Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Why aren’t things changing?

by Leave a Comment

Change is everywhere. We’ve heard again and again that the pace of change is increasing. Certainly we’re seeing more chaos in our society. Yet, some things don’t seem to change, L&D in particular. Why is that? Why aren’t things changing?

For one, I’m not alone in advocating for more. Jay Cross was promoting Informal Learning, and Marc Rosenberg was talking Beyond eLearning before I came out with Revolutionize L&D. Since then, (and, of course, before) there’s been a growing number of people talking about how we need to stop being ‘order takers’ and start being strategic about our energy and use of technology. Guy Wallace and the whole Performance Consulting industry is one facet. We see books from the likes of Lori Niles-Hoffman, Jess Almlie, and even Keith Keating, amongst others. We hear from folks as wise as Jane Bozarth, David Kelly, Connie Malamed, Ruth Clark, Will Thalheimer, Julie Dirksen, Don Taylor, Michael Allen, Nigel Paine, Megan Torrance, Matt Richter, and more (the list goes on). The message is pretty clear: only do courses when they make sense, and then do them well.

So why do we continue to see companies producing and consuming ‘info dump’ elearning? Training that’s just bullet points? Why do we have tools that continue to make it easy to put up content and add a knowledge test, let alone having ‘click to see more’? Why are there ice-breakers and ‘team-building’ activities that have no meaningful relation to the topic? Where’s the spaced learning? How come we continue to have learning experiences that are engaging, but not effective?

On reason, of course, is the industry. The vendors do tend to focus on producing ‘content’; even their touted uses of AI are to make content faster and cheaper (but the missing leg of the engineering stool is ‘better’, why is that?). Let’s track completions, rather than impact, eh? We don’t have to talk across silos that way, so it’s easier. And, it’s less work to make content tools than to engineer learning experiences. But…isn’t that our real mission?

Another reason, of course, is stakeholder awareness. There are expectations that we should build courses quickly, and that information leads to behavior change. Both are wrong, of course. But why do these beliefs persist? Aren’t we, and shouldn’t we be, extinguishing them? It’s more than a quarter century into the 21st one, you’d think folks would know better. Particularly when it affects their ability to succeed!

Our own awareness may be a barrier too. That is, there are lots of folks who come into ID without preparation. As Cammy Bean noted, folks are starting as the Accidental Instructional Designer. It’s also hard to buck the hierarchy when you’re new. And it’s rewarding to get high scores on our courses by attendees. Particularly if we don’t know better. Still, it’s painful to bear.

Now, I do believe, and see, gradual change. It is getting better. Yet, while I’m not known for patience, it’s still taking way too long! We have the opportunity to be making our orgs so much better. We could be extending learning, developing learning-to-learn skills, fostering innovation, and meeting real needs, instead of dumping information worthlessly. We’re wasting money! So, yes, I’m frustrated.  Are you? Why aren’t things changing? What am I missing?

Reflections on reflection

by Leave a Comment

Reflection of fall trees in a lakeHaving come up a couple of times now, it’s probably time to think ‘out loud’ about reflection. Yes, very meta and all, but I’ve come to think that there are two or more different types of reflection. That, of course, would be confusing and thus problematic. So, here are some reflections on reflection.

So, first, I typically talk about reflection as the complement to action: learning is action and reflection. Then, I extend that to say that instruction should be designed action and guided reflection. When I say ‘reflection’ in that sense, it’s everything but the practice: models, examples, and feedback. Which is a simplification, but still not completely wrong.

However, we probably need a tighter definition. Because, for instance, we can ask people to reflect on the content, e.g. an elaborative or generative activity. We can ask them to reflect on their actions in practice. For that matter, we can ask them to reflect on the overall experience. Sure, each is valuable, but they’re different.

So, when we ask people to reflect on models and examples, we’re asking them to make connections between the content and their previous knowledge. That’s whether personal experience or prior learning (or both, of course, intermixed). Which is a necessary part of building their understanding, their schema. We want to enrich those connections, to increase the likelihood of activation in relevant settings.

Then, we ask them to reflect on their performance in retrieval. We can give them feedback, but as they progress that should fade. Indeed, ‘after action’ reviews are just this sort of activity. Learners need to internalize the self-monitoring, to become self-improving learners. So here we could ask them what they did right or wrong before we give them feedback. This, too, is valuable.

We can also ask them to reflect on the overall experience: what worked, what didn’t, what they’d like that they want more of or didn’t see, and what they’d like less of. Here we’re asking them to reflect on the pedagogy: what improvements can we provide? This is valuable more for us, of course, to refine the learning experience, but it’s still useful.

The problem is, we often use the term of ‘reflection’ for all of these. Reflection is great, but we need to deal with the specifics of each. Yes, we can term the elaborative one a ‘generative’ activity, so arguably that’s taken care of. But the other two are still both confounded. We could use the term ‘review’ for the case of overall experience evaluation, if we wanted to remove confusion. However, my main point is not to solve, at least not yet, but instead to point out the issue (this blog is for preliminary thoughts, at least ;). Those are my reflections, what are yours?

Fantasizing about transfer

by Leave a Comment

One of the perennial issues that hangs over designing learning experiences is that of fantasy. That is, we set examples and practice in contexts. Most of the time, to be fair, those contexts can and should be real. But there are times when fantasy may be beneficial (as I’ve heard from game researcher and learning design Professor Karl Kapp). The question is, when? I had a thought when out for my usual walk (not unusually), so let me expand a bit on some ideas, fantasizing about transfer.

First, it’s clear that context matters. My rationale is that the settings seen across examples and practice – the context ‘space‘ as it were – determines where you’re going to recognize the opportunities for application. Our brains abstract the underlying structure from multiple opportunities (e.g. recognizing what doesn’t change across instances). That structure likely will apply in more situations than we can create in the learning experience, so it’s good. But how far we transfer is determined by how varying the situations are that we see.

Now, if want near transfer, we need to use situations close to the ones learners will experience. But what about far transfer, where we want recognition in all appropriate (and no inappropriate) situations? The argument has been, and I’m a proponent, that the lack of explicit mooring to the real world actually facilitates that transfer. We still need a situation, and the relevant structure has to be maintained, but can we change the trappings? So, for instance, a company set a business simulation in a Wild West saloon, You were still managing the books, but what you were accounting for (ahem) were things that were simplified and exaggerated. Which took the focus away from the mundane details and let you focus on the business principles.

And that’s a good rationale, but what occurred to me is another potential argument. I was thinking about fear, in the case of difficult issues. For instance, bullying, sexual harassment, and the like. Things that are scary to experience, particularly if you’re vulnerable. Would setting it in a fantastic world make it easier to listen to the messages? You’re dealing with aliens, or demons, not real people? I can’t say for certain (is there research on this? I’m not aware of any, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t occurred!), but it seems plausible.

Note that while facilitation is always recommended, in this case you’d definitely need some. Essentially, you can’t assume people will make the appropriate inferences and transfer back to the real world. In general, practice by itself isn’t a full learning experience. (Even if you put models and examples and feedback right in the game world, you still shouldn’t assume the extension.) You want to help folks recognize the relationships between the learning experience and real performance. That’s a given, pretty much, but it’s especially true when talking fantasy.

Look, we can be fantasizing about transfer, but let’s engineer it. We can use fantasy settings, I’ll suggest, at least in certain situations, but never assume that transfer will occur. Or we really will be fantasizing!

Defying fracticality

by Leave a Comment

Ok, so I’m playing fast and loose; ‘fracticality’ isn’t a word. Yet, the world is fractal, in the sense that everything unpacks. We also have to make decisions about what to do, without having time, nor inclination, to go to depths that aren’t relevant. How do we strike that balance? How do we go about defying fracticality? Some reflections…

I’m naturally curious, and track what research tells us. And, research continues, and unpacks new depths. For instance, we:

  • know models are important, but then they need to be causal, and connected, and conceptual…
  • want ‘desirable difficulty’, but then it’s more than challenge, it’s also context varying, and spacing, and feedback fading, and…
  • need examples, but they have to explicitly include models, be interesting and relevant, have outcomes…
  • want to elaborate, but then learn that certain activities are generative and others aren’t effective…

The list goes on, and each of these expands! How do we cope?

For one, it occurs to me that we need at least a minimum viable level. We can adopt that notion of ‘minimum viable product’, and recognize that learning should, at least, have:

  • a clear objective
  • a rallying introduction
  • an appropriate model
  • several relevant examples
  • a suite of meaningful practice extended over time
  • a satisfying closing
  • some measurement beyond ‘enjoyment’ towards impact

If we have the basics down, we can budget and justify what we’re doing. And, likely, this can all be done within the existing constraints. We have to acknowledge the world we work in as well as the one we’re building, after all.

We elaborate from there. If we show improvement, and we should, we then lobby to do more that’ll yield even bigger impacts. We can and should space out the learning. We can consider where it’s complex and maybe start with a simple model, and then expand, with more examples. What is the minimum set of contexts to support transfer? We can consider expertise, and adjust our starting and pedagogy appropriately. We can also expand beyond courses and look for when performance support makes more sense, or a combination. Then there’s community and informal learning. And strategy, politics, …

Associated with this is expanding our own understanding. We need basics, and then we need to keep understanding more. We can’t stop at just meeting the basic needs, for a variety of reasons. These include what the competition is doing, but also our own professionalism. We shouldn’t allow ourselves to be complacent, but keep improving our own understanding and then our practice as well.

The world is fractal, and everything people do continues to unpack. The only path to defying fracticality is pick an initial level that’s minimally viable, achieve it, and then start expanding upon it. You’ll get pushback, but you’ll also find that as you get more capable, things get automated and you have more bandwidth. Tools get more capable as well. It’s an ongoing process, but it’s one worth indulging in. If this isn’t the field for you, find somewhere where you are interested in continuing to explore. Stay curious, my friends.

(The nuances of learning are part of our LDA Learning Science Conference. The stuff that’s not learning, but around it as part of our, that is L&D’s, ability to succeed is what we are covering in our L&D As Ecosystem conference. FYI)

Timing matters

by Leave a Comment

There are many phenomena associated with time. I know it was such a topic of my late friend Jay Cross that he named his vehicle for agency Internet Time. A few phenomena have arisen in my thinking, and it’s time to just review some of the reasons why timing matters.

So, for one, things seem to come in waves. It’ll be too quiet, and then too busy; too frenetic a rhythm. I might prefer a smoother rate, but…it’s not something we get to control. (At least, individually; societally we have chosen speed over quality, what with requirements for short-term returns.) Now, I do my best to cope, using the downtimes to work on background tasks. So that, of course, when it’s crunch time I feel like I can still function.

That was also true when I’ve struggled. For one, when I had back pain (before I got surgery), I had good days and bad. My solution was to get things done on the good days, so I was okay on the bad ones. That again is a coping strategy.

Overall, things are going faster than we’d like. We are dealing with increasing change, and increasing information. Things like Harold Jarche’s Personal Knowledge Mastery (PKM) are tools we increasingly need to use, to be able to adapt.

Timing matters in other ways, too. Some times the time has to be right for an idea to stick. I regularly tell the story about how I mentioned the concept of ‘explorable interfaces’ (from Jean-Marc Robert) to my PhD supervisor, to no avail. Which surprised me, because our lab was looking at usability! However, I brought the concept up a few years later, and suddenly it was a great idea! Same idea, but right time.

It’s true for learning as well. It’s not something we can rush! Yet we try to have an event and then move on, not recognizing learning takes time. We need repeated reactivation and feedback for learning to occur, yet that’s seldom the design of our organizational solutions. Yet, technology gives us the ability to address this, if only we have the will.

And, we may need to make sure it’s the right time. We need to understand why something’s relevant to us before we’re ready for the message. That’s something I think we don’t focus on enough, hence my most recent tome.

We live in interesting times, as the saying has it. There’s little reason to believe things will slow down, even if they should. So, we need to be able to deal with it. Personally, and for our learners. Timing matters, as does how we deal with it. What are your strategies?

Ideas we could do without

by Leave a Comment

Saw a post on LinkedIn from a colleague, ranting about how we are regularly putting old wine in new bottles. I do believe we’re getting deeper into design and strategy, but I also agree. Similarly, I’ve seen a regular feature on a newsletter talking about terms we can do without. So, I’m combining the two here. Not surprisingly, I’m channeling previous complaints (as a commenter made mention of), but this is the first time combining them into ideas we could do without.

Microlearning. As I’ve said before, the problem here is that there are regularly two things meant here: either spaced learning or performance support. Both are good things, but lumping them under one label constitutes a problem. For one, they have different design processes and goals, so using the same term for two different things risks confusion. I like the idea of emphasizing conciseness, but…we can call it minimalism, eh?

Workflow learning. This is problematic because it implies learning, yet, as I’ve repeated, you can’t learn ‘in the workflow’. My argument rests on the fact that learning is really action and reflection, and reflection breaks the workflow. I reckon this could be definitional, as some folks might argue that such reflection is part of the workflow, but like with microlearning, they’re also many times talking about performance support. So, it’s another term with wrong usage, or at least ambiguous provenance. Let’s talk performance support or learning from the workflow.

Mobile. This may seem odd, given that I’ve been talking and writing about mobile at least since my first book on the topic, more than a decade ago! (Notably, both books are now out of print. Indicative?) Yet, I still receive requests from developers to make my mobile apps (not what I do). Also, Google declared they were going ‘mobile first’ also over a decade ago. Really, mobile has kind of just merged into digital solutions, I would suggest. Sure, we get folks asking us to use the app, but that to me is frustrating. It shouldn’t matter whether I’m using the app or a website, I have the same goals, largely. Yes, there are some location-specific things, and we (still) aren’t taking advantage well of the contextual capabilities of mobile devices, but mobile is really moot. It’s about augmenting our thinking. And, separately, taking advantage of context.

Unlearning. I’m adding this after originally writing this, because it just emerged again, and literally two days after a really nice ‘takedown‘ by Tom McDowell, who’s developed a real capability for research translation. In short, our brains can’t unlearn. That is, we don’t forget things, so we need to really build a new, alternative response to a previously learned approach. Which means that solutions designed for ‘unlearning’ won’t achieve the necessary outcome. Thus, this isn’t just a nice shortcut, but instead creates impressions that can lead folks astray. Let’s dump the phrase completely. Please?

I’ll add a new one: AI. What?

AI. As I’ve mentioned, I’ve been a big fan of artificial intelligence (AI) for literally decades. So, why am I struggling? I admit I’m getting overwhelmed when people say “AI” and mean generative AI. Generative AI is, conceptually, a small subset of AI. Sure, it’s huge right now, but that’s largely hype driven by money. It’s not real in a meaningful sense. I wish people could and would be clear, like “I’m going to call it AI, but I’m talking about generative AI and large language models (LLMs) in particular.” Which kind of undermines the hype, but what’s wrong with that? (Except for the purveyors, of course.) Sure, we should be treating all our digital endeavors similarly in strategy, e.g. as Lori Niles Hoffman’s new book points out, but AI is just one of the tools we should be tapping into.

Do I think my rant will change anything? Of course not! There’s money to be made, after all. Also, no one pays much attention to my rants here anyway ;). Still, a chance to get this off my metaphorical chest. So those are my ‘ideas we could do without’. What are yours?

If it’s Thursday…

by Leave a Comment

…it must be Belgium. Ok, so there’re two things here. First, on Thursday, Feb 26, in Brussels specifically, I’ll be there. Why? I’ll be spending a full day workshopping practical learning science. In conjunction, I should note with my LDA Co-Director, Matthew Richter. And, hopefully, you!  So, what, and why, and…? For the other, yes, I know the original movie said Tuesday. And, no, I haven’t seen it.

The premise of the workshop is Designing Learning That Actually Works. This is something we both not only care about (heck, basically the whole focus of this blog!), but believe is the essential ingredient to successful L&D initiatives. Matt’s knowledge complements mine. He’s deeper into face-to-face learning and the business side, while I’m more into asynchronous learning and the cognitive side. Though, of course, we’re continually learning from each other. We also are both focused on essential practice, not theoretical background (though the latter is essential).

We’re starting with the core of how our brains work, largely at a cognitive level (not neural; despite the claims it’s largely irrelevant). We’ll cover how we process information, with a focus on learning. Then we’ll look at the emergent elements that research has identified, with a clear focus on the implications for design. There’ll be a focus on what most learning is missing, as there’s little reason to rehash what’s not going wrong!

The advantage of the location is, we feel, that it’s central. I’ve always admired how easy it is to get around Europe (I love train travel!), and thus we’re expecting that the catchment is relatively broad. I haven’t been to Europe for a number of years (thanks, Covid), so this will be a happy reunion. Also, I’ve met Matt once face-to-face, and this will be an extended chance to interact. Still, I’ve been working with him for a number of years online now and continue to be impressed with his knowledge (and jealous of his superior social skills).

So, if it’s Thursday (Feb 26) and you’re nearby, or can arrange to be there, I think this is going to be valuable. Also fun, as Matt’s possibly even more irreverent than I am, and certainly less staid ;). We hope to see you there!

By the way, I’ll be there M-F, so if you’ve some ideas for the other days, let me know!

Looking into 2026

by Leave a Comment

First, of course, happy new year! Relatively arbitrary deadline, but signification matters, and marking a new year is also a new chance. So, what’s happening? Here are some of the things I’m thinking about, looking into 2026!

So, first, a brief look back to set the stage. This was a year without any sustained engagements for Quinnovation, so that meant being a bit more agile. Not a problem, I was on lots of podcasts about a variety of things, and of course engaged with clients. I did spend considerable time and effort, however, in my side gigs.

For one, the Learning Development Accelerator (LDA) had a variety of things going on: conferences, books, webinars, podcasts, and more. Plus, they’re great people to work with! I think it’s a worthwhile investment of my time, focusing on helping people get more exposed to evidence-informed design.There are signs that we’re moving more that way (though it is a small case of two steps forward, one step back; learning styles and other myths still haunt our industry; there’s a continuing need!). I’ve also done some ‘free’ consulting to our platinum members, and that seems to be valuable for them, and I find it really rewarding!

I also continued to spend time with the Elevator 9 (E9) folks. They’re now ready for prime time (check ’em out!), but there’s been lots of work along the way. That includes developing a real platform, and I’m continuing to learn heaps about what goes into a startup. And why I haven’t been the one to do it! It’s been great, however, to be in association with folks who really do want to care about learning science; all too rare in the learning technology space (sadly).

Of course, my association with both continues.

With LDA, we’re already planning this coming year. We’re deep into thinking about what to do with the spring conference, and potential series for blog posts, and more. We already have our first Meet the Author on the schedule, and more are in the works.  There are some changes afoot, so stay tuned!

With E9, I will be using them again for my next mini-scenario workshop (with LDA) as a followon. Did it last year, as a trial, and it worked. Always room to improve, of course. Still, if you’re running a live event, and not following it up to extend the learning, why? There are other solutions – e.g. coaching – but please be doing something! There are worse solutions than E9, including nothing.

Of course, I’ll be doing more. I’ve been working on a couple of short books, likely eBooks (too short for print). I don’t want to go live yet about them, as they’re still in process. Of course they’d be with LDA Press. Besides online, I may be running a workshop or two live, too. As to conferences, well, I never say ‘never’, but right now there’s nothing I’m particularly excited about. We’ll see. And, of course, I’m always keen to help organizations, so do reach out if there are any ways I can be of assistance.

As you might expect, ideas continue to percolate. I’m always exploring more about technology, design, engagement, and more, and of course about learning. As always, you’ll probably hear about them here first, as this is where I learn ‘out loud’. There’re breadcrumbs from the past pointing forward, so it’s time to be looking into 2026. What are you seeing? In the meantime, stay curious my friends.

Age or experience?

by Leave a Comment

One of the things that has been a recurring theme across things I’ve been looking at lately is experience. Too often we confound age with experience. And, of course, sometimes it’s that we should be talking about it. So, a brief rant on age or experience.

First, I’ll bring up the ‘generations’ myth. It’s appealing, as our brains like buckets for things. We’re kinda wired that way. The only problem is that generations as a concept has been looked at and debunked. Heck, in Ancient Greek days they were complaining that ‘kids just have no respect”! And if you think about it, thinking that someone in Los Angeles CA of a certain age has more in common with someone in Nepal of the same age versus another Angelenõ of a different age is kinda ridiculous.

And, those ‘defining’ events? They affect every conscious person! And it’s so context dependent. A local event may not mean much to you, unless it affects you somehow, and then you share more with everyone else so affected. There’s actually a simpler explanation. Say, for instance, that “young folks want classes while old folks don’t”. That’s explainable by stage of life: when you’re young you need credentials, but later on you can point to your experience.

People share values, and gain motivation by the same underlying factors (differently across culture and personality), and more. Just look at the research on self-determination theory! Attributing to age rather than explaining by experience is a mistake. So, for instance, my kids, who arguably fit the label ‘digital natives’, still come to me (decreasingly, I’ll admit) for tech problems.

Then, there are many things that change as you develop in a domain. For instance, in our Learning Science Conference, my colleague Matt Richter was talking about feedback, and very clearly pointed out how what useful feedback is changes as you gain experience. This holds true for examples, too, the type of useful example changes. Also for practice: with more experience, you need more challenge.

Which, as we further see, is how we go wrong. We do the ‘one size fits all’, not recognizing that things need to change. To be fair, we also do the wrong practice (knowledge test rather than application to problems), give the wrong feedback to begin with (right/wrong), the list goes on. But even when we’re trying to do it right, we forget things like adapting for initial and developing experience. Yet, it’s a factor for instance in how much practice you need, how much spacing, etc.

This problem does go more broadly. We hear it in hiring (age discrimination). Of course, that’s only one problem. For example, gender, race, physical and neurological differences, and more are also present. Sadly. Okay, soapbox: DEI, done right, leads to better outcomes! Actually, that’s got an evidence-base, so probably more than soapbox. Still. So, consider experience as one of the factors distinguishing individuals. Folks can’t control their age, but they can determine their experience. So use it!

Key notes

by Leave a Comment

I’ve seen a lot of keynotes over the years. I’ve even given them! It’s time to reconcile my thoughts. So here are some key notes on keynotes.

One of the things that I’ve seen is flawless performances. Now, one of the things you’re told is that the focus is on you, and slides only should be used as an augment, not on all the time. I confess I’m not good about that (I am not very comfortable in the spotlight; imposter syndrome I suppose). Another is that you should have pauses, and jokes, and such. I do a pretty good dramatic reading (I won the dirty limerick reading contest at work once!), and occasionally even manage to raise a smile or two. The best, however, have their patter completely down. I can’t do that, because my thoughts are continually evolving, but I admire it when it happens. And I’m pretty good at tailoring a talk to the audience (having learned a few times the hard way!).

Inspiration is good, too. Letting people know there’s a way to surpass this barrier works! I try to do that too, though I confess I talk about learning design, not achieving things like climbing Mt Everest (really heard a keynote about that, and it was cool!). And I probably am a bit too conceptual, though I am learning to do better about grounding my principles in practice. However, I do recoil from too much ‘enthusiasm’! Somehow it comes across as artificial. But then, I can be a bit of a curmudgeon (apparently)…

However, what really matters to me is accuracy. I don’t mind if folks are a bit enthusiastic or polished, but I really get wound around the axle a bit when folks state stuff that’s just wrong. For instance, I heard a well-regarded personage opine about games, something I know a wee bit about (my first job, back when dinosaurs strode the earth, was on games, and it’s been a recurrent them in practice, research, and writing for literally decades). And that individual said something just dead wrong. As you may surmise, it really ground my gears. Similarly with learning science, or mobile.  In general, when people have beautifully symmetric ‘n part models’ without grounding, I want to know if those are convenient, or a necessary and sufficient list. (Too often the former.)

I also like when people tout doing things I believe in, but when it’s an area I know about, you better agree with the science, and present it accurately. If you don’t, well, I won’t be quiet about it. (I guess it’s a flaw in my character!) Still, when you say these are the five things to X, and they’re a) not completely separable, b) incomplete, c) wrong, etc, I’m going to be turned off.

Look, I love a good keynote. Many times, they get people who aren’t from the field where the keynote’s presented, and they make connections from adjacent fields. That’s acceptable, even desirable! I like a well-presented talk as well as the next person. I like ideas, and even inspiration. But I will complain about bad information. Always. Those are my key notes on keynotes, what are yours? (And I’m available, if you want L&D advice ahead of the curve but grounded in evidence. Particularly contrary takes… ;)