Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

You are here: Home / Archives for Clark

Extreme Times

by 1 Comment

This was originally intended to be one of my Learning Solutions Mag columns (Quinnsights). Sadly, that platform is no longer an option. Guess this is part of the extreme times! It’s a bit long for my usual posts, but I didn’t want it to go to waste. 

In 2004, I co-wrote a chapter with Eileen Clegg for Marcia Conner & James G. Clawson’s Creating a Learning Culture book to accompany the event they held on the topic. Eileen’s husband was doing research on ‘extremophiles’, organisms that survive in extreme conditions, and we were looking at biomimetic inspiration from those mechanisms. Titled The Agility Factor, I think the lessons we wrote about are all the more important now in these extreme times.

Sure, at this point everyone is touting solutions for working and learning at home. With most of the population under some form of lockdown, there are a lot of prescriptions, to the extent there’s already a backlash! Even I’ve been guilty. But here I want to talk a bigger scope than just learning. People are worried. Organizations are struggling.

At the time, our commentary was largely reacting to the crash of the internet bubble circa 2001. Times were tough, and organizations were wondering how to cope. Fast forward to 2020, and we’re in even more dire circumstances. While then we had economic turmoil, now we’re adding in a lethal disease. Uncertainly abounds. Our employees, our managers, our executives are all scrambling to make sense. And so, I thought it appropriate to revisit those lessons in this new era, and consider the technology/human intersection in these times.

Coping with Extreme Times

One of the main issues that contextualizes this conversation is that different organizations are at different places in their digital transformation. And, as I opined recently, it’s about getting the culture right first.

It’s easy to think of organizations that just haven’t yet started using digital, and are faced with the need to change. They’re going to struggle. There is a lot of guidance out there, but if you haven’t got your mind around the technology, or what communication, collaboration, and learning are all about, there’s more to it.

If you’ve started with some experimentation, it should be easier. You’ve tried out some things, and so you’ve had some technology experience. You may well have tried and failed, but the knowledge from losses should be useful too! That’s what a learning organization is all about.

Which means that another organization type that will struggle is the one that’s rigidly hierarchical. One that’s had all the thinking done up top, and filtered down. They may well have dictated technology practices, but they’re likely more about making things more efficient. And so, trying to be effective at scale at distance is a different issue.

Instead, the organizations that thrive are those that are continually experimenting, learning, and moving forward. I reckon many folks are wishing they’d tried out some things already, rather than scrambling. Of course, this is different not just quantitatively, but qualitatively, and that means we’re going beyond just adaptation. We need to go big in extreme times!

Extremophiles

Across the globe, and presumably the universe, conditions vary from desiccating heat to crippling cold. Environments may have high toxicity owing to chemicals, salt, and more. And, as circumstances change, organisms need to adapt. And yet, life somehow exists in many of these circumstances. How? Through a variety of mechanisms. Not all are unique to extremophiles, but each is used and provides some insight. Here are the suite we talked about:

  • Ionic bonds: while all organisms have proteins connected by ionic bonds, extremophile organisms have more and stronger bonds.
  • Environmental monitoring: here, the organism is in tight coupling with the environment, the better to respond, though sometime the responses are unusual.
  • Heat-shock proteins: special proteins are released under threat to help protect other proteins.
  • Equilibrium: extremophiles can not only attempt to expel any toxicity, certain extremophiles work to neutralize the toxic element internally.
  • Symbiosis: certain organisms create unique relationships that allow them to mutually coexist in extreme conditions.

For each of these there are organizational corollaries that we can consider, and then we can look at how technology and learning & development can help. We need to go beyond the usual and think about how to do these in a big way.

Organizational Equivalents

How do translate these? There are not direct transfers, but inferences we can make. Just as organizations been using inspirations from animals to guide new thinking in products, here we’re looking at inspirations for how to work together better. What do organisms that adapt to environmental extremes mean for organizations coping in extreme times?

First, strengthening the bonds is about building trust in the organization and believing in the organizational mission. First, of course, it’s about connecting people, so that they care about one another. And having managers work as coaches, using data to improve folks, not censure them. Then, as Dan Pink, in Drive, helped us know, it’s about connecting people to purpose. That means an organization has to have a meaningful purpose, one that people feel proud to align with. And everyone in the org needs to understand how their role contributes. Yes, this is all work, but the point is that these organisms invest extra effort to be able to withstand extraordinary conditions.

Environmental monitoring isn’t new, as most organizations track market trends, competitive analysis, customer sentiment, and more. Here it means going further, with everyone being active in their community of practice and actively monitoring trends in related fields for implications to improve practice. The organization needs to be sensitive to what’s happening in rich and deep ways. This has to not be done as a special operation, but permeate the organization.

Heat shock proteins suggest a proactive approach to trouble. One form is internal monitoring for problems. Health initiatives in the organization are not just promoting healthy behaviors, but also actively developing the skills to notice and watch out for your fellow employee. It’s about caring enough to look for signs of struggle and reach out and try to help. In times like this, it’s more, ensuring that as people face changes, they have support to understand, act differently, and persist until it becomes a new way of doing things.

Equilibrium is an interesting one that suggests taking in new ideas, trying them out, and seeing what they imply. Think “let’s try it out and see how it’s re-contextualized here and then what it might mean that we can do better”, not “that’s not how we do it here”. It’s about experimentation, and internalizing new ideas. It’s got to be more than just copying (e.g. best practices), and going beyond to understand the underlying ideas and modifying them to work in this context (e.g. best principles).

Finally, symbiosis implies working with other organizations in a radically more integrated manner. Instead of just consuming things, you look at the practices that were instituted by Toyota. They looked at their supply chain partners and assisted them in becoming more effective and efficient. It’s about radical cooperation.

L&D Technology Role

So, given that we’re about eLearning, what’s the role of technology here? At core, it’s about communication. It’s about moving to showing your work, including mistakes and lessons learned (always together).  And there are lots of ways to do this.

One of the most important steps is to have bosses, managers and executives, share their thinking. I know, it seems risky, but it builds trust. If ‘the boss’ is willing to admit mistakes, it makes the environment feel safe. And that builds those bonds that will help an organization weather tough times.

It also means helping individuals develop active monitoring skills. There are tools that track outside news and filter it for particular interests. Everyone can tailor their own feed. And this is part of building your personal knowledge mastery. Everyone should be looking for new ideas to improve.

The new ideas need, of course, to be coupled with experimentation, such as equilibrium suggests. And this may involve collaboration to make it work. So collaborative tools are important to develop testing plans and evaluate outcomes. Building in an expectation of lessons learned, and having scheduled sharing events for these lessons, is a complement. And, if not digitally moderated, at least capturing and sharing the outcomes for others to learn from.

It’s important also to support people in these new ways of working. Don’t just expect them to get it, but build support into and/or around the tools. Don’t just train, but anticipate struggles and build support. And have support for unanticipated struggles! This also includes quick references about what to do when you’re worried about someone or even yourself. This is the heat-shock approach of preventing breakdowns during the transitions.

And, of course, building a network that includes your partners along the supply chain is the symbiotic approach. It’s about building a sharing community that can help them be better, and they can do the same for you. It’s also about collaboration, working together on problems rather than casting blame. This builds bonds with them too!

The L&D role is to facilitate all this communication and collaboration. In extreme times, L&D is part of the solution. Continual learning is required, and building a strong framework for keeping people together to work and learn is critical. We’re increasingly learning that working together is better; bake that into your own operations!

Remote working expertise

by Leave a Comment

More and more, we’re working from home. This has important implications for organizations figuring out how to make that time productive. What are the best source(s) for remote working expertise? Here’re my recommendations.

I believe that applying the principles of cognitive science to how we think, work, and learn, is a good guide. There is lots known about how people are able to bring their best, alone and together. And, when that intersects with technology, we can find ways to equal, or surpass, existing workplace practices. We already know that many existing practices are contrary to the best outcomes, so this can be an inflection point. And, well, this is where I work and play. And yet, I’m certainly not the only; here are some more resources.

Two of my colleagues in the Internet Time Alliance (ITA) have expertise in working effectively. Jane Hart’s modern workplace learning, in particular, has useful guidance. While not specific to remote working, the principles generalize there very well. And Harold Jarche is one of the top thinkers about the intersection of work and learning. Increasingly work is learning, and his frameworks including Seek-Sense-Share are apt. Particularly when you’re working more alone. Both have worked with organizations to improve outcomes. Charles Jennings does as well, personally, but a lot of his work currently is more on design methodologies and corporate strategy.

I’m also a fan of Mark Britz and his work in thinking through the social aspects of learning (he’s an ITA Jay Cross Memorial Award winner). He looks at how to build a meaningful community within organizations, and that’s a critical part of being able to maintain cohesiveness when you are not together all the time. Jane Bozarth’s work on social, as embodied in her book Show Your Work, is a great guide to some of the core principles to enable more effective working.

Then there’s the whole collection of independents at Change Agents Worldwide. With folks like Simon Terry, Helen Blunden, Marcia Conner, and more, all are folks who collaborate with organizations to work more effectively. (Helen and Marcia are recipients of the ITA Jay Cross Memorial Award as well.) The Change Agents mantra: “We believe the Future of Work will involve: working like a network, organizing like a network, leading like a network, and learning like a network.”

Then there are frameworks that make sense in this era of crisis. I’m a fan of Dave Snowden’s Cynefin framework talks about how to deal with different states of order. (Harold uses it a lot too.) The Community Maturity Model also can provide guidance about building effective work relationships. I immodestly like our ITA Coherent Organization framework as well.

I’m sure there are more good resources, but these are some ways to think about remote working expertise that I think stand up to scrutiny. I welcome your suggestions.

Two learning engineerings?

by Leave a Comment

So, I’ve written before about ‘learning engineering’. And, separately, it’s become an issue just what the term means. It appears there are two ‘learning engineerings’, and the issue is how to resolve them. So, let’s look at the contenders.

First, there’s the notion of engineering as applied science. We refer to chemical engineering as applied chemistry, electrical engineering as applied physics, etc. There’s not a one-to-one correspondence between label and theoretical field, but there is a relationship of theory and application.

Thus, learning engineering could be the application of learning science to the design of instruction. Which is ‘instructional design’. And, to be clear, there’s a contingent that suggests this is what learning engineering could and should be. I, for one, think we should be looking to a focus on applied learning science instead of thinking of designing instruction, simply because the entrenched practices have devolved to content and a quiz. Which isn’t true ID, but…

On the other hand, there’s another perspective. Here, we’re recognizing that new technologies, particularly when we get to content systems, require a considerable amount of engineering to put them together. It’s applying computer systems to meet learning needs. Here, this is a complement to instructional design, where we’re looking at the engineering to support learning. And this is a valid recognition. Increasingly, we separate out design from development, and the development to make a full learning experience. It just could be the developer using an authoring tool, but when we’re talking AR/VR, or adaptive systems, and blended learning experiences and a Total Learning Architecture, it’s more.

As I see it, there’re two potential outcomes. We leave ID as the ‘applied learning science’, and let learning engineering mean the bit-twiddling (informed by learning science). Or, we reenergize ID by relabeling it, and come up with a new term for the complex system creation.

I guess I’m kind of inclined to the former, except, we relabel ID as LXD. So we have LXD and LXE (because you can’t call it LXDesign and LXDevelopment because then you have acronym confusion :).  That’s my take, what’s yours?

Shallow or Deep

by 1 Comment

I wrote about how I was frustrated with the lack of any decent learning expertise in too many vendors. And, lately I’ve been seeing more orgs making learning claims. Unrelated, of course, because it’s too soon. Still, are things improving? My experience suggests that it’s not yet quite the case. The problem is whether their learning expertise is shallow or deep. And, you can guess where this is going ;).

For one, a number of times I’ve taken down some silly myths based marketing. And, if people are putting out such snake oil, you really shouldn’t be trusting them. If they’re going on about how people are learning differently these days, you should be on notice. Or, rather, they should!

It goes further, however. If a company is posing as learning science informed, and then propagating myths stuff, you should be worried. Yet it seems all too common. After that myths piece, and the post by an ‘authority’ in the field, I came across another. This site talked about brain science, and says they know about ed psych, cognitive research, but also neuroscience. Going deeper, they’re talking Bloom’s Taxonomy, and dopamine.  And that’s not promising.

And the reason this worries me is not propagating myths, but instead it may be misleading about how capable an org really is. Lots of people can talk glibly, tossing around terms like cognitive, and psychology. And some actually do know their stuff. BUT, it takes more than a polished site and shiny patter to mean they really do know their stuff. And if you need real change (and otherwise why spend?), you need real expertise.

So, fair warning. Because they say they get it, they may not really. Look, the human brain is the most complex thing in the known universe, so whether an org is shallow or deep really matters in delivering meaningful outcomes. If it matters (and it should).

How I work

by Leave a Comment

So, I work from home. A lot. And lots of folks are providing advice for those who have to make the shift in these interesting times. Rather than talk about what you should do, however, I thought I’d share what I do. So this is how I work.

This is my workspace. That’s a convertible desk, so I can be standing or sitting. That varies depending on what I’m working on, how I feel, etc. I’ve an ergonomic chair for sitting, and a foam pad I slide out when I’m standing. Behind me is my shelf of books, specifically L&D relevant ones, topped with awards & mementos, and a copy of each of my writings on the bottom shelf. Water bottle’s to the side, for regular access to stay hydrated. There’s a chair nearby for our little old dog who gets lonely when no one else is around.

On the other side is my laptop, which I plug into the large monitor and a hub. When I travel, it often goes with me (particularly if it’s more than a day or two). There’s a laser printer, scanner, CD/DVD drive, micro-usb cable, and a backup drive all plugged in, plus my iDevices.

I tend to get up, read the news and eat brekkie, before descending to my lair (it’s the lowest room in the house, which means it can get cold in the winter). I hang a vest with fingerless gloves on the inside of the door to use when it’s cold. There’s a robe too, if I happen to come down at night. I’m too twitchy to typically be able to sit or stand and work for hours, so I regularly am up and about just to move. Snack breaks, or to take out the dog. For health reasons I try to get a walk in, and, ideally, some exercise. There is a torture device exercise machine in my office.

I’m doing this pretty much seven days a week, though I do try to leave time free for m’lady when it’s her weekend (which isn’t the same as everyone else). When there are times I need to crack down, I do so. I like to meet my commitments.

I do have a habit of working in fits and spurts. And the evidence suggests I’m very productive this way, letting things percolate and then there’s a burst of output. I also spend a fair bit of time consuming input to prepare for the percolation. I can’t just sit and crank on things too long; reckon I’ve a bit of ADD! So I break it up, and knock off a chunk before doing something else for a bit. Giving myself deliverables and deadlines helps, too.

I’ve experimented with various ways to project manage my time. I’ve several different projects in Pagico that I put tasks in. Also, it helps to just block out time on my calendar for tasks I need to get to. I definitely err on the side of apps that I can use regardless of what device I’m on.  When inspiration strikes, you need to be able to capture it.

Occasionally I’ll go out and meet a colleague or attend an event somewhere in the area. But otherwise, I’m a homebody except when I’m on the road, which happens semi-regularly. So I’m very used to hanging out alone. I’m not one of those who has to get fancy dressed every morning, so I just change from sleep clothes into sweats and a t-shirt. I do shave before I’m on screen (or before I go out). If I’ve a call, I can put on a collared shirt, and of course if I go out I do get properly dressed.

How do I do it? With Slack, Zoom, LinkedIn, Facebook, and email. Slack is a working setup, mostly with my IBSTPI colleagues, but there’s a social group I’m part of on there as well. I los I Zoom for meetings regularly, and the chat is how I stay in touch with the rest of the ITA. I have a LinkedIn group for the L&D Revolution, and track several others. Facebook is reserved for interpersonal communications with friends, but it helps keep me sane. I do use email to communicate, and am on a couple of mailing list communities that also occasionally do events.

With IBSTPI and others, Google Docs are a frequent way to develop and share documents. I find the Drive to be well-nigh impenetrable, but I mostly can find stuff. There really is an opportunity for better collaborative working arrangements! And of course I create my own documents, diagrams, etc, which I share.

This is how I work, most of the time when I’m remote. What did I forget to mention? And how does this compare to your approach?

 

 

Interesting times

by Leave a Comment

It was when I was living in Australia that I first heard the apocryphal Chinese curse “may you live in interesting times.” And, I have to say, the going’s gotten weird. A few reflections on the situation, all of course related to COVID-19.

I wrote some months ago about my spring schedule. And, well, as you might’ve guessed, things have changed. My trip to Boston has been postponed for a year (I’ll be giving a webinar for ATD NE).  I had added a trip to Brazil in May, which I’d yet to tell you about since they hadn’t gotten a page up, but…it’s been postponed.  And my trip to Belgium in June? Not feeling optimistic. (And this isn’t good, personally. As an independent, it’s gigs that pay the way. Need some remote work?)

Remote, because the entire SF Bay Area, where I live, is now on ‘stay home’ mode as of midnight last night.  Only essential services and travel are on. Of course work-based travel is acceptable, but right now, no one wants to meet in person. And there’s actually a good reason for this…

Curve below health system capacity if we take precautionsThis is a really wonderful diagram (ok, my poor rendition of it). It is the clearest depiction of the argument to take extraordinary measures. Simple, elegant. Our health system aims to cope with average levels of problems. We’re talking considerably more than that. This diagram, and the associated label “flattening the curve” really conveys the need for action. But this has really helped convey the necessity. I am using an adaptation to make the case for Community Emergency Response Team, a training initiative I’m engaged in. Which is also postponed.

I worry about much more, of course. We’ve seen weird behaviors (stockpiling toilet paper, an unsymptomatic response), as well as good ones (elbow bumps for greeting). Everyone, and I mean everyone, is weighing in on how to design learning online and how to work remotely. I wasn’t going to, but an editor for one of my columns asked. I at least got agreement to not just talk the basics, but about using the opportunity to rethink.

My biggest concern is the impact on people’s lives! Folks’ livelihoods are at risk. There’s a lot of financial activity that’s not going to be happening (dining, for instance). The implications for many people – diminished income, mortgages or rent unpaid – are a concern. One interesting aside that a colleague noticed: there’s likely to be many more people who know what good hand-washing means now.  Please do learn it!

The main thing is to stay safe, for your sake and others. There’s a segment of the population that’s at higher risk, and that’s who we’re needing to help. And keep the need within capacity. We’re not only not equipped, but not supplied, to meet the possible demand when we don’t do enough.

I hope to see you at the other end of this, but stay tuned for all sorts of interim initiatives. We’re living in interesting times, and it’s an opportunity to be innovative, resilient, and humane. Here’s hoping that we become better as a consequence.

My reading list compilation

by Leave a Comment

Several times over the past years, I’ve posted about reading lists. And, for reasons that I’m still not clear about, I decided to create a sort of ‘ultimate’ reading list compilation. Not saying it’s definitive, for several reasons.

First, it’s only books. That is, published tomes. You may read them online or in print, but they’re books, not articles, for instance. So, Cognitive Apprenticeship isn’t on it.

Second, they’re my preferences. And I have biases. I’m biased towards cognitive perspectives. I lean in to learning. I’ll be swayed by presentations that resonate with me. Likewise towards people I respect. Your mileage may vary.

And, it’s fluid. I’m sure I’ve missed some things. I’ve already added Will Thalheimer’s Smile Sheets book, for instance, as an oversight. New things will cross my radar. I’ll find out certain people got their knickers (appropriately) in a knot since I missed them. And I may drop things, on reflection, or upon discovery of better choices.

Finally, I simply haven’t read everything. So it’s limited to my experience.

And a couple of other things. It’s broken down in several ways, like I did earlier. That is, there are entry level and more advanced, and some are different directions.

And it’s intended to be fluid. If I find more things, I’ll put them in. If I change my mind, that can happen. So, don’t take it as a given.

So, there it is. My reading list compilation. For what it’s worth. Feedback, suggestions, etc all welcome.

 

 

Is intrinsic motivation a myth?

by 6 Comments

I was asked to comment on intrinsic motivation, and was pointed to an article claiming that it’s a myth(!). Given that I’m a staunch advocate of intrinsic motivation, I felt this was something that I should comprehend. Is intrinsic motivation a myth? My inclination is ‘no’, but let’s explore.

As background, there’s usually a distinction made between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation is, to me, when you use external incentives to motivate someone to do something. You can use tangible offerings like money or products/produce, or more ephemeral rewards like points. Intrinsic motivation is, instead, finding out what people care about and tapping into that. Helping them see that this behavior aligns with their own intentions, so to speak.

The article claims that all intrinsic motivation is merely subverted extrinsic motivation. There are things we want, but it’s shameful to admit it, so we disguise our intent. Which is a very behavioristic way to view it. And I think it’s wrong.

There are debates about our motivators. Altruism, for instance, would seem to be contrary to one’s interests, since doing something for others would disadvantage oneself. However, a more complex view suggests that there are benefits to altruism. Improving society improves the world for our offspring, for instance. So doing things for the common good isn’t, to me, a legitimate challenge.

But there are also our interests. Intellectual interests. You could argue that they are to serve a larger purpose like a bigger paycheck, but we also expend resources to do things we enjoy: our hobbies, entertainment, and the like. So there doesn’t have to be a totally mercenary motivation.

And, my point isn’t to try to find fault with anyone’s argument, but instead to find useful ways forward. What can, and should we do? First, we should find out why whatever we’re teaching is important. Here’s a hint: if we can’t find the reason, why are we bothering?  Otherwise, let’s make that reason manifest to the learner!  Safety, less errors, faster solutions, happier customers, these are all plausible. When, of course, learners understand how their role fits in to the bigger picture (read: purpose).

Of course, if we can segment our learners to the point where we can tap into elements unique to the audience, we might do even more. For a course on project management for civil engineers working on large infrastructure projects, for instance, I exaggerated it one level to terraforming planets.

So, I want to promote, not deny, intrinsic motivation. Finding a real reason people should do something is far better than trying to incite them to do things they otherwise wouldn’t want to do. There are more nuances, about building habits, but my short answer is to find why it’s important, and work on that. It’s a better long-term bet.

How to be a world-class educational technologist

by 4 Comments

On LinkedIn, I was asked: “I would like to ask sir, how can I be a world-class educational technologist?” And I thought that was a very interesting question. (Of course, my immediate response should be “how should I know?” ;) But I thought I’d do a bit better. So here’s a recast of my response.

First, I get requests about how to get started as an instructional designer (particularly offers to come work for me). And, well, I’m an independent consultant, and just haven’t been a business builder. But I want to respond helpfully, and it’s one of those things that happen enough that I have this canned response:

If you want a bootstrap, working volunteer for a not-for-profit (NFP) foundation is a good step if you can.  Areas of specialization? Depends on what you like: kids – K12 or NFP, higher ed, adult – organizational L&D. They differ. As to skills, make sure you know the major authoring tools, e.g. Lectora, Captivate, and/or Storyline. And of course have some background in instructional design/learning science.  If you haven’t covered performance consulting, look into it so you don’t design a course when there’s a better/simpler solution. Make sure you have a portfolio of work. Good luck!

In this case, I also pointed him to a previous post, where I’d outlined some roles for learning experience design.

Then, thinking at the bigger scale of not just getting going as a new ID, but persisting, I added this:

Overall, you have to have the passion, it’s a long road. Have a good understanding of learning science, a fundamental grasp of technology, a mind for both design and process, and then put it to work doing real projects! Continue to read, reflect, and then as you start getting your mind around it, start sharing your thinking and get feedback (and listen to it!). Start local, work outward to sharing regionally, nationally, and internationally. If you learn, adapt and improve, and persist, you can get there.

I think that’s the path to improvement, regardless. In short. There’s more: I have just finished reading Eric Barker’s Barking Up the Wrong Tree (affiliate link); thanks to an ATD Sacramento event attendee, and found it having very interesting recommendations. Things like setting goals, giving, getting mentored, and more.

I think aiming to be a world-class educational technologist is a noble goal. Even if you don’t succeed, you’re liable to be better than if you just go through the motions. Now, I’m sure you’ve found things I’ve missed, so have at it!

More Myths-Based Marketing

by 3 Comments

Is it the rising lack of trust in what anyone says? Have we turned into a society where any crazy marketing works? It certainly seems that way. It was only a couple of weeks ago I went on a rant, and yet, here we are again. A new twitter account (*not without controversy) @badlearning, has started taking on posts citing myths. And one caught my attention (not least because the stream mentioned the myths book ;). It got interesting when the marketing manager responded. Yet, I still will argue that it’s just more myths-based marketing.

*For context, it quickly got noticed amongst my colleagues. One colleague wasn’t sure that confronting myths was the appropriate approach. The particular issue (as several of us do that) was the anonymity of the poster. And blatantly calling out the flaws. You’ll note I don’t point to the perpetrator, just the error. I’m not going down the path of determining right or wrong, as I can see the concern, but also the potential for harm…  For full disclosure.

Digital Natives/Generations (& Goldfish) Myths

The post in question was announcing a new initiative, specifically “nano-learning” to address the new generation with a plan for “digital native advancement”. And, to my surprise when I chased the links, they pointed to Pew Research Center data. Which I generally think of as a reputable group. And, they have their categorizations defined, and used Census data as a basis to do the analysis.

One problem arises in their definitions of generations. Their bands (e.g. 1965 to 1980 for Gen X) aren’t constant across different proposals for generations!  How can you be claiming results for a group when there are fuzzy boundaries? I can create arbitrary boundaries and likely find differences.

And it’s also trying to define a category when it’s a continuum. One piece of data says the new generation will be more mixed. But isn’t that just a trend? Isn’t the US population becoming more diverse? Why try to attach it to a generation? What good does that do? Yes, our brains do want to categorize, but that doesn’t make it right. (See below.)

The other data is more problematic. For one, they refer to their own previous post. Um, er…And another admits it’s a marketing intelligence company. Like they have no vested interests in finding divisions they can promote and prosper from. Ahem. There’s even a post from Inc. that cites the goldfish myth, which has been shown to have been misapplied data. And they’re making that claim too, as the basis of ‘nano learning’!

But also there’s a presentation with a bunch of data but it doesn’t serve to differentiate between generations. It just says things like “young folks want to go overseas”. Without noting whether that’s different than previous generations. On the other hand, that source says that more Gen Z’s than Gen Y want to start their own business. But isn’t that likely to be a trend, too?

And…a representative of the organization weighed in: “I’m not sure I agree with you on all elements. Just like any generation shift in History, the new one has its own codes and vision of the world”. Er, that would be ‘no’. The problem is assuming the generations proposal, and working from there. The notion is fundamentally flawed. There’s so much variability in context, that it’s not neatly carved out that way. This is just more myths-based marketing.

Learning Styles myth

Just to add to the rant, another post called out by the same twitter account talked about the 65% of learners being visual. And that’s learning styles, but it turns out to be a whole separate myth as well. There’s a story, of course.

Tracked back by Jo Cook, the 65% figure has been retracted by the originator (much like the 7-38-55 myth). Yet it continues to appear. Not least by marketers pushing visual solutions. She points out that you can’t trust Forbes. There’s a cite, and it turns out that article goes down a rabbit hole of cascading web cites, ultimately leading to the now retracted claim, which isn’t really even in the data!

And, really, it’s a learning styles issue, because this is talking about how you learn. Which has been debunked. It’s not that learners don’t differ, it’s just that they vary so much by context (what/how/where/why/when they’re learning). And, there’s no evidence that adapting learning to learners is better.

Interestingly, the post author justified (not to me) the claim thusly: “Since you have never run a training dept/division or L&D or taught at uni, I. E. Never been in the real world and seen it in action, then you shouldn’t hide behind articles. I talked to other L&D and training execs and ID execs they all agreed with LS situational.” Um, I have taught at uni, and have a Ph.D. in cog psych. And I’ve researched this. As has Jo. And it’s wrong. And all the anecdotes from people (some who may have invested and thus have a vested interest in it being true), doesn’t change that.

Empirical research is tested on the real world. The problem with these things is, specifically, that it ‘feels right’. But it’s not. Worse, it’s harmful. It’s myths-based marketing again. And it’s not that we might not eventually be able to identify learning styles, but right now we can’t. And, we have a better basis for decisions anyway.

Avoiding myths-based marketing

There are many flaws in what’s transpired here.  People are using bad sources, not researching, and making claims that justify their work. Which doesn’t make it right.

For one, they’re suffering from confirmation bias. That’s when you only look for data that agrees with what you want to believe. Here, there’s robust counter-evidence.

And they’re not using good sources. Just because someone claims something and has a link, that doesn’t count as good evidence. Anecdotes can be data, but triangulation helps. As does aggregation and assessment of alternatives.

And the reasoning about the data is flawed. For instance, we can create artificial boundaries, and cite trends. So, X has been going up steadily for Y period. I could break Y into two pieces, and say that the second period has a higher average X than the previous period, and therefore the two periods are different. But it’s a continuum. It’s artificial and arbitrary.

We need to do better, as an industry. You don’t see executives using astrology to plot business plans. You don’t see product managers using alchemy to determine the next market offering. We have to stop using pseudo-science, and start using the results of research on learning. We need to avoid more myths-based marketing. Please!