Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Model learning

8 April 2009 by Clark 4 Comments

On Monday, a hearty Twitter exchange emerged when Jane Bozarth quoted Roger Schank “Why do we assume that theories of things must be taught to practitioners of those things?”   I stood up for theory, Cammy Bean and Dave Ferguson chimed in and next thing you know, we’re having a lively discussion in 140 characters.   With all the names to include, Dave pointed out we had even less space!

One side was stoutly defending that what SMEs thought was important wasn’t necessarily what practitioners needed.   The other side (that would be me) wanted to argue that it’s been demonstrated that having an underlying model is important in being able to deal with complex problems.

So, of course, the issue really was what we mean by theory.   It’s easy (and correct) to bash conceptual knowledge frameworks that don’t have applicability to the problem at hand; Dave revived the great quote: “In theory, there’s no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is.” He also cited Van Merrienboer & Kirschner as saying that teaching theory to successful practitioners can be detrimental. (BTW, see Dave’s great series of posts ‘translating‘ their work.) On the other hand, having models has clearly been shown to be valuable in adapting to complexity and ambiguity.   What’s a designer to do?

So, let me be clear.   If there’s a rote procedure to be followed, there’s no need for a theory.   In fact, there’s no need for training, since you ought to automate it!   Our brains are good at pattern matching, bad at rote repetition, and it seems to me to be sad if not criminal to have people do rote stuff that could be done better by machine; save the interesting and challenging tasks for us!

It’s when tasks are complex, ill-structured, and/or ambiguous with lots of decisions, that we need theories.   Or, rather, models.   Which, I think, is part of the confusion (and I may be to blame! :).

I’m   talking about an understanding of the underlying model that guides performance.   Any approach to a problem has (or should) a rationale behind it about why that’s the reason you do it this way, not that way.   It’s based upon some theory, but it should be resolved into a model that has just enough richness to help you decide when to do X and when to do Y. As I said many years ago:

I see mental models as dynamic.   That is, they’re causal explanations of system behaviour.   They are used to explain observed outcomes and to predict the effects of perturbations.

It’s the explanation and prediction capabilities that are important.   The problem is, if the situation’s complex enough (and most are, whether it’s controlling a production line, or dealing with a customer, or…), you can’t train on all the situations that a learner might face.   So then you need to provide guidance.   Yes, we’ll use example and practice context to support transfer, but we should refer back to a model that guides our performance. And that’s useful and necessary.

Cammy noted that it’s extra work to develop that model, and I acknowledge that.   I’ve said that good instructional design requires more work and knowledge on the part of the designer than we typically expect, which is why I don’t think you can do good ID without knowing some learning theory. (BTW, my Broken ID series addresses a lot of the above.)

So, let me be clear: in any reasonably complex domain (and you shouldn’t be training for simple issues: just give a job aid or automate or…), you should present the learner with a model that you reinforce in examples and practice.   It should not be an abstract academic theory, but a practical guide to why things are done this way and what governs the adaptation to circumstances.   As that model is acquired through examples and practice, you provide the basis for self-improving performance.

That’s my model for designing effective learning.   What’s yours?

On a side note, what I recall as to the various tweets, and what Twitter shows from each person, doesn’t have a perfect correlation.   While I acknowledge my memory failing more frequently (just age, not dementia or Alzheimer’s, I *think*), I’m pretty sure that Twitter dropped some of those messages from the record (the same time they acknowledged having trouble with dropping avatar images).   Tweeter beware!

Comments

  1. Dave Ferguson says

    8 April 2009 at 11:29 AM

    Clark, apart from the 140-character limit, it was like one of those hallway conversations where the right people just happen to show up.

    As you know, van Merrienboer and Kirscner would agree with your post that an underlying model is important–probably essential–for dealing with complex problems. The two groups they suggest make a lot of sense to me: a conceptual map of the domain involved (as in, what does the world of “manufacturing maintenance” or “management-labor relations” look like?), and cognitive strategies used by skilled practitioners in that field (how a technician might diagnose start-up errors; how a manager interviews individuals involved in a dispute).

    My colleague John Howe has an informal test for cognitive strategies: would an acknowledged skilled practitioner agree that this was an acceptable way to approach the problem? (This is the “I wouldn’t do it that way, but it definitely would work” criterion.)

    You’re also right that this kind of information can help people learn; they use the model (or examples of the model in action) to build their own models.

    I’m not sure that it really is extra work to develop (or make explicit) the model. If you don’t, how do you know how to train the complex skill? It’s like doing task analysis: you have to do it so you know enough to decide whether to use job aids; you have to do it so you know what to train people in when you can’t use job aids.

    The only quibble I have with your points here is that some relatively routine skills probably should be trained or even overtrained so that they’re automatic. Reading’s an example (and many people learn to read a second language as adults). Likewise typing, driving, drawing blood.

  2. Cammy Bean says

    8 April 2009 at 6:19 PM

    Fabulous improvement on our Twitter ping-pong ball session (as Dave called it)! I enjoyed it heartily. And I agree with you about models. But as you said, models are different from theory. Instead, they’re a practical guide. I can get behind that 100%.

    When the conversation started, I was thinking about learning theory vs. instructional design practice. Academic jargon and theory vs. what works in eLearning. Maybe this is where the novice vs. the expert comes into play? A novice might just need to know what works. An expert (or one on his or her way to becoming an expert) might want to circle back and start discovering the underlying theory (why something works). Certainly, that’s where I feel like I am as a professional at this moment in time. Starting to circle back to understand the why of things I’ve been doing (or not doing) all these years…

  3. Dave Ferguson says

    9 April 2009 at 3:05 AM

    Cammy, you’ve got me thinking in at least two directions now, and it’s all Clark’s fault.

    One direction is the novice/expert distinction. Cognitive psych and just careful observation tell us that experts see problems differently from the way novices see them. By definition, novices pay attention to the surface resemblances–so, for example, noise from the front of the car means “engine problem.” The expert know that the sound of certain classes of engine problems will vary with the speed of the engine, and will know that putting the car in neutral while revving with change the speed of the engine but not the car.

    The other direction is a comment from the Ten Steps book. When your learners already have a high level of expertise, presenting them with a new model / theory can interfere, since you risk conflicting with the mental models they’ve already built up. (This is my interpretation.)

    …You know, I’m pretty sure I’ll finish Ten Steps despite the turgid language, but I’ve never been able to make myself read all of Dick & Carey.

  4. Clark says

    9 April 2009 at 6:10 AM

    I’ll happily take the blame if it’s getting people thinking ;).

    I typically don’t think of giving experts models, they develop them. Unless they’ve got bad ones. Rand Spiro had to present a sequence of models to help learners get the complexities of a particular system (muscles).

    You typically don’t develop full courses for experts, or even practitioners, it’s novices that need the full-court press of intro/concept/example/practice/etc. Whether they’re experts elsewhere, by definition they’re novices if it’s a full skill-set shift, no? And you want to move novice to practitioner through the course.

    I’d trust experts to be relatively effective at self-directed learning, and exploring nuances of what they’re doing (even co-creating new models that better explain). Which is why I want to support them with social media! And practitioners with streamlined support, not full courses.

    Thanks, Cammy & Dave, for continuing the dialog!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Clark Quinn

The Company

Search

Feedblitz (email) signup

Never miss a post
Your email address:*
Please wait...
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

Pages

  • About Learnlets and Quinnovation

The Serious eLearning Manifesto

Manifesto badge

Categories

  • design
  • games
  • meta-learning
  • mindmap
  • mobile
  • social
  • strategy
  • technology
  • Uncategorized
  • virtual worlds

Blogroll

  • Charles Jennings
  • Christy Tucker
  • Connie Malamed
  • Dave's Whiteboard
  • Donald Clark's Plan B
  • Donald Taylor
  • Harold Jarche
  • Julie Dirksen
  • Kevin Thorn
  • Mark Britz
  • Mirjam Neelen & Paul Kirschner
  • Stephen Downes' Half an Hour

License

Previous Posts

  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006

Amazon Affiliate

Required to announce that, as an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Mostly book links. Full disclosure.