Archives for April 2023

We interrupt your regularly scheduled reading for this commercial announcement:

What is Learning Experience Design (LXD)? Further, why should you care? Finally, (and arguably most important) what does it mean you should do differently? Those, to me, are important questions. My short answer is that LXD is the elegant integration of learning science and engagement. Which, to me, implies some important nuances on top of what’s traditionally done in instructional design (ID). How to address it? There’s actually quite a lot in LXD, but it’s also a lot of overlap with traditional ID practices and processes. I reckon the easiest (and best) way to address it is to talk about the delta. That is, what’s different between the two. So, in my role for Upside Learning, I developed a missing LXD workshop. We ran it internally to good outcomes, and now, you can take it!

I believe that the difference starts with objectives; you can’t make a meaningful experience if you don’t have learners acquiring relevant new skills (not just an information dump). From there, there are nuances on designing individual practice activities, and then aggregated into practices (that is, putting practices together). Moving on, we look at the content elements of models and examples, and then the emotional aspects of learning. The workshop closes by looking at a design process that accommodates these. Recognizing that folks don’t want to throw out their whole process to start anew, it works from a generic model.

In the workshop, I cover each of those topics in a week; so it’s a six week experience. In between, I ask attendees to do some interim processing to both cement their understanding and to change their practices. Each week we’ll cover underlying concepts, see examples of what we’re talking about, actively process the information, and do a major application task.

To make this available more broadly, Upside’s partnered with the Learning Development Accelerator (LDA) to deliver it. Full disclosure: I’m co-director of the LDA, and Chief Learning Strategist for Upside Learning (in addition to my ongoing role for Quinnovation). (So, it’s all about me! :) Seriously, I think this puts together the tools I believe are necessary to lift our industry.

To be clear, since the advance notice timeframe puts this in summer, we’re offering it in Asia time-frames first (tho’ anyone is welcome!):

Australian Eastern Standard Time: July 7, 14, 21, 28, August 4 and 11 from 12h00 to 14h00 each day
Singapore Time: July 7, 14, 21, 28, August 4 and 11 from 10h00 to 12h00 each day
India Standard Time: July 7, 14, 21, 28, August 4 and 11 from 07h30 to 09h30 each day
New York Time: July 6, 13, 20, 27, August 3 and 10 from 22h00 to 24h00 each day

We’re offering it for US$100 to LDA members, and US$350 to non-members (for only $40 more, you get the full LDA offerings as well).

We’re planning to offer the missing LXD workshop again at a later date at East Coast/Europe friendly times (probably at a steeper price, we’ll have worked the bugs out ;). You can find out more at the LDA site. It’s got learning science and engagement bundled up into a coherent whole, for those who’ve already been doing ID and want to lift their game. I hope you’ll find it worth your while.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled reading until next week at the usual time.

For many reasons, I end up reading relevant books to our field. A recent one underway is Wiggins & McTighe’s Understanding by Design. In it, I found a quote that really resonated. It highlights to me one of the biggest barriers I think we face, that the details matter. Not everyone will see this, however.

So, the quote is from Bransford, Brown, & Cocking’s masterwork, How People Learn, funded by the National Academies of Sciences. It chronicles what was known at the time about the subject of learning, aggregating learning science research. I don’t know if it’s true outside the US, but within you can get a free PDF copy!

Wiggins & McTighe’s book is a primary argument for working backwards. They’re not concerned with the pedagogy, but the planning. Of course, it also matters what your learning goals are. Thus, they also discuss what understanding means. That’s where this quote comes from:

Many approaches to instruction look equivalent when the only measure of learning is memory. …Instructional differences become more apparent when evaluated from the perspective of how well the learning transfers to new problems and settings.

This resonates because it highlights something I think we struggle with. To folks who don’t know any better, as I’ve argued before, well-produced, versus well-designed and well-produced, is hard to distinguish. As a respondent noted, we don’t always even test memory! Yet our goals should be (retention and) transfer.

I think the field has fallen into a superstition that information dump and knowledge test is learning! Which is mistaken, but if you don’t know any better, it’s hard to tell. Reckon we have to continue to focus on outcomes, measuring if  learning transfers to new problems and settings. When we do, we’ll have evidence to help make the case for learning that works. Then we can have the resources to pay attention, reflecting that the details matter. ‘Til then, we’ll continue to fight to do it right.

Humor is important, we have to address this seriously!

Speaking of irreverent, I’ve argued, in the past, that we don’t use comics enough in learning. In general, I mean serious comics, graphic novel formats, to tell dramatic stories. However, we can use comics for humor, as well. In particular, to accomplish our motivation goals on opening. So here I ponder comic openings.

To start, as I mention in talking about making learning meaningful, I believe you need to open up people emotionally. Even before you open up cognitively! We know that activating relevant knowledge is important cognitively, but I suggest that it won’t stick as well unless you’ve piqued their awareness. I’m arguing that we need a visceral awareness that this is relevant.

It doesn’t take much, but I suggest it is worth doing. I like to use the consequences of having, or not, this ability is what’s key. There are things you can do that you couldn’t without it. Making that clear is, to me, a WIIFM (What’s In It For Me).

I believe you can do this dramatically or humorously. That is, you could make a dramatic story of saving someone because of the information you have, or the bad outcomes from not having it. Then there’s the alternative.

You can also have humorous aspects of having the info. For instance, saving the day not because the hero knows it, but the sidekick happens to, instead. However, my favorite approach is to humorously point out the consequences of not having the knowledge. (OK, admitting my predilection for sarcasm. ;) This can be done with just a simple comic! I’ve done so in content we developed for a client, and am doing so again in a demo we’re creating.

It might also set the tone for the learning. It can help learners relax, trust that the environment’s safe, reducing anxiety.

I suggest this is easy to create, easy to develop, quick, engaging for the learners, and effective. Now, I don’t have specific research on that (I’d love to: anyone got pointers or want to do the study?). However, I think it’s a plausible inference from what we do know from learning science.

I’ll also acknowledge that there are times this won’t be the best approach! Certain topics probably aren’t good candidates, similarly certain audiences might similarly not match. However, I do think it’s more broadly applicable than we think. Even for modules within an overall topic. If they’re inexpensive and high impact, use them liberally. So I’ll suggest we use comic openings liberally!

I’m not flamboyant, nor funny. I’m occasionally irreverent, and those who know me personally can probably regale you with my love for puns and wordplay. Of course, I think irreverence is undervalued, and am inclined to think it may be the only truly effective tool for addressing myths, superstitions, and misconceptions. So I took some time on my walk today and thought about it a bit. Here’re the results with some extensions.

X Styles (e.g. learning, leadership, etc)

Why don’t you just use astrology? It’s cheaper, and has about as much validity!

Dale’s Cone

People will believe about 10% of what you write, 50% of what has a cute alliterative phrase, 70% of what you tout in a video, and 90% of what’s in a well-produced infographic. (Aside: I think this is the secret to marketing.)

Images processed 60K times faster than text

That has to be right, because images are processed visually, while text is processed…hey, wait a minute!

Attention span of a goldfish

Because we no longer…’scuse me, I’ve a notification on my phone…

Generations

This new generation has no respect for tradition, said the ancient Greek philosophers.

I could go on, but that would spoil the fun. I’d like to hear yours! Cheers to irreverence!