As a final reflection on this semester, I am amazed at what I have learned. It was certainly a long and challenging semester. The amount of work necessary to be accomplished for a three credit class exceeded what I was anticipating, but in the end it may have been for the best. I certainly approach my message design with a new light and new vision that was probably realistically there under the surface all along, but I wasn't able to formulate what made it good or bad.
Creating effective message design is not easy, and I still struggle mightily with it daily. It seems like it should be a breeze to think creatively, but deadlines, outside distractions, dry material and creative lapses make it tougher than it seems. However, with practice and review, I think I will find this semester to have been one of the most influential of my sessions at UCD.
Good (and bad) message design is all around. In watching the evening news, I gained a new perspective when examining the differences between the local and national news presentation styles. Granted the budget levels make the graphics easier to accommodate, but local news seems to carry much more of a "read the bullets" style of message, where as the national news uses the backgrounds and graphics as an enhancement tool. Music videos (at least good ones) can tell two stories at the same time. The music plays and gives a message, and the story plays out on the screen. Sometimes it matches, some times it doesn't. Regardless, the visual elements that have been so key to all of the readings and projects make for the most effective design. And it is out there, you just have to open your eyes to look and realize. We often shut our brains down from messages due to the bombardment of overstimulating messages we see each day, but a really effective storyteller or visual message stands out. And not to say that every message we make should have to reach that point, but we should all set it as a goal if we want our messages to sink in.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Free versus Pay
Over the process of the semester, we have had the opportunity to examine many collaborative communication options, most of which were free. Many were great and provided new and awesome ideas. Many had in my opinion questionable value, but may serve a purpose for the right time and place.
Many free options came with their series of glitches and qwerps, that reinforced the idea of "you get what you pay for." In my new job, I have found that many pay options provide similar tools, and often don't carry the same glitches.
However, depending upon the project, there is also value in simplicity. I explored a 30 day trial for a concept mapping tool, but found the free mapping options to be easier to use for my purposes. The pay option carried a lot of interesting options, bells, whistles and extra features, but when push came to shove they served to complicate what was a simple task. It would have taken me hours to sort through how to add images, linking options, etc. The free option I figured out in about three minutes flat.
If I was using the tool more consistently or in a more professional setting, the extra options may have served me well. However, for a quick and dirty, the free choice was the better option.
Many free options came with their series of glitches and qwerps, that reinforced the idea of "you get what you pay for." In my new job, I have found that many pay options provide similar tools, and often don't carry the same glitches.
However, depending upon the project, there is also value in simplicity. I explored a 30 day trial for a concept mapping tool, but found the free mapping options to be easier to use for my purposes. The pay option carried a lot of interesting options, bells, whistles and extra features, but when push came to shove they served to complicate what was a simple task. It would have taken me hours to sort through how to add images, linking options, etc. The free option I figured out in about three minutes flat.
If I was using the tool more consistently or in a more professional setting, the extra options may have served me well. However, for a quick and dirty, the free choice was the better option.
Collaborate or not to collaborate
Web 2.0 brings a lot of wonderful ideas and developments to the internet at large. Collaborative efforts can bring new ideas, new technologies, and new viewpoints into what could many times be a strict one sided interpretation. However, one also has to wonder if the depth of content of the message can be lost with too many "cooks stirring the stew." As nearly every news story now provides users the ability to comment, I have noticed numerous discussions that often make my head hurt from the triviality or simple stupidity of user comments. I have also found some very intelligent conversation pieces, but they are often overshadowed by those of lesser intelligence.
I am not commenting or believing that everyone's points do not have value, but allowing anyone and everyone to comment can create an overwhelming sense of hubris and self importance that reduces the value of the discussion. If one has to read through pages of Broncoz Rul to reach a valid discussion on NFL players and handgun use, the intelligent thoughts are often overlooked and lost to time.
I am not commenting or believing that everyone's points do not have value, but allowing anyone and everyone to comment can create an overwhelming sense of hubris and self importance that reduces the value of the discussion. If one has to read through pages of Broncoz Rul to reach a valid discussion on NFL players and handgun use, the intelligent thoughts are often overlooked and lost to time.
Changing stlyes of message design in eLearning
So this blog entry has been rewritten at least 4 times now. I know that defeats the purpose of a blog, but I wanted to try to have it make a sensible point.
Message design applied to eLearning, especially WBT or CBT certainly has its differences from traditional methods of training and instruction. I've had many conversations recently about our practices of message design in our training output. One colleague of mine in particular has shown resistance to many of the ideas discussed in team discussions from what we have learned this semester. He feels that reducing the message output on the screen reduces the value of the training, and learners aren't really getting the whole picture of the topic. While I see value in his points, as we do have a certain amount of detail to get across, I think there is a lot of misplaced resistance that will result in many challenges in the future.
Numerous readings we have explored this semester have all talked about no more than 200 words or less on a screen at any time. In many ways, I would argue for even less. When I personally approach a training module on my own time (as our users are required to) I am very resistant to sitting and reading several paragraphs worth of material. I (and many others like me) am not comfortable reading that much text on a screen. Furthermore, it also brings into question the value of using the medium to present lengthy text (harkening back to Tufte's ideas).
On the flip side however, I am cautious from totally "drinking the kool-aid" of Duarte's ideas. Much of what she and Reynolds present deals with a traditional stand up presentation. Given that our eLearning is taken in an asynchronous manner with bandwitdth, content and time issues that prevent us from extending into too much detail, I am not sure how to bring it all together.
At the least, it is important to keep this information in the forefront when you design instruction, even if you cannot follow them all the time. As our audience and the technology changes, the two will certainly converge to make greater use of the methodologies in a happy medium to make for effective message design and training.
Message design applied to eLearning, especially WBT or CBT certainly has its differences from traditional methods of training and instruction. I've had many conversations recently about our practices of message design in our training output. One colleague of mine in particular has shown resistance to many of the ideas discussed in team discussions from what we have learned this semester. He feels that reducing the message output on the screen reduces the value of the training, and learners aren't really getting the whole picture of the topic. While I see value in his points, as we do have a certain amount of detail to get across, I think there is a lot of misplaced resistance that will result in many challenges in the future.
Numerous readings we have explored this semester have all talked about no more than 200 words or less on a screen at any time. In many ways, I would argue for even less. When I personally approach a training module on my own time (as our users are required to) I am very resistant to sitting and reading several paragraphs worth of material. I (and many others like me) am not comfortable reading that much text on a screen. Furthermore, it also brings into question the value of using the medium to present lengthy text (harkening back to Tufte's ideas).
On the flip side however, I am cautious from totally "drinking the kool-aid" of Duarte's ideas. Much of what she and Reynolds present deals with a traditional stand up presentation. Given that our eLearning is taken in an asynchronous manner with bandwitdth, content and time issues that prevent us from extending into too much detail, I am not sure how to bring it all together.
At the least, it is important to keep this information in the forefront when you design instruction, even if you cannot follow them all the time. As our audience and the technology changes, the two will certainly converge to make greater use of the methodologies in a happy medium to make for effective message design and training.
Gliffy and other mapping tools
I took some time to explore Gliffy, an online mapping and more tool. I think there are some really neat features and possibilities that come with the product. It offers mapping in the forms of a number of features. You can diagram everything from a floor plan to assembling a IT network plan. I particularly could probably have benefitted from this tool when designing my EdWeb project. The technical drawing feature could be useful in some of my work with the Health and Safety team to outline how operations work. The floor planning feature was an interesting feature, but not one that I could necessarily use in my current position. but could be helpful at home to help with redesigning our home floorplans.
The collaborative features of this program can also help in the development of your project as well. The free option provides many of the features that can make it successful. Upgrading to the premium version could have it's benefits, but at $5 a month can also quickly add up. I would say this program would be worth considering for future projects, but would likely start with the free option
In the process of developing my Package with a Purpose project, I examined a few different options like Mind42.com and other Web 2.0 mind mapping tools. While I found these to be useful for their cross-computer options, I found the tools to be less than perfect. The controls were often touchy and in the end I found myself resorting back to Duarte's comments about simplicity and using sticky notes. As cool and interactive as many of these programs are, the hands on manipulatives often make the idea development more concrete and easier to handle. In my opinion anyway. :)
The collaborative features of this program can also help in the development of your project as well. The free option provides many of the features that can make it successful. Upgrading to the premium version could have it's benefits, but at $5 a month can also quickly add up. I would say this program would be worth considering for future projects, but would likely start with the free option
In the process of developing my Package with a Purpose project, I examined a few different options like Mind42.com and other Web 2.0 mind mapping tools. While I found these to be useful for their cross-computer options, I found the tools to be less than perfect. The controls were often touchy and in the end I found myself resorting back to Duarte's comments about simplicity and using sticky notes. As cool and interactive as many of these programs are, the hands on manipulatives often make the idea development more concrete and easier to handle. In my opinion anyway. :)
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
It's been a while...
So I figured it is time to post. It has been a transformational time, with the birth of my daughter and the subsequent wonder that has come since.
This week, I checked out a few of the new postings for Web 2.0 tools. Ustream.tv looks interesting, and seems to fall under the category of videos postings that people can make about themselves. These video sites continue to amaze me because of the number of them that are out there, and that someone apparently watches all of these. Who has time to watch all of these? Furthermore, I heard a discussion lately about the upcoming generations obliviousness to the lack of security in posting information about yourself to Facebook or MySpace and them not realizing it can come back to haunt them. I see the same potential here. I guess I'm just too busy with other things to really consider this a possibility.
Bubbl.us (interesting name) offers brainstorming solutions. I like the potential here, because brainstorming can be helpful. Having a place to brainstorm could be good, but I often find a pen and paper to serve much of the same purpose. When I taught, we used Inspiration for this same purpose, and it was really helpful. I could see the same potential for this, with a free application. It may also be useful as a collaborative tool (although I'm not sure this is offered with this program).
I am simply happy to be on the homestretch of grad school. As Annabelle continues to grow daily, I will be ecstatic to come home at night and have the ability to just hang out with her and not worry about what projects I need to brainstorm for. I figure though, as I've said many times, if I can make it through this, I can make it through anything!
This week, I checked out a few of the new postings for Web 2.0 tools. Ustream.tv looks interesting, and seems to fall under the category of videos postings that people can make about themselves. These video sites continue to amaze me because of the number of them that are out there, and that someone apparently watches all of these. Who has time to watch all of these? Furthermore, I heard a discussion lately about the upcoming generations obliviousness to the lack of security in posting information about yourself to Facebook or MySpace and them not realizing it can come back to haunt them. I see the same potential here. I guess I'm just too busy with other things to really consider this a possibility.
Bubbl.us (interesting name) offers brainstorming solutions. I like the potential here, because brainstorming can be helpful. Having a place to brainstorm could be good, but I often find a pen and paper to serve much of the same purpose. When I taught, we used Inspiration for this same purpose, and it was really helpful. I could see the same potential for this, with a free application. It may also be useful as a collaborative tool (although I'm not sure this is offered with this program).
I am simply happy to be on the homestretch of grad school. As Annabelle continues to grow daily, I will be ecstatic to come home at night and have the ability to just hang out with her and not worry about what projects I need to brainstorm for. I figure though, as I've said many times, if I can make it through this, I can make it through anything!
Friday, September 26, 2008
Week 6: Oh what a night!
This is going to be an interesting posting, as while I write this, my wife is in labor. The first stages of labor often take several hours (we've been here since noon) so I've got down time and wanted to try to get this in while she's laying and contracting.
I thought this week's choices were diverse, interesting and offered some good potentials. Jing and Screen-cast-o-matic seem like interesting free alternatives to the standard camtasia/captivate/snapz pro options. As noted on the Jing site, it is like camtasia lite. But the alternative is that it provides faster access, quicker deliverables and most importantly it's free. I thought screen-cast-o-matic was interesting as well, but it seemed like a cheaper version of Jing. Jing's site seemed much more organized and clean, whereas s.c.o.m's was more jumbled and not as professionally clean. I haven't watched their tutorials as much, but I think given the options I'd go with Jing.
Diigo is another choice that provides an alternative to del.icio.us but kicks it up a notch with the highlighting and notetaking options. You can also more easily group yourself together with others, as we have done in the 5650 class to pool our resources. I have found del.icio.us an interesting way to get some sites I never would have found, and I often bookmark sites and forget what was so neat about them that made me bookmark them in the first place. So this seems to have some good potential for that.
Finally, I think Poll Everywhere is just what high school teachers everywhere have been looking for (if teachers could allow students to use text messages in school that is.) It combines the ability to test your audience with the technology students love to use anyway. I had experience with polling and question systems like this in my classroom experience, and found that the students loved it as a tech, yet simple alternative to raising their hands or taking tests in class on paper. I think there is some neat potential with this. On a larger scale (and with their membership packages) I could see this being a great easy way to test large scale audiences.
So, hopefully this baby will come soon and my world will be completely upheaved. In the meantime, that's all for now.
I thought this week's choices were diverse, interesting and offered some good potentials. Jing and Screen-cast-o-matic seem like interesting free alternatives to the standard camtasia/captivate/snapz pro options. As noted on the Jing site, it is like camtasia lite. But the alternative is that it provides faster access, quicker deliverables and most importantly it's free. I thought screen-cast-o-matic was interesting as well, but it seemed like a cheaper version of Jing. Jing's site seemed much more organized and clean, whereas s.c.o.m's was more jumbled and not as professionally clean. I haven't watched their tutorials as much, but I think given the options I'd go with Jing.
Diigo is another choice that provides an alternative to del.icio.us but kicks it up a notch with the highlighting and notetaking options. You can also more easily group yourself together with others, as we have done in the 5650 class to pool our resources. I have found del.icio.us an interesting way to get some sites I never would have found, and I often bookmark sites and forget what was so neat about them that made me bookmark them in the first place. So this seems to have some good potential for that.
Finally, I think Poll Everywhere is just what high school teachers everywhere have been looking for (if teachers could allow students to use text messages in school that is.) It combines the ability to test your audience with the technology students love to use anyway. I had experience with polling and question systems like this in my classroom experience, and found that the students loved it as a tech, yet simple alternative to raising their hands or taking tests in class on paper. I think there is some neat potential with this. On a larger scale (and with their membership packages) I could see this being a great easy way to test large scale audiences.
So, hopefully this baby will come soon and my world will be completely upheaved. In the meantime, that's all for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)