I’m working hard on preparing my dissertation proposal for Institutional Review Board approval and thus will take the next two weeks off.  See you again on July 2nd.

Developing a two-week course on how to create GOOD PowerPoints. Last week, I had an impacted molar that felt like someone was pounding a nail through my jaw into my brain. Even so, it wasn’t as bad as an hour-an-half PowerPoint that I had to sit through.

There is a small, vocal minority of folks that claim that letting everyone contribute and collaborate their collective knowledge is going to lead to the dumbing down of America and the world.  What is especially ironic to me is that the charge is led by Andrew Keen of Encyclopedia Britannica which, if he knew the history of the Encyclopedia, would realize the nonsense he is spouting.    The EB was founded in 1768 by members of the Scottish Enlightment who were the “Web 2.0″ of their time because they also challenged the prevailing authorities of their time and sought to make knowledge accessible to everyone.  Yesterday’s rebels are today’s establishment.

Now, better bloggers than I have written extensively on why Keen and his gang are so wrong about Web 2.0 and what they have to say is well worth reading.  All I have to add is that when we spend more time debating over who is the authority on the subject than actually exploring the subject, we are wasting precious time and brainpower.  Frankly, anyone who is a student of history, realizes the dangers of centralizing and controlling access to knowledge.  Every dictator in history has learned that the first step is to control what people think and can say.  And history is also replete with well-educated authorities who make incredibly-stupid statements and hold back human progress.

And don’t believe that only amateurs can produce drivel and focus on the trival.  I work in academia and believe me, there are plenty of professionals and authorities that match the “amateurs” in piles and piles of b.s.  Like in all marketplaces, the market for ideas has some great buys along with the junk stores.  But the solution is a more open marketplace and not to stop competition.

I ran across this while working on my dissertation proposal.  A major part of my research involves Senge’s theory of the learning organization with an emphasis on mental models and shared vision.  Anyway, while reviewing his book, I was reminded of the chapter on the use of “micro-worlds” which is his term for simulations.  He claims that the benefit of simulations is that allows managers to experiment with management techniques and learn how to integrate the five disciplines in their work.

This reminded me of another book which also advocates the use of simulations but as a way of rapidly developing professionals.  In Deep Smarts: How to Cultivate and Transfer Enduring Business Wisdom, Leonard and Swap write about the 10-year rule in which it takes 10-years of experience for a professional to gain deep smarts.  But, by using a combination of simulations and mentoring, the process can be shortened.  Considering the aging workforce and the need for trained professionals, no wonder simulations are gaining popularity.

The final book I thought of doesn’t actually mention simulations but I can see how simulations could be beneficial for organizations to avoid bad risk events.  Robert Mittelstaedt’s book is focused on how to avoid business disasters by detecting and stopping the chain of mistakes that lead to the eventual catastrophe.  A major piece of his advice is that managers need to pay attention to data and to not dismiss situations as impossible.  I think a way of helping managers to deal better with emergencies is to simulate the unlikely events and to help managers develop instincts for believing the data and dealing with facts as they are.

Brent Schlenker was kind enough to comment on my last posting about T+D’s article on simulations (sorry about the registration requirement but you won’t believe the amount of spam I get).  He agrees that reflection is an important part of learning and I appreciate that.  But it also makes me wonder just what is meant by reflection?

Of course there is single-loop learning and double-loop learning which seems to be the main models.  But there are many other models that can be useful.  Here is one that seems particulary useful for online courses - “Designing for reflection in online courses” by Jan Herrington and Ron Oliver.  Looks another research topic for the summer.

The June 2007 issue of T+D magazine has a short article about slow acceptance of simulations into training.  Consisting of interviews with Clark Aldrich, Clark Quinn, and Brad Sugars, the main point is that simulations still face resistance from more conservative organizations.

This is understandable concerning the current status of simulations.  It is true that simulations can be a powerful training tool but the development and implementation is much greater than the other training methods.  And if the simulation is not supported by reflective activities and orientation activities, the benefits will not be realized.  That is why when I designed an introductory public administration course around two simulations, I made sure to include both individual and team reflection activities along with webinars on basic skills necessary for the adequately using the simulation.

Both learning and training need blended approaches to fully realize the value of the instruction.

And there seems to be a collective “huh?” from the confused students.  My instructor attributes such as courtesy, clarity, helpfulness, etc. are still hovering between 4.3 and 4.5 on a 5-point scale. But the course characteristics such as evaluation instruments, course assignments aligned with course goals, and knowledge gained dropped, on the average, 0.5 points from the average of 4.3 to 3.8 (again on a 5-point scale).

The most common complaints:

1. Too many assignments.
2. The incentive-based grading made no sense
3. The points didn’t reflect the difficulty of some assignments.
4. The course topics didn’t seem to connect to each other.
5. I hate group projects.

I have to agree with the students.  The new course design is such a departure from the traditional “stand-and-deliver” and “memorize-test-and-forget” models that I should have spent more time explaining how the course will work.  At least more documentation and guidance would have helped especially with the idea of having the students create a work-plan to help them monitor their progress.

The intersession term just ended yesterday and it was grueling.  It is difficult to cram a semester into three weeks even if you have three hours for fifteen days.  The trick is to make the class information-rich without causing information-overload.