Templates are killing creativity

Cookie cutters: detriment to creativity, or fuel to the creative fire?
Last week, while I was updating something on LinkedIn, I saw one of my colleagues post a link to a post by the eLearning Brothers called The Top 10 Best eLearning Game Templates. I am generally not a fan of such list-posts, but every now and again I come across something really interesting.  I usually don't teach courses on CBT, WBT or other self-paced eLearning.  It's an interesting topic, but it really isn't my cup of tea, so I wouldn't voluntarily agree to teach an entire semester of such a course.

In any case, last semester I was peer reviewing a colleague's course (and to some extent co-teaching it because I had a hand in grading and content and assignment creation), which just so happened to be in Multimedia.  The particular spin that this course took was to use multimedia to create a self-paced course. So, with this fresh in my mind, with the discussions we had last week in #rhizo14 about cheating as learning, and this week about enforcing independence, this post from the eLearning brothers came in as the glue to tie it all together.

The thing that really came to mind is that templates for eLearning packages is really detrimental to designer creativity, or at least it can be. Many people that I could would take one of these templates and just use them, as is, as part of their own self-paced eLearning course, be it embedded into another storyline training, or as a separate game in an LMS course shell that contains a variety of smaller self-paced eLearning training.  The problem with these templates is that they lose their potency the more you use them. The learner becomes resistant to the novelty of the new the more they are exposed to such template-based eLearning, and we just go back to having point-and-click-and-click-and-click...until you get to the end.

Now, when it comes to the education, and training, of future instructional designers and educational software developers I think that templates do have their place, but not as off-the-shelf turn-key solutions, but as exemplars of what can be accomplished.  If we take those templates and reverse engineer them, to see what makes them tick, learners can build their own eLearning templates from scratch using the knowledge they gained from reverse engineering some good exemplars. Thus "cheating" in a way to fuel their creativity, and to encourage independence from the established "best" templates and go off on their own design directions.

What do you think of templates?

Comments

Apostolos K. ("AK") said…
I think that templates can be used as exemplars and/or as a scaffolding device. For many programs, the templates allow access for the uninitiated or non-design savvy. If the user is considering the reverse engineering, given time (and willingness, effort, engagement...), the user will want to create their own design.


As a starting point where someone can say, "Hey, look what I did!" I think it can be helpful.
January 22, 2014 at 8:20 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Academic Facepalm (evaluation edition)

Image
Back in December, I was searching for the #tenure hashtag on twitter.   There was some discussion (probably stated by Jesse Stommel 😜) which prompted me to search for this #hashtag out of curiosity to see what was tagged.  Along with heartwarming stories of people who've just earned tenure (a nice perk right before the winter break!), there was this wonderful tweet specimen... I'm not gonna lie.  IT BUGS ME. It bugs me as a learner.   I've always completed course evaluations and I tried to give honest feedback to the professor.  If the course was easy, hard, just right, I wanted them to know.  If I was appreciative, I wanted them to know.  Yes, sometimes I've half-assed it and just completed the Likert scale with a "loved the course" comment at the end, but many times I try to be more concrete about the feedback. It bugs me as a program manager. I am the individual who sets up, collects, and often reminds students, about the course evaluations.  M
Read more

Discussion forums in MOOCs are counter-productive...well, sort of...

Image
The other day I was reading this blog post on why MOOC forums are counter-productive .  I was really thinking hard about this and my initial inclination is to agree. Forums, in MOOCs, are  counter-productive. But, as with most things in life, there is a big asterisk here. If we look at how MOOCs are setup, and by MOOC here I mean xMOOC since that's what most people think of, the discussion board is one big crazy mess. Coursera has done something interesting in crowdsourcing thread relevancy by allowing people to up-vote or down-vote threads, but at their core these discussions are setup like every other discussion forum out there in traditional education: There usually is a prompt that people will answer, and answers can be repetitive as well, so when you are the 1000th poster to a question prompt and you see that others have answered something similar to your answers, what is the motivation to wade through many, many, many similar answers in order to find the subtle contextual
Read more

Latour: Third Source of Uncertainty - Objects have agency too!

Image
Continuing on my exploration of ANT, and asynchronous and indirect dialogue with Latour - this blog post will cover the third source of uncertainty, which according to Latour, is that Objects have agency too! As with the previous blog posts, I've pulled out quotes from the book that seemed interesting, or that I reacted to in some way, and I am responding to them here. no tie can be said to be durable and made of social stuff (p. 66) This quote seems to continue Latour's assertion that there is no such thing as "social" or "social stuff" and that "social", or the meaning of needs to be negotiated and better understood.  It also continues the thought that social can only be seen from the actions of its actors, the traces they leave behind, and that these bonds are not durable because they need continuous reinforcement. I guess Social is a perishable item. Left to its own devices, a power relationship that mobilizes nothing but social skil
Read more