Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Search Results for: malarkey

Misleading Malarkey

by 2 Comments

Recently, I saw a claim that was, well, a tad extreme. Worse, I think it was wrong, and possibly harmful. Thus, I feel it’s right to address it, to avoid misleading malarkey.

So, here’s the claim that riled me up:

Short-form edutainment is the most effective teaching method for both children and adults. TikTok and YouTube shorts will ultimately replace high schools and universities. Employment sector will phase out LMS systems and replaced with AI-powered compliance tools. If you are considering instructional design as a career, you may want to become a YouTuber or TikToker instead.

If you’ve tuned in at all, you’ll know that I’m a fan of engagement, properly construed.  Heck, it’s the topic of my most recent book! So, talking about the value of engagement in learning is all to the good. However…

…this claim goes over the top. Most notably, there’s the claim that edutainment is the most effective teaching method. If only! That puts me off, because teaching should yield a learning outcome, and just watching video shorts won’t do that (under most circumstances). Not surprisingly, I asked for research.

The author pointed to a study where mice genetically low on dopamine learned better when given dopamine. Yes, but the study had the mice do more than just watch videos, they performed tasks! I tried to go deeper, saying that engagement may be desirable, but it’s not sufficient. Without practice, watching entertaining and informative material (e.g. edutainment) isn’t a path to learning outcomes.

The conversation was derailed by my comment that edutainment had gotten a bad name from games. In the 80s, in an industry I was in, this was the case! I was accused of having a ‘gamification’ mindset! (Ahem.)  I tried steering the conversation back to the point it’s not about gamification, it’s about engagement combined with practice.

Interestingly, there was an almost parallel conversation about how engagement wasn’t the same as learning (which I pointed to in the exchange). The general take is that engagement is desirable but insufficient. Yes! Yet here we see the claim that engagement is all we need!

I believe in engagement for learning. I just don’t believe that by itself it will lead to learning. Learning science supports both the value of engagement, and the necessity of practice and feedback. That’s all. But claims like the above are misleading malarkey. It may be we’re talking an outrageous marketing claim (infamy is better than not being known at all?), but when it misleads, it’s a problem. Am I missing something?

Caveat Malarkey

by 1 Comment

After continuing to take down marketing blather, it’s time for a plea. Caveat Malarkey!

And, as always, the prose.

If you‘ve been paying attention, you will have seen that a number of my blog posts take down a variety of articles that are rife with malarkey. A lot of them come from connections or pointers on LinkedIn. (If you want to live in infamy, feel free to point me to your posts. ;) It‘s time to address what I‘m seeing, from two points of view. One is my advice to vendors in the L&D space. The other is advice to you who are consumers of education & technology products. The underlying theme is Caveat Malarkey!

What I‘m talking about is the large number of posts that do one of several things. First, they use myths to promote products. These are things like the attention span of a goldfish, learning styles, generations/digital natives, etc. Second, they are unclear on concepts. They toss around bizbuzz without being clear about what the terms mean, and more importantly what it takes to make it work and not! Of course, there are ones that accomplish both.  

So let‘s start with myths. Heck, I wrote a book about them, just because they won‘t go away!   For instance, while we know that learners differ, we can‘t (and shouldn‘t) address our learning to match styles. There‘s no evidence that adapting to styles helps. Worse, there is, as yet, no meaningful way to reliably characterize learners according to styles. Similarly, the claim that our attention span has dropped doesn‘t stand up to biological nor empirical scrutiny. We don‘t evolve that fast, and there‘s plenty of counter-evidence. The claim comes from a misinterpretation of an essentially irrelevant study. The notion that we can characterize people by the ‘generation‘ they‘re born in, or that people who grew up with digital phones are somehow ‘natives‘ are also both found lacking when looked at closely. There were 13 more myths in my book that can also be seen.  

Then there‘s conceptual clarity. Again, my most recent book is on learning science, trying to provide the foundation for clear understanding. Thus, when we hear terms like microlearning or workflow learning or whatever else will emerge, tread carefully! There are some powerful ideas on tap, but people who don‘t bother to unpack the terms and detail how they differ in design and use shouldn‘t be trusted.

My message is twofold. For one, as consumers, watch out for these approaches. If someone‘s being glib, be wary! First, learn about the concepts and the myths, and then dig in. If there‘s a claim, take several steps. First, give it the ‘sniff test‘. If it doesn‘t make conceptual sense, and/or isn‘t relevant to you, back away. Second, track it back. Who‘s making this claim, and what‘s their vested interest? Is anyone independently saying the same thing? Importantly, is there anyone saying to the contrary, and what‘s their interest? Eventually, you might go back to the original research, but if you haven‘t been trained, I encourage you to look to the reputable purveyors of evidence-based perspectives.  

To the vendors, please help. We need to raise our industry to a professional level. Get someone to write your articles who knows what they‘re talking about. Don‘t let social media interns (let alone the “I‘ll write articles for you” cold-mailers) write your materials. Find someone who understands learning. More importantly, get someone who understands learning to actually guide your products and/or service design, and then you can tout scrutable opportunities.

In the long term, we can lift our industry to an evidence-based, professional standard. In the short term, we need to focus on questionable claims, and shoot for real value. Caveat malarkey!  

More Marketing Malarkey

by 2 Comments

As has become all too common, someone decided to point me to some posts for their organization. Apparently, interest was sparked by a previous post of mine where I’d complained about  microlearning. While this one  does a (slightly) better job talking about  microlearning, it is riddled with other problems. So here’s yet another post about  more marketing malarkey.

First, I don’t hate microlearning; there are legitimate reasons to keep content small. It can get rid of the bloat that comes from contentitis, for one. There are solid reasons to err on the side of performance support as well. Most importantly, perhaps, is also the benefit of spacing learning to increase the likelihood of it being available. The thing that concerns me is that all these things are different, and take different design approaches.

Others have gone beyond just the two types I mention. One of the posts  cited a colleague’s more nuanced presentation about small content, pointing out four different ways to use microlearning (though interestingly,  five were cited in the referenced presentation). My problem, in this case, wasn’t the push for microlearning (there were some meaningful distinctions, though no actual mention how they require different design). Instead, it was the presence of myths.

One of the two posts opened with this statement: “The appetite of our employees is not the same therefore, we must not provide them the same bland food (for thought).” This seems a bit of a mashup. Our employees aren’t the same, so they need different things? That’s personalization, no? However, the conversation goes on to say: “It‘s time to put together an appetizing platter and create learning opportunities that are useful and valuable.”  Which seems to argue for engagement. Thus, it seems like it’s instead arguing that people need more engaging content. Yes, that’s true too. But what’s that got to do with our employees not having the same appetite? It  seems to be swinging towards the digital native myth, that employees now need more engaging things.

This is bolstered by a later quote: “When training becomes overwhelming and creates stress, a bite-sized approach will encourage learning.” If training becomes overwhelming and stressful, it  does suggest a redesign. However, my inclination would be to suggest that ramping up the WIIFM and engagement are the solution. A bite-sized approach, by itself, isn’t a solution to engagement. Small wrong or dull content isn’t a solution for dull or wrong content.

This gets worse in the other post. There were two things wrong here. The first one is pretty blatant:

There are numerous resources that suggest our attention spans are shrinking. Some might even claim we now have an average attention span of only 8 seconds, which equals that of a goldfish.

There are, of course, no such resources pointed to. Also, the resources that proposed this have been debunked. This is actually the ‘cover story’ myth of my recent book on myths! In it, I point out that the myth about attention span came from a misinterpreted study, and that our cognitive architecture doesn’t change that fast. (With citations.) Using this ‘mythtake’ to justify microlearning is just wrong. We’re segueing into tawdry marketing malarkey here.

This isn’t the only problem with this post, however. A second one emerges when there’s an (unjustified) claim that learning should have 3E’s: Entertaining, Enlightening, and Engaging. I do agree with Engaging (per the title of my first book), however, there’s a problem with it. And the other ones. So, for Entertaining, this is the followup: “advocates the concept of learning through a sequence of smaller, focused modules.” Why is smaller inherently more entertaining? Also, in general, learning doesn’t work as well when it’s just ‘fun’, unless it’s “hard fun”.

Enlightening isn’t any better. I do believe learning should be enlightening, although particularly for organizational learning it should be transformative in terms of enhancing an individual’s ability to  perform. Just being enlightened doesn’t guarantee that. The followup says: “Repetition, practice, and reinforcement can increase knowledge.” Er, yes, but that’s just good design. There’s nothing unique to microlearning about that.

Most importantly, the definition for Engaging is “A program journey can be spaced enough that combats forgetting curve.” That is spacing! Which isn’t a bad thing (see above), but not your typical interpretation of engaging. This is really confused!

Further, I didn’t even need to fully parse these two posts. Even on a superficial examination, they fail the ‘sniff test’. In general, you should be avoiding folks that toss around this sort of fluffy biz buzz, but even more so when they totally confound a reasonable interpretation of these concepts. This is just more marketing malarkey. Caveat emptor.

(Vendors, please please please stop with the under-informed marketing, and present helpful posts. Our industry is already suffering from too many myths. There’s possibly a short-term benefit, however the trend seems to be that people are paying more attention to learning science. Thus, in the long run I reckon it undermines your credibility. While taking them down is fun and hopefully educational, I’d rather be writing about new opportunities, not remedying the old.  If you don’t have enough learning science expertise to do so, I can help: books, workshops, and/or writing and editing services.)

 

Mobile Malarkey

by 1 Comment

I was called out on a tweet pointing to an article on mobile. And, I have to say, I thought it was pretty underwhelming. It was the ‘old school’ view of mlearning, and I think that the post largely missed the point. So I thought it’d be valuable to walk through the claims. What I’m trying to accomplish is share how my thinking works, and perhaps contaminate you with a wee bit of it too ;). We need to get better at cutting through the hype (part of the debunking skills), and that includes microlearning and mobile malarkey as well.

The post makes four claims for why mobile is on the rise:

  • the advancements in mobile technology
  • the desire for small content
  • more engaging content
  • consumption ‘on the go’

So let’s go through these.  However, first I’m going to challenge the assumption!

Mobile is not ‘on the rise’.  That’s so 2012.  Mobile is well past the ‘new’ stage.  Heck, Google was arguing ‘mobile first’ back in 2010!  Even here in the US, it’s mainstream, and it’s been the ‘goto’ mode in other countries for much longer.

Now, the advancements in mobile technology  are continuing, and impressive.  Things like sensors for contextual information, networking for social connections, new interaction capabilities like pressure-sensitivity, and higher resolution screens and faster processors mean new capabilities.  What the article is talking about, is cutting edge content. Yes, video can be useful ‘on demand’, and interactivity can be powerful.  In context.  But they’re not picking up on that. This is still the ‘get training wherever you are’ mentality.  Mobile is really not about courses!  But maybe they’ll get better..

Next is the chunks. Ok, so I’ve already weighed in on ‘microlearning’.  Yes, small is better. It  does matter whether you’re talking performance support or spaced learning, but small is good. However, this article touts that we prefer smaller chunks (er, yes, and that’s not a good indicator).  And that we benefit from smaller. Yes, but this is still about ‘content consumption’.  Mobile can, and should be more than that.

On to engagement. Here the claim is that these small bits are more engaging, but that we can do interactive things as well. And this is good: mini-scenarios (better written multiple choice), even branching scenarios can lead to better. However, here they’re talking quizzes and infographics. Again, mostly content, and also focused on knowledge, not skills. This isn’t where the emphasis should be. Spaced learning yes, but reactivation – reconceptualization, recontextualization, and reapplication – not content dump and knowledge test.

Finally, it’s about remote workers. Yes, again, contextualization to give the right thing, to the right person, at the right time and place. But no, they’re talking about accessing training where/when/ever. Yes, that’s nice.  But not intrinsically exciting, and definitely not really capitalizing on mobile’s promise.

Look, the real mobile opportunity is about performance support and contextualized learning. Spaced learning is good (though not unique to mobile).  But to argue mobile’s on the rise, and it’s about content, is to misconstrue the state of the industry  and the opportunity. This is obviously a sales pitch for their mobile content delivery, but get clear about what you want from mobile. It’s a platform, so once you start people will expect more. It’s best if you need to think strategically about all that you can do and ensure you’ve seen the full picture before you settle on any one solution.

Microlearning Malarkey

by 7 Comments

Someone pointed me to a microlearning post, wondering if I agreed with their somewhat skeptical take on the article. And I did agree with the skepticism.  Further, it referenced another site with worse implications. And I think it’s instructive to take these apart.  They are emblematic of the type of thing we see too often, and it’s worth digging in. We need to stop this sort of malarkey. (And I don’t mean microlearning as a whole, that’s another issue; it’s articles like this one that I’m complaining about.)

The article starts out defining microlearning as small bite-sized chunks. Specifically: “learning that has been designed from the bottom up to be consumed in shorter modules.” Well, yes, that’s one of the definitions.  To be clear, that’s the ‘spaced learning’ definition of microlearning. Why not just call it ‘spaced learning’?  

It goes on to say “each chunk lasts no more than five-then minutes.” (I think they mean 10). Why? Because attention. Um, er, no.  I like JD Dillon‘s explanation:  it needs to be as long as it needs to be, and no longer.

That attention explanation?  It went right to the ‘span of a goldfish’. Sorry, that’s debunked (for instance, here ;).  That data wasn’t from Microsoft, it came from a secondary service who got it from a study on web pages. Which could be due to faster pages, greater experience, other explanations. But not a change in our attention (evolution doesn’t happen that fast and attention is too complex for such a simple assessment).  In short, the original study has been misinterpreted. So, no, this isn’t a good basis for anything having to do with learning. (And I challenge you to find a study determining the actual attention span of a goldfish.)

But wait, there’s more!  There’s an example using the ‘youtube’ explanation of microlearning. OK, but that’s the ‘performance support’ definition of microlearning, not the ‘spaced learning’ one. They’re two different things!  Again, we should be clear about which one we’re talking about, and then be clear about the constraints that make it valid. Here? Not happening.  

The article goes on to cite a bunch of facts from the Journal of Applied Psychology. That’s a legitimate source. But they’re not pulling all the stats from that, they’re citing a secondary site (see above) and it’s full of, er, malarkey.  Let’s see…

That secondary site is pulling together statistics in ways that are  thoroughly dubious. It starts citing the journal for one piece of data, that’s a reasonable effect (17% improvement for chunking). But then it goes awry.  For one, it claims playing to learner preferences is a good idea, but the evidence is that learners don’t have good insight into their own learning. There’s a claim of 50% engagement improvement, but that’s a mismanipulation of the data where 50% of people would like smaller courses. That doesn’t mean you’ll get 50% improvement. They also make a different claim about appropriate length than the one above – 3-7 minutes – but their argument is unsound too. It sounds quantitative, but it’s misleading. They throw in the millennial myth, too, just for good measure.

Back to the original article, it cites a figure not on the secondary site, but listed in the same bullet list: “One minute of video content was found to be equal to about 1.8 million written words”.  WHAT?  That’s just ridiculous.  1.8 MILLION?!?!?  Found by who?  Of course, there’s no reference. And the mistakes go on. The other two bullet points aren’t from that secondary site either, and also don’t have cites.  The reference, however could mislead you to believe that the rest of the statistics were also from the journal!

Overall, I’m grateful to the correspondent who pointed me to the article. It’s hype like both of these that mislead our field, undermine our credibility, and waste our resources. And it makes it hard for those trying to sell legitimate services within the boundaries of science.  It’s important to call this sort of manipulation out.  Let’s stop the malarkey, and get smart about what we’re doing and why.  

Not diplomatic, but do care!

by Leave a Comment

So, I’ve been let know that my feedback is ‘blunt’. Which, I suppose, is better than some other alternatives. Still, I’d at least like to contextualize it, since I really can’t deny it. Hey, other people’s opinions are valid! They may not be correct, but I’m willing to acknowledge that it’s probably true. So, I guess I want to say I am not diplomatic, but do care.

So, I can be a little obtuse. I don’t always pick up on the subtleties of human interaction. Not a lot of evidence it’s actually worth a label, but… I recall going to meetings with my clients, who are executives at the C-level. We’d come out and they’d ask me “what did you see?” I’d respond with an analysis of the performance problem, and possible paths. I’d return the question, and hear things like “that’s the person with the real power”, “that one doesn’t like this other”, and other such perceptions. I just don’t see that stuff!

Even back when I was supervising students, I remember a couple of them saying “we never have any doubt about whether you’re not happy with something”. #oops On the other hand, I also typically don’t hear people saying I’m deceptive, or misleading. My opinions are pretty clear, but so too, generally, are my motives. (Because I’m inept at hiding them, I would suspect!) I do strive to make my feedback instructive as well as constructive. I perhaps over-err on the side of explaining why I’m saying something, and try to remember not to offer advice to fix it unless asked. (Not perfectly, by any means!)

I do also recognize that I may not always contextualize my feedback. In particular, I can forget to say what’s good before I say what should be fixed. I could defend myself and say that I don’t critique unless it’s worth fixing, but really I shouldn’t assume they know that. I am not deliberately mean, and never mean to hurt anyone’s feelings; I try to recognize that most folks don’t have bad intentions. And, of course, I don’t always succeed. Similarly, I try to admit my flaws, but again, don’t always succeed.

So, for the record, I care very much. And, we can be awesome! So, I do my best to share what I’ve learned. I freely admit my total luck at having opportunities to be the right place and have exposure to some great minds. I’ve had to work hard to learn it, mostly because it came easy early on. Then at the higher levels I learned that I couldn’t just wing it anymore.

So, my main point here is that when you see me critique things, it’s because it can be better. I do it publicly (though usually anonymously), so we can all learn. And I welcome feedback and pushback! I have lots to learn, and always will.

Oh, and please, please don’t be intimidated to talk to me. I’m really not an ogre. (I am a bit of an introvert, so I can seem standoffish, but it’s really just insecurity ;). Admittedly, I can have a very short fuse for folks trying to take advantage of me (or others), but… I really do care, and want to help everyone. I just have a responsibility to allocate my time in the most efficient ways. As I’ve said before, I talk ideas for free; I help someone personally for drinks/dinner; if someone’s making a quid, I deserve a cut. Until I hear otherwise, that’s seemed fair for close on two decades. So me: not diplomatic, but do care. Fair enough?

 

Reality Checks

by 2 Comments

Of late, there seem to be a rising number of claims: for X or Y, or against Z. This, by the way, happens outside L&D as well, so feel free to extrapolate. Here, however, I want to talk about the necessity of, and some practices for, reality checks.

The problem is that people have vested interests in particular views. Many of the claims that are pushed generate revenue for them, directly or indirectly. They may want you to buy their product, avail yourself of their services, or more. And I get it; I too need to keep the wolves from the door. However, there are ways legit and less so to do it.

So one of the first reality checks is: what does who stand to gain? What’s their angle? Just as when I criticize something and you should rightly query why I’m raising the issue, similarly you should be asking the same of the claim. What’s their angle?

I’m pretty clear that I want our industry to be solid, and yes I want to be someone you might bring in to assist you in avoiding the pitfalls and hew to the best outcomes for your org. Similarly, the folks I’m critiquing might have an angle. They may have a tool, for instance, that they want you to use. Find out what their personal benefit is!

This looking at both sides is a second reality check. I recently heard a colleague claim that when he looks at something new, he immediately looks for contradicting evidence. That’s pretty smart, given that our cognitive architecture has a confirmation bias. That is, we’re inclined to look for information that supports our beliefs, and discount any other. I reckon it’s worth keeping an open mind.

This is a way you can go deeper. What do others say? Are their trusted folks who are supporting the view, or are they leery? What’s their expertise? Some folks will allude to some relevant expertise only for it to be shown that it’s tangential. Similarly, what’s the data say? Is there data? How valid is it? Is it relevant to you?

Ultimately, I want you to  stay curious! I reckon that we all can learn more, and should. Learning more doesn’t mean just accumulating information, it means being willing to be wrong, admitting it, and improving. You need to be running your own reality checks on what you, and others, believe. Here’s to a steady increase in the reality of our field!

Sensitivities and Sensibilities

by 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.  

Representation Matters

by 1 Comment

There is a deep sense of where and how representation matters. Then there are less critical, but still important ways in which presentation counts. It includes talking about stereotypes, and calling out inappropriate labeling. Concepts matter, clarity matters, transparency matters. So here are two situations that are worth critiquing.

The first one that struck me this morning was an announcement. A researcher has created a petition asking Pew Research to stop using the ‘generations’ label. They’ve been using it in their research, and yet (as the petition points out) their own research shows it’s problematic.

Now this is a myth I called out in my last book  (specifically on the topic of problematic beliefs). There are several complaints, such as that the boundaries are arbitrary, and the stereotyping is harmful. While we can differ by age, discrepancies are better explained by experience than by ‘generation’.

Another problem came in an article I was connected to on LinkedIn. In it, they were making the case for micro learning. While there are great reasons to tout the benefits of small bits of timely content, they didn’t really distinguish the uses. Which is a problem, since the different uses require different designs.

Here’s where representation matters. Pew Research’s reputation, in my mind, has gone down. I used to fill out some surveys from them, and stopped because the assumptions in the categories they were using were problematic. Finding out that they’re a major proponent of generations only aggravates that. Can I really trust any results they cite when the foundations are flawed?

Similarly, the organization that’s touting micro learning solutions has just undermined any belief in their credibility to actually do this appropriately. When you tout stuff in ways that show you don’t understand the necessary principles, you damage your reputation. I’m not likely to want to use this firm to design my  solutions.

I push strongly for accuracy. This includes evidence-informed design, conceptual clarity, and transparency of motives. If you tout something, do so in a scrutable way. Marketing malarkey only muddies the water, and our industry has enough of a credibility problem.

Yes, there are more important ways representation matters: for kids to see themselves in culturally desirable roles, for voices to be heard. This is a less important aspect, but quality matters. Look at what you are saying, and ensure that it’s worth your audience’s time!

Old and new school

by Leave a Comment

As I mentioned in yesterday’s post, I was asked for my responses to questions about trends.  What emerged in the resulting article, however, was pretty much contrary to what I said. I wasn’t misquoted, as I was used to set the stage, but what followed wasn’t what I said. What I saw was what I consider somewhat superficial evaluation, and I’d like to point to new school thinking instead.

So the article went from my claim about an ecosystem approach to touting three particular trends. And yet, these trends aren’t really new and aren’t really right!  They were touting mobile, gamification, and the ‘realities. And while there’s nothing wrong with any of them, I had said that I didn’t think that they’re the leading trends.

So, first, mobile is pretty much old news. Mobile first?  Er, it‘s only been 8 years or so (!) since Google declared that! What‘s cool about  mobile, still, is sensors and context-awareness, which they don‘t touch on.  And, in a repeated approach, they veered from the topic to quote a colleague. And my colleague was spot on, but it wasn’t in the least about mobile!  They ended this section talking about gamification and AR/VR, yet somehow implied that this was all about mobile. That would be “no”.

Then they talked about users wanting to be active.  Yay!  But, er, again they segued off-topic, taking personalization before going to microlearning and back to gamification and game-based learning(?).  Wait, what?  Microlearning is an ill-defined concept, and conflating it with game-based learning is just silly.  And games are real, but it‘s still hard to do them (particularly do them right, instead of tarted up drill-and-kill).  Of course, they didn‘t really stay on topic.

Finally, the realities. Here they stayed on topic, but really missed the opportunity. While AR and VR have real value, they talked about 360 photography and videography, which is about consumption, not interaction. And, that‘s not where the future is.

To go back to the initial premise – the three big trends – I think they got it wrong.  AI and data are now far more of a driver than mobile. Yes, AR/VR, but interaction, not just ‘immersion‘.  And probably the third driver is the ecosystem perspective, with systems integration and SaaS.

So, I have to say that the article was underwhelming in insight, confused in story, and wrong on topic. It’s like they just picked a quote and then went anywhere they wanted.   It’s old school thinking, and we’re beyond that. Again, my intention is not to continue to unpack wrong thinking (I’m assuming that’s not what you’re mostly here for, but let me know), but since this quoted me, I felt obliged.  It’s past time for new school thinking in L&D, because focusing on content is, like,  so last century.