A year or so ago I wrote about metaphors of learning and teaching and how they can shape our practice. The designer or facilitatorwho sees learners (or choose your word: some prefer “audience” or simply“workers”) as empty vessels, or as blank slates without valid and valuable experienceof their own, or as a partner on a learning journey, will likely—often unwittingly—letthat play out in their practice. In my career I’ve seen another branch on thistree: our beliefs about learners themselves, and the ways those beliefs caninfluence the ways in which we enact our work.
They’re stupid
Those who recall the early days of eLearning will rememberall the resistance. It typically began with the usual first-order barriers like “but we can’t afford it,” then on to “but all our peopledon’t have computers,” and then, when that was resolved, became “but our peoplearen’t tech-savvy.” (Translation: “They aren’t smart enough to do it.”) Whenyou’re convinced that learners aren’t very bright, you end up with designdecisions like extensive setup info, oversimplified cases and scenarios, andtime-consuming can’t-lose multiple-choice tests involving rote memorization andthrowaway answers. And of course buttons that not only say “Next” but also spinand flash, along with lengthy explanations of the most basic linear coursenavigation.
They have bad intentions
I was asked to work up a concept for an online employmentlaw course. The SME sent her slide deck from the classroom version. It was 60slides long; this (Figure 1) was the only image:
Figure 1: Stop sign
Seriously? What message does that send? “We know you won’tfollow employment law guidelines. We know, left to your own devices, thatyou’ll do this wrong. We are so sure that you’re going to do the wrong thing thatwe have to put a screaming stop sign in your face. Message: We don’t trust you.And by the way: we own you.” How receptive is a learner going to be? In thiscase, the message is made clearer by the fact that the stop sign is the onlyimage. I can’t even write it off as misbegotten decorative clip art.
Of course, we see the idea of adults as untrustworthy allover companies, and it’s been prominently in my own view the past few years asI study the way many organizations resist new social tools. (Pop quiz: Off thetop of your head, can you provide the name of one employee who ruined the reputation of their company by sayingsomething via social media? Probably not. And no, not Edward Snowden—he didn’tuse social media.)
Ways this belief plays out in eLearning and other learning-experiencedesign? Often it drives lists of rules and exhortations, lots of bullet pointsthat begin with the word “Don’t,” and extensive warnings about the dangers ofdoing something wrong, rather than support and encouragement for doing itright.
They cheat
Not long ago a designer acquaintance asked for help punchingup some dry content. It was admittedly just dreadful source material, with muchrequired compliance content largely unrelated to worker’s day-to-day life. Inreviewing the prototype the designer said, “I put in quiz questions every fewslides to keep the cheaters from skipping to the end.” “Cheaters.” That prettymuch sums it up, doesn’t it? (And this, by the way, from someone who has beenknown to create content by copying and pasting it, unattributed, from myriadsources on Google.) Given her druthers, I suspect she’d like to prop learnerseyes open, Clockwork Orange—style,and force them to look at the course.
It took a long time,but we finally shifted the conversation to ideas for an initial test-out optionand ways of making the content more relevant and palatable. It’s interesting thatthe designer framed this as “They cheat!” rather than as, “They are skipping tothe end because this is so excruciating and irrelevant.”
I saw this again in another policy-based program. The screenprior to the quiz showed a shady looking character under giant all-bold “NOCHEATING!” text. I like to believe that intentions weren’t bad. I like tobelieve that this was the work of an inexperienced designer caught in the decorativeclip-art trap. But it sent a message nonetheless. Know what? Mostly, life is anopen-book test. And when it comes to things like unemployment benefits law, teachingpeople to find something—like answers buried in a 25-page policy—is often farmore valuable than getting them to memorize it long enough to pass your test. Inresearching this piece I was kind of horrified at the number of articles Ifound with titles like “How to catch students cheating.” Maybe time would bebetter spent thinking about what we do that nearly forces them to cheat, andwhether the things they cheat on have anything to do with learning anything. Andmaybe the bigger question: Are wecheating them by doing things likeincluding meaningless quiz items only as a way of keeping them from “cheating,”or by refusing them the chance to test out?
Try it out
Next time you’re surfing around looking ateLearning courses, ask yourself what the designer’s attitude toward his or heraudience might be. In what ways does it show? Does it help or harm? Whatprograms do you like and find most engaging? I bet they don’t make you feellike a stupid untrustworthy cheater. What would you do differently if it wereup to you? If it’s heavily influenced by stakeholders, how can you nudgeconversations toward better design decisions?
