Comments on: Less than words

By: Dan R

Dan R — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:57:49 +0000

Well, it’s conference season – need to get a few bingo cards together and start playing for real!

By: Clark

Clark — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:38:51 +0000

Jane, ok, ok (pedant :).
Cammy, yep, say it even if they don’t comprehend it. Sigh.

By: Cammy Bean

Cammy Bean — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:30:29 +0000

In a competitive market, companies have to sound like they know what they’re talking about. So what do they do? They go out and check what everyone else is saying and then make sure they’re saying it too. And thus, a buzzword is born.

By: Clark

Clark — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:09:01 +0000

Wow, some very intriguing and serious comments.
Dan, the difference is between researchers/colleagues, and marketers. I think educators are hungry for eye-opening frameworks, and unfortunately not sufficiently discriminating.
Breanna, I think, hits on some of it. They are an easily communicated meme (sound bite logo, clear proposition), even it if it’s flawed. It’s better than what they’ve had, and no one’s connected the dots for them, they’ve no foundation or context to evaluate. It sounds important!
And, frankly, some folks will overhype to get attention and/or rewards.

By: Jane Bozarth

Jane Bozarth — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:24:30 +0000

er, make that “terms”…

By: Dave Ferguson

Dave Ferguson — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:05:08 +0000

When most people look at a finished product — a self-paced course, a serious game, a well-designed job aid — they see the surface. It’s much harder to see the analysis that went into that finished product. (I grew up in Detroit, where they knew a lot about the value of sheet metal.)

It’s not really stupidity at work, but it’s often oversimplification, I think. Okay, XYZ was a good (effective) learning experience, so things that look like XYZ will be — meaning, they’ll have sound, slick graphics, and they’ll use my name to personalize.

“Brain-based learning” just plain sounds good, at least until you ask yourself what alternative forms of learning there are (muscle memory, maybe). It’s too long and complex a chain for most people to keep in mind, so it gets collapsed. I’m afraid “brain based learning,” like learning styles and that simpleminded nonsense about remembering 10% of what you read, will be around for ages.

By: Breanna Hite

Breanna Hite — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 04:17:27 +0000

I think that is the way of bureaucracy-driven institutions (whether public or private) – they take a long time to be convinced of a concept, and once one finally catches on it gets reduced to a catchphrase that gets bandied about until it loses all meaning. Mostly, I think, because such institutions can’t figure out how to actually implement the original meeting.

By: Dan Willingham

Dan Willingham — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:44:22 +0000

This is, IMHO, a very important observation, one that I’ve been thinking about a lot in the last few months. It’s useful when there is not consensus among researchers. . .flourishing of ideas, etc. . . .but when there *is* consensus, ought there not to be some way that that consensus is communicated to those who use/implement the research? To continue with your example Clark, how did “brain based learning” gain such traction in education while going FAR beyond what the basic researchers would claim for their field? This is, to me, a systemic problem worthy of very serious thought.