Festina lente
Time is tricky in training design. We often give our students too little or too much because we are in a rush and so are our students. Patience and restraint are not qualities of our generation. Because students and clients see waiting as uncomfortable, we end up with diluted e-Learning programs that have either selective detail or programs that include everything and the kitchen sink, along with the bedroom window, and links to the neighbors’ house.
Client pressure is predominant in corporate training. “Can you do it by Thursday,” they announce on Monday. “Just put something out there, anything.” If Professor Sokal were a SME and worked with corporate training, we would probably be pressured into publishing a module on quantum gravity once a week without blinking. What the bleep do we know? We’re just doing our jobs.
Because of time constraints, we bypass discipline and look for shortcuts. Who has time for reflection anymore? The hurried lifestyle of our users pushes us to compress and deliver quickly, often sacrificing balance and validity. Immediacy is the enemy of profound thought.
More or faster does not lead to better. When you’re in a rush, you do not have time to descend into depth — and developing e-Learning too fast is like vacuuming too fast: you miss stuff.
Here is how it works in real life. Let’s say you come across this statistic: 40% of business practitioners use software X. The interpretation of this statistic can be misleading: first you would have to know how many people in business use software and then how many of those use that particular software (and is it only software they use?). But how often do we stop and think critically? Background information is often ignored, yet it can be as important as the conclusion. Selective evidence can lead to poor knowledge and sometimes manipulation. Ironically, the abstract is often more enticing than the body of the article to the time-thirsty corporate student.
How do we balance expediency with depth of argument?
- Keep in mind that facts matter but the principles behind them may be equally important. Take your time to study and understand the content, at least for the courses that are really important for your business.
- Follow immediate action with quiet reflection, because even more meaningful action will follow, as Zen masters would agree (might be nice if there was a Zen e-Learning school we could all attend).
- If you have to create something quickly, divide content creation and production into separate parts, and get help for the latter. This way, instead of spending time on deciding what graphic to include on each screen, you have more time for critical thought and the buildup of an argument.
- Lack of a rigorous QA process allows superficial thinking to pass unchallenged. Establish guardians for depth of thought, content validity, and reliability.
“Festina lente,” the title of this section, in Latin means to “hurry slowly.” I like this sentiment because it reminds us to maintain a sense of urgency, yet take the time to contemplate and not rush into thoughts and conclusions and sound-bites.
The container and the content
I read the story of a woman who was unwrapping her iPod and exclaimed: “I did not care whether it worked or not. It was that beautiful.” Sensuous design and appeal dominate the consumer business and often precede functionality. Luckily, Apple knows how to balance style and substance. Unfortunately, this balance does not exist in some of our e-Learning packages.
In training design, we sometimes place more value on the container than we do on the content. Plagued by show and seduced by flash, some designers are too often preoccupied with how the training looks rather than how it functions. Clients buy into this plastic paradise we offer in some e-Learning products because we live, after all, in the Age of Aesthetics. If appearance serves, why bother with depth?
Have you ever been guilty of spending too much time fretting on how to create a flashy presentation with slick programming and multimedia glitz? Has the medium ever killed your message? Screen dressing is dangerous because it leaves room for poverty of thought and reason. When we insist too much on the beauty of the container, we sometimes create pseudo-learning that is expensive and glossy. In such cases, the multimedia noise is the cognitive equivalent of fast-food.
As you know, there is more to e-Learning than arranging binary code in an aesthetically pleasing fashion.
You can color e-Learning screens with the latest programming and layout techniques and authoring tools but don’t forget business and student needs for substance and depth. (Figures 4 and 5 attest!)
I often hear this request from clients: “I want you to develop an e-Learning package for my employees that is really stimulating, and full of engaging activities and effects that attract the eye and keep them interested.” And designers start stressing and obsessing over how to make the training full of engaging and eye-catching opportunities. Here is what you need to tell clients: Not all courses scream out for motivational and glitter techniques.
According to several theories of cognitive arousal, the following considerations apply when establishing how much stimulation is necessary in a training program in terms of substance and style:
- If students consider the subject matter as critical (e.g., safety measures or mandatory training), then aim for a low stimulation level. In the case of mandatory training, students do not really care about the learning process, but about its consequences. All they want to do is remain relaxed, alert, and complete the training quickly so they can move onto other things. For example, if you develop online training about a mandatory topic, such as the code of business conduct of your company, you should not waste a lot of development hours adding glitz and humor and sophisticated interfaces. Students know this is an obligation. All they want is clear content, instructions on what to do to complete the training successfully, and that’s it.
- If students consider the subject matter as freely chosen and avoidable (e.g., a training package in improving communication, developing creative thinking, or improving time management skills), then use a higher stimulation level. In such circumstances, students are not necessarily mindful of the consequences of the e-Learning program but wish to enjoy the learning process and consider high levels of stimulation as pleasant and challenging.
Linguistic laxity
Imagine you’re in love. You could tell your lover: “I appreciate your love. You make me feel good and I really like you.” Or you could say: “If you caught me one day and kissed the sole of my foot, I would limp a little, afraid to crush your kiss.” Which words would have a bigger impact?
How often do we take time to offer substance through specific language? How often do we include the radiance and expressiveness of the English language in our content? Not often. Our courses are drooling with non-sentences. Our language is often missing nuance and detail. We throw around phrases such as “paradigm shift,” “thinking out of the box,” “unparalleled technology.” Unpack these words and you see a sad reality: we often write in diluted sentences and transmit obscure thoughts. If we are on a mission to make our courses shorter, yet still offer substance, language analysis and linguistic scrutiny is definitely one of the solutions.
Beautiful language that has brevity and depth is becoming a vanishing luxury. There are several reasons for this trend. First, we tend to exploit and trivialize words; we use adjectives such as “wonderful” and “fantastic” for the most insignificant concepts (“fantastic toenails”); “terrible” or “tragic” show up in structures such as “terrible pen.” What superlative can you think of that really denotes tragedy or wonder in its true sense? We’ve slowed down prose for the sake of lazy language (“lunch was awesome”). Whatever.
The language of Twitter is superficiality incarnate. If Jane Austin was using Twitter when she wrote Pride and Prejudice, this is what we would be reading: “@janeaustin Woman meets man called Darcy who seems horrible. He turns out to be nice really. They get together.”
The cure for this is more commitment to the appreciation and usage of language. Read more; take notes of expressions that are brief but potent. Take a creative writing course. That’s when you learn to appreciate the difference between writing sentences like “He hit me” vs. “He decked me” vs. “He Steven Segal’ed my butt.”
Specifics mobilize the brain; by selecting words that are specific (vs. corporate clichés or generic words), you can enable students to focus on your content for longer periods of time. And when you choose just the right word, you can achieve brevity as well, which means that your training can be a bit longer and it can have more substance (since statements are crafted carefully and free of non-words). I recently learned the Portuguese word saudade. On the surface, it means longing for someone who is not around. But when you study it more, you discover additional texture and touch. The tiny word is a summary of all that matters: profound feelings for someone whose picture may be in black and white, yet you still retain the colors; someone whose existence has redesigned your daily choreography; someone who earned the right to open your bedroom window in the morning and whose absence triggers all the senses ... Imagine all these feelings in one little word! That’s the power of language. That’s how much meaning we can pack in a few letters, if we just took the time to look. Festina lente.
Getting specific with words means acquiring a better vocabulary. Word power does wonders to substance because language has the potential to shape thoughts. When I was researching information for this article, I came across the word sciolism, which means claims of knowledge we don’t have; instead of saying we don’t know, we pretend that we do. While I would not use the word sciolism in a conversation (imagine the looks at a cocktail party), it did prompt me to think of one area that I included in this section concerned with using words to make the discourse appear in a more positive light. Language can often shape thinking; acquire more of it.
Another reason we turn our discourse into empty sentences is because of too much insistence on political correctness. I was recently going to interview a well-known presenter on a topic I am passionate about: beginnings of presentations. Amongst questions such as what constitutes a good beginning and where could we find inspiration for them, I was also going to ask: is there a difference between the way men and women start their presentations? I was advised not to ask this question for politically correct reasons. Such a shame, as the question was genuine and could have led to good conversation and deeper thinking. Do men open with a challenge? Do women open with consensus? Or is it the other way around? I don’t know and I was afraid to ask.
The zeal for PC (“politically correct”) speech is leading to overly sanitized phrases that are meant to take the sting out of reality and provide a palatable but superficial impression of what happens around us. We don’t travel “economy,” we travel “coach.” We don’t “fail”; we experience “deferred success.” Some hospitals do not talk about “death” but “negative patient outcome.” On the other extreme, we adopt an over-the-top linguistic style, created to provide an inflated sense of importance of the content and conceal the shallowness of ideas. Obscure language is meant to impress. We use words to create positive auras and bolster egos. Everyone is a Vice President of some sort.
How excited would you be and how much substance would you expect to get out of the e-Learning program in Figure 6? Would Figure 7 give you a different set of expectations?
One cure for linguistic laxity is to design courses about content you’re familiar with and you’ve experienced directly. Actors tend to be more successful when they act what they know. It’s the same in e-Learning design. When you write about what you know, your language is crisp, clear, fresh, and precise. There is a difference between knowing about something vs. knowing it directly. The botanist knows about the flower, the bee knows it directly. You might not become the bee, but you can do diligence to depth by constant research, solid interviewing skills, and critical thinking skills. The more you stay the busy bee, the better the results and the student satisfaction scores.
Doing something about superficiality
In order to apply the cures suggested in this article, you must ensure that you have enough energy. There is a link between superficiality and our physiology. We are quickly turning into a society of tired people. How can we run an intellectual marathon, when our mind can barely run 5k? I am sure your New Year resolutions include at least one about your health and energy level. Place it at the top.
I recommend Richard Paul’s book on the topic of critical thinking, which reminds all of us that we should be engaged more often in constructive skepticism and in the art of in-depth approach to information that matters. And avoid the type of thinking that keeps one’s ego captive and is free of social conditioning and is on a constant rush. This way, when a SME pressures you into publishing content on quantum gravity, you know better.
The overall plea of this article is to convince you to avoid superficiality and engage in more critical thinking. Keep in mind that when we provide superficial e-Learning, we are not transmitting knowledge, but rather the illusion of it. And illusory e-Learning can be corrosive and regressive. Be more thorough in your approach to e-Learning and do not engage in substance abuse.
