view of their learning and continue to build their skills as they need them rather than complete a once-and-done degree program?  We might argue that people need a broad grounding even if they don’t immediately apply their learning, but lots of theory and research basically says “use it or lose it.”  And given the rapid rate of change, grounding that isn’t used immediately will become dated pretty quickly.

So how will professors of the future offer their expertise to continue to build our profession?  Will we be able to offer our support to students seeking to build depth in our areas of expertise through an open system?  (Note to self: must be at the top of my game to be the kind of professor these students will seek out!)  I kind-of like this idea, and will be keeping my eye out for ways to opt in to this new system as it develops.  Or maybe I can carve my own niche now?  Maybe I, too, can be “edupunk.”

Mmm….  Comments welcome!

I knew I’d regret it

Earlier this summer, I accepted an invitation to speak at the beginning-of-the-school-year convocation for the faculty of one of the universities for which I serve as adjunct faculty.  The minute I said yes, I knew I’d regret it… and I was wrong.

Sure, I regret the summer Saturdays when I could have been reading or enjoying activities.  I regret how many times my Facebook page said “working on my speech.”   But I can’t regret what I learned by having taken on this challenge. 

The content of the address is not new to me; I did a little research to solidify the case to be made, but most of the key points were things I talk about regularly.  It’s amazing, though, how much you clarify your thinking when you’re going to try to communicate it to others in a formal way.  As a learning facilitator, I know that, of course, but it’s been a while since I actually had to communicate at this level, and it was enlightening, energizing, and daunting.

I also learned a thing or two about crafting a decent speech (I hope) - with a shout out to Brent Schlenker and Karl Kapp – two experts who I heard speak in the last month and who really set the bar.  I’m pleased with the slides I created, too, with a little help from expert colleagues.  So it’s been a good journey, if a time-consuming one.

The topic of the address is “Educating the 21st Century Professional; Emerging trends in teaching and learning.”  (Spoiler alert if you happen to be attending on Wednesday.) 

I started out thinking that the 21st century professional was a moniker of the millennial generation, but a snide remark from my brother reminded me that in 2009, we are ALL 21st century professionals (unless you happen to be retired, I suppose).  We are all living in a rapidly changing world and most of us have access to an amazing array of tools and technologies that support our performance and our learning.  There are no generational differences in terms of the way the mind works to accomplish learning – and all of us are capable of using the spiffy new tools for access and collaboration as well as using the tried-and-true methods of interacting with others, learning by doing, and reflecting on experience.

The bigger change in teaching the 21st century professional is in the content of what we teach.  In researching the talk, I came across this quote by Dr. Ann Pendleton-Jullian:

A twentieth-century approach to education holds fast to the notion of teaching as a systematic delivery of knowledge—knowledge that is vetted and sanctioned and delivered in discipline-based packages from expert teachers to students. It is education in which one learns about specific stuff and how to do specific things.

In contrast, twenty-first century learning environments are about learning that extends far beyond the classroom… The assumption is that we need to prepare for futures in which the specific things we will be doing, and specific stuff we will need to know, do not yet exist. (emphasis mine)

So teaching in this century is not so much about transfer of knowledge as it is about helping students learn to think more deeply.  We need to prepare students to grapple with the real, challenging issues of their professions (and of our world in general).  We also need to support students in recognizing and learning to deal with issues of ethics and with concerns about social, economic, and environmental sustainability.  That’s quite a charge for those of us in the business of educating the 21st century professional!

Fingers crossed, I think it will be a pretty good speech; I figure if I learned some things along the way, then my colleagues in the audience ought to be able to take a few ideas away as well.  All in all, it’s been a good journey, even if it has put a crimp in my summer and made me miss a few weeks of blogging.  Wish me luck!