Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

You are here: Home / Archives for Clark

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.)

 

Concept Maps and Learning

by 1 Comment

Once again, someone notified me of something they wanted me to look at. In this case, a suite of concept maps, with a claim that this could be the future of education. And while I’m a fan of concept maps, I was suspicious of the claim, So, while I’ve written on mindmaps before, it’s time to dig into concept maps and learning.

To start, the main separation between mindmaps and concept maps is labels. Specifically, concept maps have labels that indicate the meaning of connections between concepts. At least, that’s my distinction. So while I’ve done (a lot of) mindmaps of keynotes, they’re mostly of use to those who also saw the same presentation. Otherwise, the terms and connections don’t necessarily make sense. (Which doesn’t mean a suite of connections can’t be valuable, c.f. Jerry’s Brain, where Jerry Michalski has been tracking his explorations for over two decades!) However, a concept map does a better job of indicating the total knowledge representation.

I know a wee bit about this, because while writing up my dissertation, I had a part-time job working with Professor Kathy Fisher and SemNet. Kathy Fisher is a biologist and teacher who worked with Joe Novak (who can be considered the originator of concept mapping). SemNet is a Macintosh concept mapping tool (Semantic Network) that Kathy created and used in teaching biology. It allows students to represent their understanding, which instructors can use to diagnose misconceptions.

I also later volunteered for a while with the K-Web project. This was a project with James Burke (of Connections fame) creating maps of the interesting historical linkages his show and books documented. Here again, navigating linkages can be used for educational purposes.

With this background, I looked at this project. The underlying notion is to create a comprehensive suite of multimedia mindmaps of history and the humanities. This, to me, isn’t a bad thing! It provides a navigable knowledge resource that could be a valuable adjunct to teaching. Students can be given tasks to find the relationships between two things, or asked to extend the concept maps, or… Several things, however, are curious at least.

The project claims to be a key to the future of global education. However, as an educational innovation, the intended pedagogical design is worrisome. The approach claims that “They have complete freedom to focus on and develop whichever interests capture their fancy.” and “…the class is exposed to a large range of topics that together provide a comprehensive and lively view of the subject…”  This is problematic for two reasons. First, there appears to be no guarantee that this indeed will provide comprehensive coverage. It’s possible, but not likely.

As a personal example, when I was in high school, our school district decided that the American Civil War would be taught as modules. Teachers chose to offer whatever facets they wanted, and students could take any two modules they wanted. Let me assure you that my knowledge of the Civil War did not include a systematic view of the causes, occurrences, and outcomes, even in ideologically distorted versions. Anything I now know about the Civil War comes from my own curiosity.

Even with the social sharing, a valuable component, there appears to be no guidance to ensure that all topics are covered. Fun, yes. Curricularly thorough, no.

Second, presenting on content doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve truly comprehended it. As my late friend, historian Joseph Cotter, once told me, history isn’t about learning facts, it’s about learning to think like a historian. You may need the cultural literacy first, but then you need to be able to use those elements to make comparisons, criticisms, and more.  Students should be able to think with these facts.

Another concerning issue in the presentation about this initiative is this claim: “reading long passages of text no longer works very well for the present generation of learners. More than ever, learners are visual learner [sic].” This confounds two myths, the digital native myth with the learning styles myth. Both have been investigated and found to be lacking in empirical support. No one likes to read long passages of text without some intrinsic interest (but we can do that).

In short, while I laud the collection, the surrounding discussion is flawed. Once again, there’s a lack of awareness of learning science being applied. While that’s understandable, it’s not sufficient.  My $0.05.

A new common tragedy?

by 2 Comments

Recently, my kids (heh, in their 20s) let me know that they don’t use Yelp. That actually surprised and puzzled me. Not specifically because of Yelp, but instead because there’s a societal benefit that’s possibly being undermined or abandoned. I may be naive, but I think that we may be missing an opportunity. So here’s my exploration of a potential new common tragedy.

The idea of the commons is simple, though also somewhat controversial. There’s a shared resource. In the traditional economic model, it’s limited. Thus, everyone taking advantage of it ends up ruining the resource (the infamous ‘tragedy of the commons’). In this case, however, the potential tragedy is different.

Information, as has been said, wants to be free. With the internet, it’s almost that way, and there are almost zero limits on the information (for better or worse). We can take advantage of the information for little more than the cost of a browser-capable device and an internet connection (which can come just with a cup of coffee ;). We can also contribute. That’s social media.

That’s been the premise of some of the more powerful ideas of the internet. If we share information, we can all benefit. Thus, we should offer up information and in return get the benefit. We don’t have to offer it, but if we do we all benefit. It’s cooperation. Social media has led to many great wins. My colleague and friend, Paul Signorelli, has a new book just on that! In his Change the World Using Social Media, he says “social media platforms can…produce positive change”. Of course, there are also problematic uses. The ways in which certain platforms (*cough* Facebook *cough*) have been used to spread misinformation is a caution. Yet, I believe these are problems that are solvable.

Now, Yelp is a service where people can share reviews of almost any service: repairs, meals, … And it’s just an example, there are other ways people share information, such as Wikipedia, NextDoor, etc. Yelp got off to a somewhat idiosyncratic start, owing to claims of favoritism. However, it’s now relatively reliable, I believe. (Am I wrong?)

The possibility is that if everyone fairly uses such as service, that everyone benefits. You do have to offer your own input, but you gain from others. Of course, the service itself must be principled, including a way to self-repair any problems. There can be more than one, though one tends to end up being dominant.

What’s problematic, to me, is why people wouldn’t participate. For example, my kids. For one, there’s a belief that people only write negative reviews. Yet we do see businesses with ratings from 3 to 5, so clearly there are positive reviews (I’ve done both).  Yelp has helped me find good places to eat and get valuable services. I’ve likewise shared my experiences, to help others.

However, what may not be solvable is getting people on board with the idea of the benefit. If we turn away from this opportunity, we end up losing 0ut. Yes, I can be an idealist, but I’d hope that we can see the ultimate benefit that can be obtained. Across many platforms, ideally. I’d like to avoid a new common tragedy. I’m also willing to be wrong, so I welcome feedback.

 

My ‘Man on the Moon’ Project

by 8 Comments

There have been a variety of proposals for the next ‘man on the moon’ project since JFK first inspired us. This includes going to Mars, infrastructure revitalization, and more. And I’m sympathetic to them. I’d like us to commit to manufacturing and installing solar panels over all parking lots, both to stimulate jobs and the economy, and transform our energy infrastructure, for instance. However, with my focus on learning and technology, there’s another ‘man on the moon’ project I’d like to see.

I’d like to see an entire K12 curriculum online (in English, but open, so that anyone can translate it). However, there are nuances here. I’m not oblivious to the fact that there are folks pushing in this direction. I don’t know them all, but I certainly have some reservations. So let me document three important criteria that I think are critical to make this work (queue my claim “only two things wrong with education in this country, the curriculum and the pedagogy, other than that it’s fine”).

First, as presaged, it can’t be the existing curriculum.  Common Core isn’t evil, but it’s still focused on a set of elements that are out of touch. As an example, I’ll channel Roger Schank on the quadratic equation: everyone’s learned (and forgotten) it, almost no one actually uses it. Why? Making every kid learn it is just silly. Our curriculum is a holdover from what was stipulated at the founding of this country. Let’s get a curriculum that’s looking forward, not back. Let’s include the ability to balance a bankbook, to project manage, to critically evaluate claims, to communicate visually, and the like.

Second, as suggested, it can’t be the existing pedagogy. Lecture and test don’t lead to retaining and transferring the ability to do. Instead, learning science tells us that we need to be given challenging problems, and resources and guidance to solve them. Quite simply, we need to practice as we want to be able to perform. Instruction is designed action and guided reflection. Ideally, we’d layer on learning on top of learner interests. Which leads to the third component.

We need to develop teachers who can facilitate learning in this new pedagogy. We can’t assume teachers can do this. There are many dedicated teachers, but the system is aligned against effective outcomes. (Just look at the lack of success of educational reform initiatives.) David Preston, with his Open Source Learning has a wonderful idea, but it takes a different sort of teacher. We also can’t assume learners sitting at computers. So, having a teacher support component along with every element is important.

Are there initiatives that are working on all this? I have yet to see any one that’s gotten it all right.  The ones I’ve seen lack on one or another element. I’m happy to be wrong!

I also recognize that agreeing on all the elements, each of which is controversial, is problematic. (What’s the right curricula? Direct instruction or constructivist? How do we value teachers in society?) We’d have major challenges in assembling folks to address any of these, let alone all and achieving convergence.

However, think of the upside. What could we accomplish if we had an effective education system preparing youth for the success of our future? What is the best investment in our future?  I realize it’s a big dream; and I’m not in a position to make it happen. Yet I did want to drop the spark, and see if it fire any imaginations. I’m happy to help. So, this is my ‘man on the moon’ project; what am I missing?

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!

2021 Top 10 Tools for Learning

by Leave a Comment

As always, I like to participate in my Internet Time Alliance colleague Jane Hart’s Top 10 Tools for Learning survey. However, in reviewing last year’s list, things haven’t changed much. Still, it’s worth getting out there. So there’re my selections for 2021 top 10 tools for learning.

One of the major things I do is write: book, blog posts, articles, and more. So the first two tools I use are for writing:

1. Word. Yes, not totally pleased about the provider, but I have yet to find a tool with better industrial strength outlining. And, well, I’ve been using it since around 1989, so…there’s some familiarity…

2. WordPress. Of course, that’s how I’m writing here. I also use it for writing for the HPT Treasures blog (I post once a month, third Friday. Also I can occasionally use it for managing other sites (e.g. IBSTPI).

Another way I get my mind around new understandings is by representing information structure. So:

3. OmniGraffle. While this is Apple only, and dear, it so far is the best tool I’ve found to make diagrams. It’s got more capability than I need, but it also works the way I think, so…all told it’s still the winner.

4. OmniOutliner. Outlining is another way I think. While for writing it can be in Word, for other things: checklists, presentations, etc, it helps to have a dedicated tool. Again, Apple only, dear, and overkill, but their cheaper version doesn’t include columns, and that can be helpful!

I also do a fair bit of presentations: keynotes, webinars, and more. While I’m often forced to end up using Powerpoint…

5. Keynote. My native presentation tool. (yes, I’m an Apple person, what can I say?). It’s just cleaner for me than alternatives.

From there, we get to social tools:

6. Twitter has been a long-standing tool. Tracking other folks, participating in dialogs, and even asking questions, Twitter’s an ongoing contributor to my learning.

7. LinkedIn is where I professionally socialize, and it’s becoming more prominent in my interactions. People reach out to me there, and I also track some folks, and there are occasionally interesting discussions.

8. Zoom has, well, zoomed up to the top of my interaction tool suite.  I’ve used it for chats, meetings, and webinars.

Then, of course, there’s searching for answers.

9. DuckDuckGo. I’ve switched to use this as my search engine, as it’s less-tracking, and provides good results.

10. Safari is still my browser of choice. I’ve experimented with Brave, but it hadn’t synched bookmarks across my devices. Now it does, but it’s hard to switch again.

So that’s my 2021 top 10 learning tools list. (Not really in any order, but I’ve numbered anyway. ;) It’s a personal list, since I’m not formally in education nor part of a workplace. I’ve been using Teams more, but I still find it has silly limitations, so my preference is Slack.

 

 

Jay Cross Memorial Award 2021: Sahana Chattopadhyay

by 1 Comment

Jay Cross was a deep thinker and a man of many talents, never resting on his past accomplishments. Following his death in November 2015, the partners of the Internet Time Alliance — Jane Hart, Charles Jennings, Harold Jarche, and myself — resolved to continue Jay’s work. The Internet Time Alliance Award, in memory of Jay Cross, is an annual presentation. We award it to a workplace learning professional who has contributed in positive ways to the field of Informal Learning. The Jay Cross Memorial Award is one way to keep pushing our professional fields and industries to find new and better ways to learn and work.

Recipients champion workplace and social learning practices inside their organization and/or on the wider stage. They share their work in public and often challenge conventional wisdom. We look for professionals who are convincing and effective advocates of a humanistic approach to workplace learning and performance. Recipients also continuously welcome challenges at the cutting edge of their expertise.

We announce the award on 5 July, Jay’s birthday. The Internet Time Alliance Jay Cross Memorial Award recipient for 2021 is Sahana Chattopadhyay.

Sahana is the founder of Proteeti — a Sanskrit word meaning learning that transforms — which describes the spirit of the award. She has written extensively about learning and development and has been active on social media for many years.

I first met Sahana through #lrnchat, and she maintained a steady support of Jay and the Internet Time Alliance’s work. She’s continued to be a voice for making sense of an uncertain world, which overlaps substantially with some of our own work. 

At her site, she talks about moving to “a world where many worlds fit” through acceptance of others, interconnection, and living with emergence. She applies these principles to organizations and leaders to facilitate shifting to more effective and humane ways of being.

As a vocal advocate for mindsets that unleash possibility, Sahana embodies the ideals Jay Cross worked towards. We’re honored to be able to recognize her work through the Jay Cross Memorial Award.

Misaligned expectations

by 1 Comment

As part of the Learning Development Conference that’s going on for the next five weeks (not too late to join in!), there have already been events. Given that the focus is on evidence-based approaches, a group set up a separate discussion room for learning science. Interestingly, though perhaps not surprisingly, our discussion ended up including barriers. One of the barriers, as has appeared in several guises across recent conversations, are the expectations on L&D. Some of them are our own, and some are others, but they all hamper our ability to do our best. So I thought I’d discuss some of these misaligned expectations.

One of the most prominent expectations is around the timeframes for L&D work. My take is that after 9/11, a lot of folks didn’t want to travel, so all training went online. Unfortunately (as with the lingering pandemic), there was little focus on rethinking, and instead a mad rush to get things online. Which meant that a lot of content-based training ended up being content-based elearning. The rush to take content and put it onscreen drove some of the excitement around ‘rapid elearning’.

The continuing focus on efficiency – taking content, adding a quiz, and putting it online – was pushed to the extreme.  It’s now an expectation that with an authoring tool and content, a designer can put up a course in 1-2 weeks. Which might satisfy some box-checking, but it isn’t going to lead to any change in meaningful outcomes. Really, we need slow learning! Yet there’s another barrier here.

Too often, we have our own expectation that “if we build it, it is good”. That is, too often we take an order for a course, we build it, and we assume all is well. There’s no measurement to see if the problem is fixed, let alone tuning to ensure it is. We don’t have expectations that we need to be measuring our impact! Sure it’s hard; we have to talk to the business owners about measurement, and get data. Yet, like other areas of the organization, we should be looking for our initiatives to lead to measurable change. One of these days, someone’s going to ask us to justify our expenditures in terms of impact, and we’ll struggle if we haven’t changed.

Of course, another of our misaligned expectations is that our learning design approaches are effective. We still see, too often, courses that are content-dump, not serious solutions. This is, of course, why we’re talking about learning science, but while one of us had support to be evidence-based, others still do not. We face a populace, stakeholders and our audiences, that have been to school. Therefore, the expectation is that if it looks like school, it must be learning. We have to fight this.

It d0esn’t help that well-designed (and well-produced) elearning is subtly different than just well-produced elearning. We can’t (and, frankly, many vendors get by on this) expect our stakeholders to know the difference, but we must and we must fight for the importance of the difference. While I laud the orgs that have expectations that their learning group is as evidence-based as the rest, and their group can back that up with data, they’re sadly not as prevalent as we need.

There are more, but these are some major expectations that interfere with our ability to do our best. The solution? That’s a good question. I think we need to do a lot more education of our stakeholders (as well as ourselves). We need to (gently, carefully) generate an understanding that learning requires practice and feedback, and extends beyond the event. We don’t need everyone to understand the nuances (just as we don’t need to know the details of sales or operations or…unless we’re improving performance on it), but we do need them to be thinking in terms of reasonable amounts of time to develop effective learning, that this requires data, and that not every problems has a training solution. If we can adjust these misaligned expectations, we just might be able to do our job properly, and help our organizations. Which, really, is what we want to be about anyway.

Doing Gamification Wrong

by 8 Comments

roulette wheelAs I’ve said before, I’m not a fan of ‘gamification’. Certainly for formal learning, where I think intrinsic motivation is a better area to focus on than extrinsic. (Yes, there are times it makes sense, like tarting up rote memory development, but it’s under-considered and over-used.)  Outside of formal learning, it’s clear that it works in certain places. However, we need to be cautious in considering it a panacea. In a recent instance, I actually think it’s definitely misapplied. So here’s an example of doing gamification wrong.

This came to me via a LinkedIn message where the correspondent pointed me to their recent blog article. (BTW, I don’t usually respond to these, but if I do, you’re going to run the risk that I poke holes. 😈) In the article, they were talking about using gamification to build organizational engagement. Interestingly, even in their own article, they were pointing to other useful directions unknowingly!

The problem, as claimed, is that working remote can remove engagement. Which is plausible. The suggestion, however, was that gamification was the solution. Which I suggest is a patch upon a more fundamental problem. The issue was a daily huddle, and this quote summarizes the problem: “there is zero to little accountability of engagement and participation “.  Their solution: add points to these things. Let me suggest that’s wrong.

What facilitates engagement is a sense of purpose and belonging. That is, recognizing that what one does contributes to the unit, and the unit contributes to the organization, and the organization contributes to society. Getting those lined up and clear is a great way to build meaningful engagement. Interestingly, even in the article they quote: “to build true engagement, people often need to feel like they are contributing to something bigger than themselves.” Right! So how does gamification help? That seems to be trying to patch a lack of purpose. As I’ve argued before, the transformation is not digital first, it’s people first.

They segue off to microlearning, without (of course) defining it. They ended up meaning spaced learning (as opposed to performance support). Which, again, isn’t gamification but they push it into there. Again, wrongly. They do mention a successful instance, where Google got 100% compliance on travel expenses, but that’s very different than company engagement. It’s got to be the right application.

Overall, gamification by extrinsic motivation can work under the right circumstances, but it’s not a solution to all that ails an organization. There are ways and times, but it’s all too easy to be doing gamification wrong. ‘Tis better to fix a broken culture than to patch it. Patching is, at best, a temporary solution. This is certainly an example.