The good news is, the Learning Science Conference has gone well. The content we (the Learning Development Accelerator, aka LDA) hosted from our stellar faculty was a win. We’ve had lively discussions in the forum. And the face to face sessions were great! The conference continues, as the content will be there (including recordings of the live sessions). The open question is: what next? My short answer is going beyond learning science.

So, the conference was about what’s known in learning science. We had topics about the foundations, limitations, media, myths, informal/social, desirable difficulty, applications, and assessment/evaluation. What, however, comes next? Where do you go from a foundation in learning science?

My answer is to figure out what it means! There are lots of practices in L&D that are grounded in learning science, but go from there to application. My initial list looks like this:

1. Instructional design. Knowing the science is good, but how do you put it into a process?
2. Modalities. When you’re doing formal learning, you can still do it face to face, virtually, online, or blended. What are the tradeoffs, and when does each make sense?
3. Performance consulting. We know there are things where formal learning doesn’t make sense. We want gaps and root causes to determine the right intervention.
4. Performance support. If you determine job aids are the answer, how do you design, develop, and evaluate them? How do they interact with formal learning?
5. Innovation. This could (and should; editorial soapbox) be an area for L&D to contribute. What’s involved?
6. Diversity. While this is tied to innovation, it’s a worthy topic on its own. And I don’t just mean compliance.
7. Technology. There are lots of technologies, what are their learning affordances? XR, AI, the list goes on.
8. Ecosystem. How do you put the approaches together into a coherent solution for performance? If you don’t have an ‘all singing, all dancing’ solution, what’s the alternative?
9. Strategy. There’s a pretty clear vision of where you want to be. Then, there’s where you are now. How do you get from here to there?

I’m not saying this is the curriculum for a followup, I’m saying these are my first thoughts. This is what I think follows beyond learning science. There are obviously other ways we could and should go. These are my ideas, and I don’t assume they’re right. What do you think should be the followon? (Hint: this is likely what next year’s conference will be about. ;)

There’ve been a recent discussions about misinformation. One question is, what does it hurt? When you consider myths, superstitions, and misconceptions (the breakdown in my book on L&D problems), what can arise? Let’s talk about the damage done.

So, let’s start with myths. These, I claim, are things that have been shown not to have value by empirical research. There are studies that have examined these claims, and found them to not have data to support them. For instance, accommodating learning styles is a waste. Yes, we know people differ in learning, but we don’t have a reliable base. Moreover, people’s choices to work for (or against) their style don’t make a difference in their learning. Some of the instruments are theoretically flawed as well as psychometrically invalid.

What’s the harm? I’ll suggest several ways in which myths harm us. For one, they can cause people to spend resources (money & time)  addressing them that won’t have an impact. It’s a waste! We can also characterize people in ways that limit them; for instance if they think they learn in a particular way, they may avoid a topic or invest effort in an inappropriate way to learn it. Investing in unproven approaches also perpetuates them, propagating the beliefs to others.

Superstitions, as I define them, are beliefs nobody would claim to believe, yet somehow persist in our practices. For instance, few will claim to believe that telling is sufficient to achieve behavior change. Yet, we continue to see information presentation and knowledge test, such as “awareness” training. Why? This is a waste of effort. There aren’t outcomes from these approaches. Typically, they are legacies of expectations from previous decades, yet business practices haven’t been updated. Still, to the extent that we continue these practices, even while decrying them, we’re again wasting time and money. Maybe we tick boxes and make people happy, but we can (and should) do better.

The final category is misconceptions. These are beliefs that some hold, and others decry. They aren’t invalid, but they only make sense in certain circumstances. I suggest that those who defy them don’t have the need, and those who tout them are in the appropriate circumstance. What matters is understanding when they make sense, and then using them, or not, appropriately. If you avoid them when they make sense, you may make your life harder. If you adopt them when they’re not appropriate,  you could make mistakes or waste money.

At the end of the day, the damage done is the cost of wasting money and time. Understanding the choices is critical. To do so best, you can and should understand the underlying cognitive and learning sciences. You should also track the recognized translators of research into practice who can guide you without you having to read the original academese. To be professional in our practice, we need to know and use what’s known, and avoid what’s dubious. Please!

I’ve been reading Amy Edmondson’s Right Kind of Wrong, and I have to say it’s very worthwhile. I’ve been a fan of hers since her book Teaming introduced me to the notion of psychological safety. It’s an element I’ve incorporated into my thinking about innovation and learning. This new book talks about how we have beliefs about making mistakes, and how we can, and should, be failing right.

In this book, she uses examples to vibrantly talk about failure, and how it’s an important part of life. She goes on to talk about different types of failure, and the situations they can occur in, creating a matrix. This allows us to look at when and how to fail. Along the way, she talks about self, situational, and systemic failure.

One of the important takeaways, which echoes a point Donald Norman made in Design of Everyday Things, is that failure may not be our fault! Too often, bad design allows failure, instead of preventing it. Moreover, she makes the point that we have a bad attitude towards failure, not recognizing that it’s not only part of life, but can be valuable!  When we make a mistake, and reflect, we can learn.

Of course, there are simple mistakes. I note that there’s some randomness in our architecture, e.g. To Err is Human. But also, there can be factors we haven’t accounted for, like bad design, or things out of our control. At the most significant level, she talks about complex systems, and how they can react in unpredictable ways. Along the way, what counts as ‘intelligent’ failure is made clear. Some fails are smart, others are not justified.

She also talks about how experiments are necessary to understand new domains. This is, in my mind, about innovation. She also gives prescriptions, at both the personal and org level. Dr. Edmondson talks about the value of persistence, taking ‘good enough’, but also not taking it too personally. She also talks about sharing, as Jane Bozarth would say: Show Your Work. This is for both calling out problems and sharing failure.

Along with a minor quibble about the order in which she presents a couple things, a more prominent miss, to me, is a small shift in focus. She talks about celebrating the ‘pivot’, where you change direction. However,  I’d more specifically celebrate the learning. That is, whether we pivot or not, we say that learning something is good. Of course, I’m biased towards learning, but I’d rather celebrate the learning. Yes, we possibly would do something different, and celebrating action is good, but sharing the learning means others can learn from it too. Maybe I’m being too pedantic.

Still, this is another in her series of books exploring organizational improvement and putting useful tools into our hands. We can, and should expect to not get everything right all the time, and instead should be focusing on failing right. Recommended.