Archives for April 2022

Superstitions for New Practitioners

26 April 2022 by Clark 3 Comments

It’s become obvious (even to me) that there are a host of teachers moving to L&D. There are also a number of initiatives to support them. Naturally, I wondered what I could do to assist. With my reputation as a cynic apparently well-secured, I’m choosing to call out some bad behaviors. So here are some superstitions for new practitioners to watch out for!

As background, these aren’t the myths that I discuss in my book on the topic. That would be too obvious. Instead, I’m drawing on the superstitions from the same tome, that is things that people practice without necessarily being aware, let alone espousing them. No, these manifest through behaviors and expectations rather than explicit exhortation.

Giving people information will lead them to change. While we know this isn’t true, it still seems to be prevalent. I’ve argued before about why I think this exists, but what matters is what it leads to. That is, information dump and knowledge-test courses. What instead we need is not just a rationale, but also practice and then ongoing support for the change.
If it looks like school, it’s learning. We’ve all been to school, and thus we all know what learning looks like, right? Except many school practices are only useful for passing tests, not for actually solving real problems and meeting real goals. (Only two things wrong: the curriculum and the pedagogy, otherwise school’s fine.) It, however, creates barriers when you’re trying to create learning that actually works. Have people look at the things they learned outside of school (sports, hobbies, crafts, etc) for clues.
People’s opinion is a useful metric for success. Too often, we just ask ‘did you like it’. Or, perhaps, a ‘do you think it was valuable’. While the latter is better than the former, it’s still not good enough. The correlation between people’s evaluation of the learning and the actual impact is essentially zero. At least for novices. You need more rigorous criteria, and then test to achieve.
A request for a course is a sufficient rationale to make one. A frequent occurrence is a business unit asking for a course. There’s a performance problem (or just the perception of one), and therefore a course is the answer. The only problem is that there can be many reasons for a performance problem that have nothing to do with knowledge or skill gaps. You should determine what the performance gap is (to the level you’ll know when it’s fixed), and the cause. Only when the cause is a skill gap does a course really make sense.
A course is always the best answer. See above; there are lots of reasons why performance may not be up to scratch: lack of resources, wrong incentives, bad messaging, the list goes on. As Harless famously said, “Inside every fat course there‘s a thin job aid crying to get out.” Many times we can put knowledge in the world, which makes sense because it’s actually hard to get information and skills reliably in the head.
You can develop meaningful learning in a couple of weeks. The rise of rapid elearning tools and a lack of understanding of learning has led to the situation where someone will be handed a stack of PPTs and PDFs and a rapid authoring tool and expected to turn out a course. Which goes back to the first two problems. While it might take that long to get just a first version, you’re not done. Because…
You don’t need to test and tune. There’s this naive expectation in the industry that if you build it, it is good. Yet the variability of people, the uncertainty of the approach, and more, suggest that courses should be trialed, evaluated, and revised until actually achieving the necessary change. Beware the ‘build and release’ approach to learning design, and err on the side of iterative and agile.

This isn’t a definitive list, but hopefully it’ll help address some of the worst practices in the industry. If you’re wary of these superstitions for new practitioners, you’ll likely have a more successful career. Fingers crossed and good luck!

There’s some overlap here with messages to CXOs 1 and 2, but a different target here.

Pre-order for Make It Meaningful now available

21 April 2022 by Clark 3 Comments

I’m happy to report that the ebook version of my next tome, Make It Meaningful: Taking Learning Design From Instructional to Transformational, is now available for pre-order! Why should you care? Here’s a pass at explaining, and you can decide whether a pre-order for Make It Meaningful makes sense for you.

Why this book?

Here’s the marketing blurb:

Learning Experience Design is, as author Clark Quinn puts it, about “the elegant integration of learning science with engagement”. While there are increasing resources available on the learning science side, the other side is somewhat neglected. Having written one of the books on the learning science side, Clark has undertaken to write the other half. The book is grounded in his early experience writing learning games, then researching cognition and engagement, and ongoing exploration and application of learning, technology, and design to creating solutions and strategies. It covers the underlying principles including surprise, story, and emotion and pulls them together to create a coherent approach. The book also covers not just the principles, but the implications for both learning elements and a design process. With concise prose and concrete examples, this book provides the framework to take your learning experience designs from instructional to transformational!

I hope that suggests why I think it’s important. Further, here are the short versions of what some early readers had to say:

“…the right emotional engagement tactics can be effective, desirable difficulties. The book explains why and how, with good examples.”
Patti Shank, PhD Author of Write Better Multiple-Choice Questions to Assess Learning

“… the notion of engagement, and its true meaning, is like the mysterious fifth element waiting to be discovered and summoned through three words in this book: Make. It. Meaningful.”
Zsolt Olah, Senior Learning Technologist, Amazon

“…systematically reveals the secret sauce for creating impactful learning experiences…brings to light the missing emotional design dimension that separates instructional design from LXD. Highly recommended..!”
Les Howles, Co-Author, Designing the Online Learning Experience

“As a fan of Clark Quinn‘s books, I‘m happy to announce this is another winner. Make It Meaningful closes a gaping hole in instructional design models by showing how to address the emotions in learning design.”
Connie Malamed, Publisher of theelearningcoach.com

Going a wee bit further…

What’s included

There are two sections, the first on principles, the second on practice. Initially I cover a bit of basics about learning, how to ‘hook’ people, then how to extend the experience, and some tips and tricks. In the subsequent section I consider the implications for the different elements of learning design: introduction, concepts, examples, practice, and closing, and then the amendments to your design process to incorporate the necessary elements. Thus, I’m trying to be thorough.

Who this is for

This is a book for those who already know the basics of science-grounded design, and are looking to take their learning experience design to the next level. It’s about addressing the emotional side. To be sure, it also makes mention of the cognitive essentials, but it is first and foremost focused on the emotional side.

What else should you know?

This is the first offering from the Learning Development Accelerator (LDA) offshoot, LDA Press. (Note: as Editor-In-Chief, I’m biased.) In my own words:

LDA Press, an imprint of the Learning & Development Accelerator, is a boutique publisher focusing on evidence-informed titles that fill needed gaps in the literature while offering authors the relationship they deserve.

Hopefully, my experience with publishers (as author and consultant), is a good start. Then, the rigor of academic training in writing and reading should provide a reasonable expectation of quality. Additionally, I’m also looking to make the prose comprehensible. Finally, we’ve engaged professional copy-editing. We’ll see how that plays out, but so far it’s seems like we’re on track. Also, we’re actively soliciting additional needed works.

A further point: we’re keeping costs low. Thus, print copies of Meaningful will be 22.99 (discount for LDA members), and the ebook is only $10.99 (also a discount for LDA members), plus there’s a special discount for pre-orders! The book releases 16 May, both ebook and print, but the latter may take awhile since orders will only be available on that date.

I think this book is needed, and immodestly believe it’s one that I am capable to write. At any rate, now you know you can make a pre-order for Make It Meaningful. Whether that makes sense for you is something only you can determine. We now return you to your regularly scheduled blog…

The Wrong Bucket Lists

19 April 2022 by Clark 2 Comments

Our brains like to categorize things; in fact, we can’t really not do it. This has many benefits: we can better predict outcomes when we can categorize the situation, we can respond in appropriate ways via shared conceptualizations, and so on. It also has some downsides: stereotyping, for one. I reckon there’re tradeoffs, of course. But we also have to worry about when we over-use categorization, we can risk making the wrong bucket lists.

Our desire for simplification and categorization is manifest. The continued interest in reading one’s horoscope, for instance. And the continued success of personality typings, despite the evidence of their lack of utility. Other than the Big 5 or HEXACO, the rest are problematic at best. I’m just reading Annie Murphy Paul’s The Cult of Personality Testing (the predecessor to her The Extended Mind) and hearing abuses like Rorschach tests being used in child custody decisions is really horrific. Similarly, to hear that people are being denied employment based on their color (not race, but their ‘color’ on a particular test, blue or orange) isn’t new and continues (as does the other, sadly). Most of these tests don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny!

This is the explanation of learning styles, too, another myth that won’t die. Generations similarly. We like to have simplification. Further, there are times it’s useful. For example, recording your blood type can prevent potentially life-threatening complications. Having a basis to adapt learning, such as people’s performance (success or failure), also. Even more so if additional factors are added, such as confidence. Yet, we can overdo it. We might over-categorize, and miss important nuances.

Todd Rose’s The End of Average made an excellent case for not trying to conform people into one bucket. In it, he points out that when we assign a single grade for complex performance, we miss important nuances. For instance, if you get it wrong, why did you get it wrong? It matters in terms of the feedback we might give you. If you had one misconception instead of another, you should get different feedback than if you had the other.

How do we reconcile this? There’re benefits to simplifications, and risks. We have to be careful to simplify as much as we can, and no simpler. Which isn’t an easy task to undertake. The best recommendation I can make is to be mindful of the risks when you do simplify. Maybe start more broadly, and then winnow down? Explicitly consider the risks and costs as well as the benefits and savings. We’re using learner personas in a project. Many times, these personas can differ on important dimensions, and characterize the audience space in ways that a simple ‘the learner’ can’t capture.

Overall, we want to make sure we’re only using simplifications and categorizations in ways that are both helpful and scrutable. When we do so, we can avoid the wrong bucket lists. That should be our goal, after all.

Sensitivities and Sensibilities

12 April 2022 by Clark 2 Comments

We are currently experiencing a crisis of communication. While this is true of our nation and arguably the world, it‘s also true in our little world of L&D. Recently, there have been at least four different ‘spats‘ about things. While I don‘t want to address the specifics of any of them, what I do want to do is talk about how we engage. So here‘s a post on sensitivities and sensibilities.

First, let me be clear, I‘ve some social issues. I‘m an introvert, and also miss social cues. I also have a bad habit of speaking before I‘ve done the knowledge-check: is this true, kind, and necessary? Subtlety and diplomacies aren‘t my strong suit. I continue to be a work in progress. Still, I never intentionally hurt anyone, at least not anyone who hasn‘t demonstrated a reliable propensity to violate norms that I feel are minimum. I continue to try to refine my responses.

There are two issues, to me: what we should say, and how we should say it. For instance, I think when someone says something wrong, we need to educate. Initially, we need to evaluate the reason. It could be that they don‘t know any better. Or it could be that they‘re deliberately trying to mislead.

Let‘s also realize we‘re emotional animals. If I‘m attacked, for instance, I’m likely to blame myself, even when it’s wrongly. Others are highly unlikely to wear blame, and lash out. We are affected by our current context; we are more critical if we‘re tired or otherwise upset, and on the reverse are more tolerant if rested and content.

I‘m also aware that we have no insight into where someone‘s coming from. We can guess, but we really don‘t know. I really learned this when I was suffering from a pinched nerve in my back; I have more sympathy now since I‘ve come to recognize I don‘t know what anyone else is living with.

So, I‘m trying to come up with some principles about how to respond. For instance, when I write posts about things I think are misguided or misleading, I call out the problems, but not the person, e.g. I don‘t link to the post. I‘m not trying to shame anyone, and instead want to educate the market. I think this is a general principle of feedback: don‘t attack the person, attack the behavior.

Also, if you‘re concerned about something, ask first. Assume good intentions. How you ask matters as well. The same principle above applies: ask about the behavior. I’m impressed with those who worry about the asker. If the ask seems a bit harsh, they wonder whether the asker might be struggling. That‘s a very thoughtful response.

There‘s a caveat on all this: if folks continue to promote something that‘s demonstrably wrong, after notification, they should get called out. Here in the US, the first amendment says we can say whatever, but it doesn‘t say we don‘t have any consequences from what we say. (You can‘t yell ‘fire‘ in a crowded theatre if there isn‘t one!) Similarly, if you continue to promote, say, a debunked personality test, you can be called out. ;)

So this is my first draft on sensitivities and sensibilities. Assume good intent. Ask first. Educate the individual and the market. Don‘t attack the person, but the behavior. I‘m sure I‘m missing situations, conditions, additional constraints, etc. Let me know.

Confidence and Correctness

5 April 2022 by Clark Leave a Comment

Not surprisingly, I am prompted regularly to ponder new things. (Too often, in the wee hours of the morning…) In this case, I realize I haven’t given a lot of thought to the role of confidence (PDF). It’s a big thing in the system my co-author on an AI and ID paper, Markus Bernhardt, represents, so I realized it’s time to think about it some more. Here are some thoughts on confidence and correctness.

The idea is that it matters whether you get it right, or not, and whether you’re confident, or not. That is, they interact (creating the familiar four quadrant model). You can be wrong and unconfident (lo/no), wrong and confident (hi/no), right and unconfident (lo/yay), and right and confident (hi/yay). Those are arguably importantly different. In particular for what they imply about what sort of intervention makes sense.

I was pondering what this suggests for interventions. I turned it 90 degrees to the left, to put low/no to the left, or beginning spot, and hi/yay to the right, and the other two in-between. Simplified, my view is that if you’re wrong and not confident, you don’t know it. If you’re wrong and believe you know it, you’re at a potential teachable moment. When you’re right, but not confident, you’re ready for more practice. If you’re right and confident, it may be time to move on.

Which suggests, looking back at my previous exploration of worked examples, that the very first thing to do is to provide worked examples if they’re new. At some point, you give them practice. If they get it right but aren’t confident, you give more practice at roughly the same level. If they’re wrong but confident, you give them feedback (and arguably ramp them backwards). Eventually they’re getting it right and confident, and at that point you move on (except for some spaced and varied reactivation).

Assessing confidence is an extra step, but there seems to be a valid reason to incorporate it in your learning design. The benefits of being able to more accurately target your interventions, at least in an adaptive system, suggest that the effort is worth it. That’s my initial thinking on confidence and correctness. What’s yours?