So, I’ve previously mentioned the Learning & Development conference I’ll be participating in that starts late this month. And, their main sessions are not webinars, but basically mini-courses (with lots of variation). But they’ll also be having live sessions. Given that I’ve ‘asked and answered’ the question about where things go wrong, it’s time for me to get real. So I’ll be talking meaningful learning. Let me talk about each more.

First, of course, meaningful learning is about getting the learning science right. I’ve argued (and continue to do so) that we’ve got to fix the core of our learning designs before we worry about fancy new hardware like AR and VR. If the core’s wrong, we’re just gilding bad design (and gilded bad design is still bad design). If we don’t focus on the right objectives, manage attention, set challenge appropriately, provide the right models and examples, and most of all have the right practice, we’re wasting our time. As I’ve also said, once we’ve got that right, we’ve got lots of ways to implement it.

So, the asynchronous course I’ll be offering are the basics of learning science. Our information processing cycle, and the artifacts of our cognitive architecture. We’ll talk those things above, and have fun doing it!  You’ll get to experience several of the phenomena we’re talking about. And process the takehome messages.

For the live session (at two different times, we’re spanning the globe!), yes, I’ll talking meaningful learning. It is still based upon the contents of Engaging Learning (and previous posts), but a) pulled out of games into specifications for regular learning, b) expanded with all I’ve learned since then (and I’ve been continuing to explore what’s known and what that implies), and of course c) it’s, well, live!

If, by the way, you are thinking about attending the conference, but have some struggles with cost, get in touch with me. I may have a way to help out ;).  I hope to see you there, whether you want to be talking meaningful learning, or for any of the other myriad reasons.

So, last week, I asked the musical question: where are we going most wrong? I followed that up asking what most would help.  I also suggested  that I had my own answers.  So I have answers for each. My answer for the first part, where we’re going wrong, is somewhat complex. But for the second, I’m thinking that the biggest opportunity is making learning meaningful. My thoughts…

So, where we go most wrong is, to me, tied together. I think it’s mostly that we’re starting on the wrong foot. We’re not ensuring that we’re addressing the real problem. We take orders for courses, and then take what the experts tell us needs to be in. This gives us the wrong objective, the wrong content, and the wrong practice!

I’ve suggested that measurement might be the best solution for this. If we measured our impact (not our efficiency), that drives us to focus on things were we can make a difference.  Time for a shout out to Will Thalheimer and LTEM (or whatever it becomes). Or use appropriate techniques instead of throwing a course at everything.

If we had the right objective, there’s still the challenge of making sure we’re talking about ‘do’, not know. However, I think it’s less likely.

Most importantly, I think there’s good support for evidence-based learning design. Whether it’s Michael Allen, Julie Dirksen, Cathy Moore, Patty Shank, Mirjam Neelen, or someone else, there’s good guidance for design. Basically, how to create practice that aligns with outcomes, resource with models and examples, etc.

One area, however, I think we reliably get wrong and there’s not as much guidance for, is making learning meaningful. Not only is Keller the only ID theorist talking about the emotional side, there’s not much other systematic guidance. Rance Green’s new book on instructional story design gives a good stab, but I think there’s more. And while Nick Shackleton-Jones book has some good ideas, his model also has a fundamental flaw.

And I have addressed this. My book Engaging Learning was about designing games for learning, but the alignment at the core is applicable to making learning personally relevant. And, of course, my thinking’s continued. I’ve been digging in deeper into the emotional side.

So, my thinking is that this might be an area to really unpack and get concrete about. It’s been part of my approach to LXD, but I’m wondering about not trying to cover all the learning science, and focus on the unique elements of engagement. I’m signed up to speak on it at the Learning and Development Conference, but the question is whether I start doing more. Should I focus on making learning meaningful? And I really, really welcome your thoughts on this!

…and what’s most important to fix?  I was a co-conspirator on the Serious eLearning Manifesto, and we identified 8 values that separated typical elearning from serious elearning. However, I suspect that not all are as important, nor hard to fix. And, thinking about what my unique contribution could and should be, I wondered where best to target my efforts to avoid going most wrong. I have some thoughts, but…

First, I’d like to ask you two questions:

1. What are the best inflection points to improve learning?
2. Which would you most want to have help in addressing?

Note that they might be two completely different things.

Now, it could be a number of things.  Any one of the eight could be problematic. And it might be another that’s where you most would like help.

Is it getting the right objectives in the first place? We might fail to do the proper performance consulting. Thus, we’d be developing learning solutions that aren’t going to meet the need.

Another possibility is that we’re not providing the right support. We’re not providing useful models and examples instead of a content dump with what’s to hand.

We might not be helping learners understand why they should care. Are we missing out on developing motivation? Making it meaningful?

Another problem might be giving them abstract concepts instead of concrete practice. Are we asking them to do things in situations they recognize?

Also, we could be asking for them to recite knowledge back to us instead of applying it. Are we asking them to make decisions like we need them to make after the learning experience?

And we might be giving them simple feedback like “right” and “wrong” instead of providing them first with the consequences of their actions. And, we could be ensuring that the alternatives represent some real ways people go wrong, and providing feedback that addresses those specific misconceptions.

There’s also the possibility (probability?) that we’re not spacing out the learning. We could still be using the ‘event’ model, not reactivating the knowledge as appropriate.

And, of course, we might not be individualizing the challenges. We could be adapting to demonstrated learner capability. Are we?

Not only might one or more of these be the biggest contributor to a lack of learning impact, but some might be more challenging than others to address. And, of course, which ones should I be focusing on? I do address all in a variety of ways (c.f. the learning science 101 session I’ll be doing for the Learning Development Conference), but I’m thinking of focusing in.

And I have an idea where we may be going most wrong. But first, I’d like to hear your ideas. I’ll weigh in next week. And, of course, I could be wrong. So let me know!