By John Jarrett, Vice President, Project Operations / Implementation, Visual Purple, LLC
Ah, semantics. As a long-time educator, trainer, and instructional designer, I tend to focus on practicality when a debate such as this occurs. If we focus on semantics, Chuck is correct – education and training are different. If we focus on the practicalities required to provide a useful education or practical training, the distinction blurs.
Chuck is correct when he says, “The intent of education is to develop a student’s knowledge and theoretical understanding in a field of study,” but of what use is such knowledge and theoretical understanding if the application (training) is not provided as well? If, as Chuck states, “…the intent of training is to improve a learner’s specific performance of a task” is true, then do we not need to be concerned with understanding the task? My favorite example is a cashier making change. It’s an exercise in grade-school math, but most cashiers can’t do it. True story: for a $16.08 purchase, I handed the cashier a twenty, let him enter it into the cash register and waited until the machine calculated the change. I then handed him an additional $1.08. The cahier stared in horror at the additional funds. He then handed the $1.08 back to me and gave me the $3.92 the machine insisted I was due. The cashier was trained, but not educated. My point is that either one (education or training) without the other is nearly useless.
We begin building our products at Visual Purple by first asking two questions: “Who do you want to train,” and “What do you want them to know.” In asking these questions the way we do, we blur the distinction between education and training. “What do you want them to know” sounds like “education,” but the implication (and intent) is that the client will want them to know not only content, but what to do with the content as well. Visual Purple has never built a product that was strictly education or strictly training.
Education and training are ying and yang, peanut butter and jelly, heads and tails – you can’t have one without the other if your goal is to provide a useful education or practical training.
By Chuck Hunter, Project Manager and Instructional Designer, Visual Purple, LLC
Welcome to Visual Purple’s first point, counterpoint debate. We often have differences of opinion as we poke around at the leading edge of technology. So, it was not unusual the other day when we off-roaded into a lively discussion about education verses training. I took the position that education and training are different while my boss is hard pressed to see real differences. This discussion certainly is not new nor is it earth shattering, but understanding the distinction is important when designing instruction suitable to the intent.
The intent of education is to develop a student’s knowledge and theoretical understanding in a field of study where the intent of training is to improve a learner’s specific performance of a task. In other words education is the arena of “why,” where training is the arena of “how to.” For instance there are numerous examples where following a learned procedure will lead to perfect performance each and every time without understanding why the procedure works. Thus, there is training without education. It is also possible to understand the theoretical without being able to perform specific related tasks. Thus, there is education without training.
The conceptual importance of the education verses training distinction in instructional design bears directly on the learner’s need for the information, the nature of the course content and the learning assessment tools employed in the instructional delivery. Educational course development might focus on the philosophy of a topic with readings and open discussions to deliver the course content while exposition might be used to assess understanding of the content. Training course development would certainly focus on procedures and facts in the content while assessment of understanding would include a means of performing the procedures contained within the course content. For example an understanding of accounts receivable and its impact on financial statements would be considered educational while the specific procedures for creating invoices and receiving payments in JDEdwards is clearly specific performance of tasks. The former could be contained within management education totally without procedural reference while the latter could be contained within training for accounts receivable staff totally without any reference to accounts receivables impact on organizational goals.
At a minimum there is a difference in concept and approach when designing instruction for theoretical and philosophical knowledge verses procedural facts. The terms education and training serve as long held and effective terms to differentiate between the types of content and the intent associated with each.
I’ll leave you to consider these common examples and the affect of interchanging the terms education and training:
– “Higher education” verses “Higher training”
– “Corporate Training” verses “Corporate Education”
– “American Society for Training and Development” verses “American Society for Education and Development”
– “Liberal Arts Education” verses “Liberal Arts training”
– “Dog Training” verses “Dog Education”
Use of virtual worlds to market real world product…
A variety of well known brands are setting up shop in Virtual Worlds. Why is this? While it is a relatively new medium for advertising this is a clear demonstration of branding, and not necessarily direct marketing. For the vast majority of companies that have entered virtual world spaces for advertising/promotion purposes success is reported, whereas a handful of others have pulled out stating no clear value return on investment.
With the interruption of marketing/ advertising messages into our world on a high frequency basis- are we even paying attention to companies trying to brand in a virtual world space? Most of us enter a virtual world for pleasure to interact and unwind from the “real-world” while others enter a virtual world to conduct business. Once an untapped arena, now virtual world/real-world crossover promotions are becoming common place. Many high-profile players have migrated into SL and other rival online worlds for brand promotion. For marketers, it is a new channel to explore, filled for the most part with fresh eyes and impressionable young adults to market products to. More and more companies are moving into the virtual space utilizing in-world marketing campaigns while some virtual world sites remain advertisement-free. Major brands like Coca-Cola with an online island in SL see real value in delivering an advertising message to consumers via virtual world advertising/ branding.
So what’s the future of advertising/ branding within the virtual world space? I would suggest that with the current state of the economy some marketers will cut experimental advertising in VW’s, however some marketers will view virtual worlds as an opportunity to take a low-dollar risk while typical big-dollar budgets for traditional advertising mediums such as: television, radio, and print are summarily slashed. Virtual worlds have been around just long enough to demonstrate clear results/ advantages, although some marketers have been skittish and remain skeptical of this emerging marketing opportunity. The jury is still out if the smart investment is in virtual worlds just yet. Me, my money is on virtual: Engagement equals results and virtual worlds have the high ground!
Interactive Intelligence (I2™)
I2 was developed as a cognitive research tool by Visual Purple experts to track and provide feedback on trainee performance, decision style, and aptitude. After determining where the trainee’s strengths and weaknesses lie, I2 adapts the simulation to provide the trainee practice and challenge in the needed areas of growth. I2 is well suited to operation in virtual world environments as the many variables in the 3D world require the trainee to take initiative and action.
Using eight patented algorithms, the technology determines and provides significant information about the trainee’s processing methods. A sampling…
-Predictive ability: is the trainee able to foresee the consequences of decisions?
-Knowledge threshold: how much information is required before making a decision?
-Decision speed: how much time does the trainee need before making a decision?
-Closure: does the trainee make revisions and linger or move quickly to the next decision?
-Precision: are the trainees’ decisions accurate and consistent?
1) Pay Attention to Leaning Modes
People remember:
20% of what they see,
40% of what they see and hear, and
70% of what they hear, see and do.
Thus the use of simulation training is most effective.
2) Focus on Content
Engaging content is key in developing any type of simulation whether it be Virtual World, Embedded Training or Decision-Based.
3) Implementation of Reporting and Analysis Tools Within the Training Program
Key to any training program is the ability to track progress and results of the trainee.
4) Train for What is Needed
Train people in skills and information that are immediately applicable on the job, engage the learner!
With the latest immersive training news that the United States Joint Forces Command is investing $36M into a technology basket of immersive training solutions, I thought it only appropriate to share some observations: While this specific example may not put users in the Enterprise holodeck, though we’re getting closer, it is yet further validation to the sheer power and efficacy of simulation. Military simulation has been around for a long time. $36M may not seem like pocket change, unless of course you’re comparing it to the “Stimulus” bill, it is most likely a real bargain in this case. Why? The military wisely decided to have JOINT (emphasis added) Forces Command, or JFCOM, take the lead as what appears to be a large scale aggregation and integration of largely off-the-shelf technologies being bolted together for specific and expanded training scenarios. As a taxpayer, we should all be happy. As a warfighter, we should thank God.
Virtual Worlds are currently most popular within the younger generations. Why is that? According to the Virtual Worlds Management Report there are over 200 youth-oriented virtual worlds live, planned, or in active development. Wow! The booming youth market has seen the most growth among virtual world adoption and registered users across all ages with millions of active members and more virtual worlds targeted at kids launching every day. Within the ever growing virtual world sector, the younger age demographic is broken down into the following three classifications: Kids (Age 7 and under), Tweens (Ages 8-12), and Teens (Ages 13 and older). When you start to think about it most of the more well known virtual worlds existing today are targeted at the “younger generations:” Disney’s Club Penguin, McDonalds McWorld®, and Habbo® Virtual Hangout for teens featuring American Idol are just a few examples. Not to mention virtual pet sites where you can design your own dog, horse, fish and many other furry or creepy friends. I enjoy my real dog and horse, thank you. There also exists a variety of youth and young adult brands within the virtual world sector that are specifically target boys or girls as residents, Barbie® is just one example off the top of my head.
Kids today spend their time playing virtual world games online rather than watching TV, parents are adapting to the idea of allowing their children the freedom to play within a virtual world – as long as they know it is safe. Within the children’s market, virtual worlds are now mainstream, marketers are utilizing virtual worlds to reach their youth orientated audiences directly. The ever expanding market for kid-based virtual worlds will continue to see a rise in unique accounts. Virtual worlds are still a growth market across all age demographics, however they are most well-known among the kids, tween and teen virtual world sectors. No doubt, this targeted demographic will continue to expand usage of virtual worlds and perhaps sway parents to try their hand within a virtual world application…yes, parents are teachable.
Long gone are the days of uncomfortable metal desks and lugging heavy backpacks around overloaded with books. Online education is now a major part of today’s school campus. Virtual versions of a campus, otherwise known as a “Virtual Campus,” are continuing to grow in Second Life (SL). News of colleges and universities exploring and adopting virtual world presence are found in the news ever more frequently. Well known Ivy League universities such as Harvard, Princeton and Stanford have all adopted the use of virtual worlds for education and provide successful road-tested examples of SL in higher education. By utilizing emerging technology many students are able to attend lectures via a virtual world platform (without the virtual backpack). While SL seems to be the biggest and best sandbox to virtualize brick and mortar we are intrigued with the possibilities of laying into the sandbox structured, experiential learning – bringing a hands-on serious game construct to learning. Maybe the marriage of the emerging virtual campus with embedded simulations can bring a whole new dimension to “Final Exam!” How cool would it be to attend a virtual university where you could apply what you learned in the virtual classroom to a simulated world with attendant challenges and rewards. Think about it…this really could flip things…a final exam we could all look forward to! Much more to explore here…
