WEBVTT
99:59:59.999 --> 00:00:02.961
(Stephen Downes) So, hello everyone.
00:00:05.529 --> 00:00:07.768
I'd like to state and for the record,
00:00:08.409 --> 00:00:10.078
I love the blue dots.
00:00:11.047 --> 00:00:11.976
(LAUGHTER)
00:00:11.976 --> 00:00:14.327
I've been sitting there
watching the blue dots.
00:00:16.501 --> 00:00:23.116
So, I've been cast in the role of
the person who finds the problems
00:00:23.116 --> 00:00:25.163
with the topic that we're all praising.
00:00:26.191 --> 00:00:29.228
I do like agile design, I like it a lot.
00:00:29.228 --> 00:00:32.804
And I like the concept of
agile learning design,
00:00:32.804 --> 00:00:34.161
I like it a lot.
00:00:34.976 --> 00:00:40.176
But, you know, I've been in the field
of programming for many years.
00:00:40.536 --> 00:00:43.840
I've been in the field of learning design
for many years.
00:00:43.840 --> 00:00:47.561
I've worked on small projects,
I've worked on big projects,
00:00:47.566 --> 00:00:49.781
I've been the peon
at the bottom of the pile
00:00:49.781 --> 00:00:55.171
and currently I'm the program leader
responsible for producing outcomes.
00:00:55.171 --> 00:00:57.204
So I've seen it from different angles.
00:00:57.204 --> 00:01:00.838
And there's so many ways it can go wrong,
00:01:00.838 --> 00:01:08.212
especially when we move from the
fairly static domain of software design
00:01:08.212 --> 00:01:12.303
to the far less static domain
of learning design.
00:01:13.540 --> 00:01:14.876
That's learning design.
00:01:16.002 --> 00:01:19.451
It's the least agile thing
you'll ever see.
00:01:20.986 --> 00:01:25.277
That's actually a graphic from IMS
00:01:25.277 --> 00:01:28.400
which produced the learning design
specification.
00:01:28.933 --> 00:01:31.554
That's supposed to be
pretty open and flexible,
00:01:31.554 --> 00:01:35.366
It's like a play with a director and roles
and all of that.
00:01:36.420 --> 00:01:39.786
But, you know, once you're into the thing,
00:01:40.263 --> 00:01:42.803
there isn't a whole lot of flexibility
happening
00:01:42.803 --> 00:01:48.490
and it leads to questioning just
what is it that we're up to
00:01:48.895 --> 00:01:51.504
when we are talking about
agile learning design?
00:01:51.765 --> 00:01:55.766
Are we talking about
agile 'learning design'
00:01:56.658 --> 00:02:01.021
or are we talking about
the design of agile learning?
00:02:01.775 --> 00:02:03.273
Two different things.
00:02:03.740 --> 00:02:06.415
And it seems to me that
it doesn't make sense
00:02:06.415 --> 00:02:11.040
to give the instructional designers
all that freedom and flexibility
00:02:11.040 --> 00:02:13.920
if we're going to march students
lockstep through
00:02:13.920 --> 00:02:16.372
a predefined kind of process.
00:02:18.243 --> 00:02:21.255
Here's what agile learning design
ought to look like.
00:02:22.491 --> 00:02:24.163
There's a flow.
00:02:24.483 --> 00:02:26.677
This is agile design generally, right?
00:02:26.677 --> 00:02:28.505
And it's an iterative thing,
00:02:28.505 --> 00:02:30.781
and yet people don't talk
about that so much
00:02:30.781 --> 00:02:32.765
but it's an iterative thing.
00:02:32.765 --> 00:02:38.750
Each iteration is like designing a full
and complete product,
00:02:38.750 --> 00:02:42.866
and then you might spin off
some side things, some prototype things
00:02:42.866 --> 00:02:47.467
as you need to, but, you know,
version 1, version 2,
00:02:47.480 --> 00:02:50.071
you're doing the same thing over again.
00:02:50.431 --> 00:02:53.281
No course in the world,
well, maybe not no course,
00:02:53.281 --> 00:02:56.779
but few courses in the world
are designed that way.
00:02:56.779 --> 00:03:00.402
Courses progress from Lesson 1,
Lesson 2, Lesson 3, Lesson 4.
00:03:00.402 --> 00:03:05.869
They don't cover all of geometry
and then all of geometry in more detail
00:03:05.869 --> 00:03:07.590
and all of geometry in more detail.
00:03:07.590 --> 00:03:11.640
It's a different way of thinking
about the process.
00:03:13.125 --> 00:03:18.587
So, one of the major concepts
in agile learning design,
00:03:18.587 --> 00:03:20.972
in agile design generally, is the Scrum.
00:03:21.522 --> 00:03:26.321
The Scrum is basically
a self-organizing development team.
00:03:27.344 --> 00:03:30.178
It is originally drawn from the idea that
00:03:30.178 --> 00:03:34.414
programmers are the smartest people
in the world and do not need management.
00:03:34.863 --> 00:03:39.669
No, I'm just kidding, but there is
the idea here that
00:03:39.669 --> 00:03:44.792
the programmers know how to program, and
they know how to produce the outcomes,
00:03:45.503 --> 00:03:49.922
if they're left to do the job for
themselves, to organize for themselves.
00:03:50.247 --> 00:03:54.791
And indeed, in the Scrum meeting,
as you are mapping out the task,
00:03:54.791 --> 00:04:00.031
each of the tasks, in the Scrum,
is self-selected by the programmer.
00:04:00.031 --> 00:04:03.589
So, they're volunteering to jump in,
to do these things.
00:04:03.589 --> 00:04:08.414
They're taking commitments on themselves,
they're specifying how much time,
00:04:08.414 --> 00:04:11.090
how much effort will be required
to produce the commitment.
00:04:11.972 --> 00:04:19.134
So, OK: that's good
but this doesn't happen by magic.
00:04:20.249 --> 00:04:25.221
It takes time, and agile
is typically employed
00:04:25.221 --> 00:04:27.744
in larger software development projects.
00:04:27.744 --> 00:04:31.824
But when we're doing learning design,
we're doing something a lot smaller
00:04:31.824 --> 00:04:33.445
and a lot more precise.
00:04:33.445 --> 00:04:35.099
The question came up earlier, you know:
00:04:35.099 --> 00:04:38.481
"What about, you know, high-volume
instructional design?"
00:04:38.481 --> 00:04:44.548
Well, high-volume in instructional design:
you don't have time for 3,4,5,6,7 weeks
00:04:44.548 --> 00:04:48.245
of your development team
organizing itself.
00:04:50.408 --> 00:04:51.481
Another problem:
00:04:52.519 --> 00:04:58.412
as your projects get bigger -- and we've
worked on some very large projects --
00:04:58.812 --> 00:05:02.464
your teams get very large.
00:05:02.464 --> 00:05:04.882
If you think about
all the different people who can,
00:05:04.882 --> 00:05:08.859
and eventually will get involved
in the design of your learning,
00:05:08.859 --> 00:05:11.513
or in the delivery of your agile learning,
00:05:11.995 --> 00:05:16.523
you've got designers, you've got
subject matter experts,
00:05:16.996 --> 00:05:23.101
you've got programmers, you've got
human interaction specialists, etc.
00:05:23.101 --> 00:05:26.781
Then so (check) you get a very large,
very complex team.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
As you get larger teams, you will not
generate more efficiency, it's well known:
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
you generate less efficiency.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So, what's the solution?
Split the teams.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
OK. Now you have competing development
teams working on the same project.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
This sounds, like, you know, OK,
we've split the task, it's great.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
But when you split the task,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
you now have two different groups
of people with different objectives,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
different responsibilities.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
They're competing often for resources,
they're competing often for priority.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
We have a project where we had
two agile teams.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
We ended up with two versions
of the thing that we were developing.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Basically, they had -- they didn't split
into functional groups,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
they -- what's the word for it?
errh one-cell devide: mitosis --
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So basically, we got two small versions
of the project we were trying to create.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Another pitfall:
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
if you try to organize your groups into,
you know, OK,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
this group will do this part of it,
this group will do that part of it,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
you get specialized Scrums.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So now, nobody's working on
the final project and the final product.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
And there is the danger -- I've seen this
and we've had this:
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
in effect, I'm living this
at this very moment
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
where everybody, all the teams
want to do the analysis bit,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
or the rapid prototyping bit.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
But we're trying to bring a product
to actual users, at the end.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
We want it to be a deliverable product.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Nobody wants to do the last stage
of error testing, of hardening the code.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
That's the least popular scrum.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So they go back to they are wanting
to do prototyping again.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Finally -- well, not quite finally
but we're getting there --
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
who is the product owner?
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
In the Scrum process,
you're delivering outcomes
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and the idea is that,
as you go through each spring,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
which is short-term cycle
through your development process,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
you're producing outcomes,
you're producing deliverables
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and these deliverables
are delivered to the product owner
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
who will set the deliverable,
and even more importantly,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
define the conditions for the completion
of that deliverable.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Did you do it or not?
How do you know?
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Well, you have to have certain criteria:
pass this test, reproduce this function.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
It has to be really solid
and ........ (check)-free.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Well, that good in education -- Sorry,
that's good in software development,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
your product owner is your client,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
perhaps your architect,
somebody like that.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
They know what they want.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Education is completely different.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
In education, there is
no product owner per se.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Think about it, think about the different
populations that are involved in learning.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
There is the end user,
also known as the student,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
who, in the typical instructional design
process, does not show up until
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
after the instructional design
has been done.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
It makes it very hard to be agile.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
There is the subject matter expert,
also known as the professor.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
The professor has his or her own ideas
of what this deliverable must be.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Then there is the administrator,
the dean or the president,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
or the Department of extended learning,
or whatever,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
who have other objectives of, then
revenue objectives,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
or course completion objectives:
they have their own definition.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
All of these definitions are different.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
I guarantee you they are conflicting
and they are competing.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
You can't just pick one,
because if you pick one,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
you're not being agile for the others.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
What's worse?
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
To have not only competing interests,
to have different levels of expertise.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
We're designing this system right now,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
where we're trying to create
agile learning itself.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
This is -- I'm not going to talk
about that,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
that's not the purpose
of this particular talk --
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
but but the ideas here is that
as the learning is unfolding,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
the process, the outcomes,
the deliverables and all of that
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
can change
as the needs of the learner change.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Very ambitious, really hard.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
We have to think about learning
differently, in order to do that.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Well, we've got our development teams.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Our development teams were raised
in the traditional educational system.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Their idea of education
and online learning is:
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
create some videos, put them online.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Well, if we're iterating old world project
the first version of the project,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
also known as
the minimally viable product,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
it's going to be pretty simple and it's
going to be something that you could do
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
with fairly traditional methods.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
And your programmers and developers,
all other things being equal,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
will fall back on the traditional methods.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Because they're not being challenged
with the minimal viable product.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
The end goal where you want to get to
is something really flexible and dynamic,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
but by the time you get to stage 5 or so,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
they've built many, many
static structures,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
because that's what it took to
the minimally viable product
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
at each release, at each iteration.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So you have to start over.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
And you start over and everybody agrees,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
OK the project is about something
a lot more flexible than that
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and you start developing again
and the same sort of problem happens
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
because your developers and your designer
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
did not acquire that expertise
in the meantime.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So they go back on what they already know.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So there's a difficulty here.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
In instructional design, we're attempting
to create an outcome
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
that is not part of the skill set of the
people producing the product
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
that results in the instructional design.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Finally, learning objectives.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
This is the madder thing, right?
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
And I get this one all the time: we do
connectivist-style MOOCs,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
the connectivist-style MOOC, we say
there is no curriculum,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
it's not about acquiring a certain
predefined body of content,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
because we want to meet
participants' needs
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
as they go through the course, and
these needs are different for every person
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and these needs change over time.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
And it should be up to the participant,
who ought to be the product owner,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
to define what success is and
define what the outcome should be.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
It's a moving target.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Nobody who funds education
wants to deal with that. Nobody.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Every last one of them wants to see
course completions, certificates,
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
competencies, curricular outcomes.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
They want them defined ahead of time,
they want them approved
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
by the curriculum board or
the school board or whoever is in charge.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
All of this must be set ahead of time.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
And then you're supposed to go on ..... (check)
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
It is two very contradictory perspectives
at work here.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
It's not possible to do agile learning,
much less agile learning design
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
in an environment where the structures
and the outcomes are predefined.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
That's meek (check), that's my short talk
and I thank you very much.
99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
(LAUGHTER - APPLAUSE)