Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

You are here: Home / Archives for design

Myths, publishers, and confusion

by 5 Comments

Myths book coverOn twitter the other day, I was asked how I could on one hand rail against myths, and on the other work with orgs who either sell or promote DiSC and MBTI. The problem, it appears, was a perception that I’m deeply involved with orgs that perpetuate the problem. I thought I’d try to clarify all this, and make sense of myths, publishers and confusion.

The dialog started as a reaction to an article I pointed to on twitter. This article made what I thought was a pretty good case against tools like MBTI and DiSC. And that matters. The arguments raised in the article were legitimate, and even didn’t go far enough. For instance, MBTI is based on Jungian archetypes, which Jung just made up!  So, one question raised is why ask practitioners to change, why aren’t we challenging the businesses?

For one response, I don’t call out the practitioners. I sympathize!  In the myths book, I deliberately addressed the appeal before pointing out it’s wrong (and, importantly, point to better alternatives). Instead, I rail against the tools. That, to me, is where the problem lies, and implicitly indicts the vendors. Now, the org that now owns DiSC was my first publisher. However, they bought it after I was locked into a contract with them. And when I heard, I complained about the choice to them. But they didn’t consult me on it ;).  And yes, they published my first 3.5 books. I dissociated from them on other reasons, but I’m no longer engaged.

Was there any relationship between DiSC and what I wrote? I was able to complain about learning styles in my fourth book with them. It’s a huge company, with many different divisions. There’s no provision to not say things that are contrary to their business interests. They publish and sell what they can sell. They can publish what’s right, and sell stuff that’s not. That’s their confusion, I reckon, not mine.

I’m now publishing with another org, who had, in the past, had learning styles in their competency model. When I found out, I asked and was told it was not in the latest version of the model. They also do make money selling exhibit space to folks with these tools. Note that the folks I work with may not agree, but also have to work in their part of the org and have little contact with the other entity (that makes much money). Yet, to their credit, they asked me to write the myths book. In fact, after I gave a myths talk to launch the the book, an anonymous audience member complained that they shouldn’t have speakers that disparage vendor products. And, they’ve continued to have me write and speak. Again, I suggest that’s their issue, not mine. I’m not responsible for that relationship between myths, publishers, and confusion.

And, yes, there are voices that cry out for the tools. For instance a TD article claimed that such tools are popular. (Under the guise of saying they’re effective.) Which is problematic. Asking folks for their assessments of tools they’ve invested in introduces a clear source of bias. We know that people’s judgments of effectiveness may not match reality. So it’s a problem. But not one I’m in a position to change (though I quietly try).  It does muddy the water. Which, to me, speaks even more to talk about how to review science and what science already says.

I try to be a consistent voice for science in our practice. My publisher gave me a forum to speak that to an audience that needs to hear the message. There are others who echo that voice (see Mythbusters here). I’d welcome having the opportunity to address those who are making the decisions to buy these tools. I don’t have reliable access (I welcome any assistance ;). Instead, now they can give the book to those leaders to bolster the resistance.

So, are my publisher activities part of the business end, or the education end? Do you really concern yourselves with my previous relationship or current publisher? I note that it’s pretty much a hands-off relationship: “if you propose a valuable offering, we’ll publish it.”

I’m saying “here’s what Quinnovation has to say” and the orgs are endorsing it. Not the other way around. Is that accurate? Do you see that as a conflict? I’m perfectly willing to be wrong, and if so I welcome ideas how to be more clear about what and how it’s wrong.

I think I’m fighting a good fight, for the right reasons, and pretty much in the right way. But it’s not my perspective that matters. So I ask you, am I off the mark here? Am I helping or hurting the issues in myths, publishers, and confusion?

Talking meaningful learning

by Leave a Comment

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.

Making learning meaningful?

by 5 Comments

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!

 

Where are we going most wrong…

by 4 Comments

…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!

 

NOT Learning Engineering

by 2 Comments

wrenchI recently wrote about two different interpretations of the term ‘learning engineering’. So when I saw another article on the topic, I was keen to read it. Except, after reading it, I thought what it was talking about was not learning engineering, or, at least, not all of it. So what do I mean?

I think this article goes wrong right from the title: Learning Engineering Is Learning About Learning. We Need That Now More Than Ever. And I’m a big fan of learning about learning!  Though, typically, learning about learning (or as I like to call it, meta-learning) is for learners to learn about learning to be more effective. But I certainly believe instructors/instructional designers need to learn about learning. But is that what learning engineering is?

The article actually makes a great point: most instructors don’t, and should, be reviewing their teaching and improving systematically. Absolutely!  That’s an important point. It’s part of prototyping, development, and testing. It’s part of learning engineering, for that matter, in either interpretation. However, two flaws. One, it’s not all of learning engineering, and it’s not just ‘learning’ about learning, it’s about doing. As in, learning about it and then applying that learning.

The article goes further, citing the importance of using models and data. Interestingly, the claim is that using the data isn’t the hard part, but using models is. And, again, I’m a big fan of models and evidence. And I talked much about how we need to provide models for learners as well as use models to guide our design. That is, experimentation is driven by theory and theory fills in gaps. So I’m all for it.

It’s just that this article claims that systematically reviewing what you’re doing and improving is the sum total of learning engineering. Learning engineering is applying learning science to the design of learning experiences, but it’s the design as well as the review. It is iterative, but it’s broader than just the course too. It’s about the technology, infrastructure, culture, and more. In either interpretation of learning engineering, it’s more than just being a reflective practitioner.

So, while I agree with the sentiment and specifics of the paper, I don’t agree with their construal of the term. Reviewing and refining is great, but it’s not learning engineering, or at least not all of it. I think we’re not yet done with the term, but I hope we can be clearer about what’s at stake. And, yes, I’m a bit pedantic on it, but there’re reasons for clarity. We do need more professionalism, but that’s easier when we’re conceptually clear.

Experimenting with conference design

by 2 Comments

As part of coping in this time of upheaval, I’m trying different things. Which isn’t new, but there seem to be more innovations to tap into. In addition to teaching a course on mobile learning, I’m one of the speakers at a new online event. And, what’s nice, is that they’re experimenting with conference design, not just moving straight online.

To be fair, the Learning Guild has had a continual practice of trying different things at their conferences, and it’s been good. And, so too, was the most recent TK by ATD.  But this is different. Two of my colleagues organized it as a response to our ‘new normal’, Will Thalheimer and Matt Richter. And their stated goal is changing the way we conference.

The key, of course, is to leverage what’s different, and possible, online. It’s running from June 22 – July 31. That’s not a typo, it’s all of July and the tail end of June. That’s a long time!  They’ve recruited a suite of experts from around the world (they’re really trying to do this across boundaries include time and geography). And, to let you know, I’m one (so take my comments with the appropriate caveats ;).

They’re also tossing out traditional ideas and open to new ones. Speakers are expected to build an experience that’s spread out over the time. Yet also designed so that you can come in late, or early, and drill into what you want when you want. They’re also planing on having synchronous events – debates, panels, socializing – again using technology.

Note that it’s not free. There are some free conferences being put on, mostly webinars. And those are good. This is different. It’s deeper. It’s a stab at looking afresh. And I’m not sure it could even have come from any existing framework.

And, we won’t know if it all will work. We’re designing this in the time between now and launch. There’re bound to be hiccups. Which, of course, means there’re bound to be learnings. I know I want to talk about Learning Science 101. And something else. Lots I could (I welcome suggestions). I’m inclined to think it might be Emotion and Learning. But it could also be LXD. (There are all linked, of course.)

But it’s a high quality group (er, mostly…they did let me in). AND, importantly, it’s focused on evidence-based content. There may be sponsors, or even an exhibit hall, but every presenter is honor-bound not to push anything that’s not legit. Most importantly, there’s enough quality that overall it’s bound to be worth it.

I’m excited, frankly. I have to come up with some different ideas. And I like that. I’m glad that they’re experimenting with conference design. We all win, regardless! It’s part of learning, challenging yourself. So, do yourself a favor. Check it out. It may not be for you, but keep an open mind!

 

 

A mlearning course?

by Leave a Comment

As I mentioned in my last post, yes, I’ll be running a course on mobile learning (starts next week! 😱). And I can understand if you’re thinking “a mlearning course?”  So I thought I’d lay out the thinking a bit, and see if I can help you see why I’m doing this.

So, I don’t usually do things just for money. I’ve turned down things I thought were inappropriate in the past. (Which is amongst the reasons I’m not rich! ;) I try to do things that I think are needed.

And that’s part of the reason I’m doing it the way I am: the folks I’m doing it with. Michael Allen’s established a reputation for quality in learning, advocating for good design in print and talks, and living it in his work. We’ve had a good relationship, endorsing each other’s books ;), but working with him on the Serious eLearning Manifesto reinforced that not is he smart and committed, but just a great guy. So doing the course with the Allen Academy ensured that I could trust the integrity of what we’d do.

So isn’t mobile learning already in place? You’d think so, since my book on the topic came out nine years ago, and is already out of print! (And it was a good book and since I based it on the cognitive principles, it’s still relevant. It’s also now available again (at a much improved price).  However, I was recently asked to give a mobile talk by the local chapter. When I opined that mobile is old, the organizer let me know “it may be old for you, but not for everybody!”  So there’s still a need!

And, of course, the content is relevant. I derive the course form cognitive principles, so even if the tech changes (and it has) the foundations are transferrable. Whether you’re talking about tablets, phones, or watches, the implications are apt.

So what will it cover? Here’re the topics of the six weeks:

  1. Introduction. Defining mobile, and some overarching concepts that will guide the rest: the 4Cs, and four major categories of use.
  2. Formal learning. The first of the four categories, and it’s not about courses on a phone. We’ll look at augmenting formal learning.
  3. Performance support. We’re looking at why it’s mobile’s natural niche, and what makes it work.
  4. Social/informal. Here we’re looking at going beyond optimizing performance and moving to continual learning and innovation. And mobile’s role.
  5. Contextual. This is mobile’s real opportunity, not just bringing things to wherever/whenever, but doing things because of when and where we are. And more.
  6. Strategy. This is the wrap up, where we talk about what it takes to make this all work in the organization.

I’ve designed in discussions, and group assignments, so while it’s grounded in the book, it’s both updated and more interactive. I should be careful to mention that it’s not about development, using authoring tools, or more. It’s about thinking different, which mobile requires. The mindset is performance ecosystem, and not surprisingly therefore coupled to the thinking behind the L&D revolution I continue to advocate for.

I’m not dunning for students, since we’ve already got a good number of registrations, but instead I just wanted to expose the thinking behind the choices (showing my work). That is, show you why a mlearning course. Still, I’d welcome seeing you there if you’re interested in getting your mind around some transferrable principles that enable mobile, and more!  Other than that, stay safe and take care.

Taking courses online

by Leave a Comment

So I was talking to my brother the other day. He is a community college instructor (and, now, department chair). He was telling me about taking his class online (like so many others). I of course offered some suggestions, and he opined that I could (and should) be helping others too. Which, of course, I agree with, because that’s what I do. So, here, is a brief summary of my experience taking courses online. Because, owing to circumstances, I do have some availability.

My background is deeply steeped in applying learning science to technology-mediated experiences. To start, I saw the opportunities and designed my own major in the topic. After some work, I obtained a Ph.D. because I wanted to know more about cognition and learning. And I’ve been doing it for decades now, both academic and organizational. I not only taught, but was asked to lead my university’s learning technology committee.

I stepped away from the university to assist first one, then another initiative in online learning. For one, I set the learning design (policies and plans) to spin up an agency to support national online learning. For the latter, I led the learning design effort to get an innovative course online. At the same time, I was assisting and leading other initiatives. These include an online learning competition, advising other orgs, and creating an online learning quality assessment.

I came back to the US to lead the development of an adaptive learning platform for online courses. Since then, I’ve been assisting many orgs in a wide variety of roles around online learning. I’ve guided the design of online content for high school curricula, advised on improving design processes for a courseware provider, and guided an online program manager to incorporate learning science in their practices.

Along the way, I’ve continued to lead in technology approaches, including games and mobile (and wrote the books on each topic ;).  And I’ve maintained a reputation for staying on top of learning science as well, recently writing a book on myths around learning science. My work’s been recognized, with invitations to speak nationally and internationally, as well as being the first recipient of the eLearning Guild’s Guild Master award. I’m noted as a clear communicator who helps folks ‘get’ the opportunities, and apply the principles to achieve desirable goals.

As you see, I’ve worked at every level, from helping design individual courses, to working with design processes and teams, to looking at organizational approaches and issues. And I’ve demonstrated a commitment to design solutions that leverage the best learning design to achieve engaging experiences with meaningful outcomes under pragmatic constraints. And I’m adept at working virtually, which I’ve been doing for a long time in many ways.

So, I’d like to help you!  Whether it’s working serially on courses, assisting a team get on top of best principles, or conducting sessions to assist your instructors, I’m willing to be flexible to figure out the best ways to help you make the best changes quickly, not just the expedient ones. In the long term, you still want effective learning design and engagement, because it matters to your learners and your reputation.

The opportunity to get better quickly is on tap. I’ve spent my entire career caring about making good learning happen. Are you ready? Let me know.

This has been a public service announcement, we now return you to your irregularly scheduled blog.

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!