I’m not alone in carrying the banner for learning science. Others are talking about evidence-based practices, making it stick, and more. This, I maintain, is a good thing. Is there too much of good thing? Is there a problem with a learning science bandwagon?

First, let’s be clear. There are some initiatives that do strike me as redundant or worse. For one, folks have been talking about neuroscience. And I think neuroscience research is quite interesting! What I also believe, buttressed by others, is that there haven’t been any results from neuroscience that are essential for learning science design. All the implications have been previously documented from learning science research at the cognitive or social level. Neuroscience is cool, but its use in learning design tends to be to draw attention (read: marketing), not for any new outcomes.

I feel similarly about the term brain-based. Yes, learning is brain-based. Isn’t it a wee bit redundant to say so? I suppose they’re implying that they’re aligned with how the brain works. Which is a good thing. Still, despite the alliteration, it seems a bit more like hype than being informative. As the saying goes, your mileage may vary.

However, I’m seeing more and more people now talking about learning science. That’s a good thing. Are they jumping on a bandwagon? Maybe, but there’s lots of room. As long as folks are actually digging into what the learning say, and not just paying lip-service, they’re welcome. To be clear, I don’t own the wagon anyway; I’m a practitioner, not a core researcher. So, I really do think it’s great if more and more people start talking, and walking, learning science.

I’ll go further, of course. I think we should be paying attention to what cognitive and learning sciences say about how we think, work, and learn. That is, the applicability of understanding how our minds work goes beyond learning to our overall organizational practices. But, hey, we gotta start somewhere, right? I think it’s good if we’re moving in the right direction. I can quibble that it’s slower than I’d like, but progress is progress.

So, yay, more learning science! C’mon, jump on, the learning science bandwagon; we’ve got space and it appears we’re moving forward. All good. Hope you’ll join us!

Increasingly, we’re seeing that emotion matters. Scientific evidence supports what we intuitively know. Yet, in many cases, our actions don’t support that understanding. At least, in nuance. In particular, our learning designs suffer from trivialized ‘like’ as opposed to useful and effective approaches. We can and should do better to tap into the power of emotion.

Again, I’m using the term ’emotion’ loosely here. While we do care about emotions like joy and grief (though our picture is changing), what we really need to be caring about are non-cognitive elements like motivation, anxiety, and confidence. It’s about designing to appropriately address them: develop motivation, keep a lid on anxiety, and build confidence. Each has it’s elements.

Motivation improves learning outcomes, but requires understanding what makes us interested. We’re driven by a desire to understand the world (c.f. ‘predictive coding‘. Curiosity can assist in developing an interest. Certainly, self-interest plays a role as well, and helping people tune into the positive consequences of a learning experience (or the negative outcomes of not having the requisite understanding) is also useful. Self-Determination Theory (c.f. Deci and Ryan) talks about mastery, autonomy, and relatedness. We can use this to help people connect with others (instructors/peers/experts), give them tasks (autonomy) and support to succeed (mastery).

Anxiety interferes, if it’s too much. While a small amount helps, that’s quickly overwhelming. Given that learning can be intrinsically anxiety-inducing, keeping anxiety to a minimum is important. Making it safe to fail is an important component of this. Psychological safety is an important element in organizational operation, and learning as well.  We can not attach consequences to practice, certainly at first. We can also have the instructor make mistakes as well.

Building confidence is an adjunct here. As people master the skills, at greater and greater levels of challenge (an important component of successful learning experience design), they build confidence. That reduces anxiety, and maintains motivation. We don’t want false confidence, but we can steadily build confidence as we go. Ultimately, we want learners to have sufficient confidence to try out the skills (and succeed) after the learning experience.

There’s lots more that goes into making an experience effective and engaging, but understanding these elements, and how to enact them, is an important component. The power of emotion, properly harnessed, improves learning outcomes (which is what we should be about ;). I’ll be addressing these and more in my workshop Make It Meaningful at the upcoming DevLearn conference in Las Vegas on Oct 24. I’d love to see you there, as we talk about the complement to learning science that combines to achieve those experience goals.