Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

From platitudes to pragmatics

by Leave a Comment

It’s easy to talk principle. (And I do. ;) Yet, there are pragmatics we have to deal with, as well. For instance, with ‘clients’ (internal or external), giving us their desired outcomes that are vague and unfocused. We generally don’t want to educate them about our business, yet we need more focused guidance. Particularly when it comes to designing meaningful practice. How, then, do we get from platitudes to pragmatics?

To be clear, what’s driving this is trying to create practice that will lead to actual outcomes. That’s, first, because our practice is the most tangible manifestation of the performance objectives.  Also, because it is also the biggest contributor to learning actually having an impact! We need good objectives to know what we’re targeting and then the next thing we need to do is design the practice. After we design practice, we can develop the associated content, etc. How do we get this focus?

I see several ways. Ideally, we can engage with clients in a productive conversation. We can do the advocated ‘yes and…’ approach, where we turn the conversation to the outcomes they’re looking for, and ideally even to metrics. E.g. “how will we know when we’ve succeeded?” When we hear “our sales cycle takes too long” or “our closure rate isn’t good enough” if the topic is sale, there’re metrics there. If we hear “too many errors in manufacturing” or “customer service ratings aren’t high enough”, that’s quantifiable, and we have a target.

There are other situations, however. We might not get metrics, so then we might have to infer them from the performance outcomes.  When we hear “we need sales training” or “we need to review the manufacturing process” or “we need a refresher on customer service”, it’s a bit vaguer.  We should try and dig in (“what part of sales isn’t up to scratch” or “what are customers complaining about”), but we may not always have the opportunity. Still, we can make practice assignments around these. We can provide practice around the specific associated tasks.

What really is the biggest problem is ‘awareness’ courses. “I just want folks to know this.” (Which begs the question: why?) I fear that part of the answer is a legacy belief that we’re formal logical reasoning beings and so new information will change our behavior. (NOT!) It can also be because the client just doesn’t know any better, nor have any greater insight than “if they know it, it is good”. However, I still think there’s something we can do here. Even if it’s a case of ‘easier to get forgiveness than permission’.

I think we can infer what people would do with the information. If they insist we need to be aware of harassment, or diversity, or… we can ask ourselves “what would folks do differently?” One decision is to intervene, or report, or ignore. Another might be where and how to do those things. In general, even though the requester isn’t aware, there’s something they actually expect people to do. We have to infer what that can be. Then, they can critique, but it’s more effective for the organization  and more engaging for the learner. That, to me, is a reasonable justification!

Whether it’s mapped to multiple choice questions (see Patti Shank’s seminal book on the topic), scenarios (Christy Tucker is one of our gurus), or full games (I have my own book on that ;), we need to give learners practice in dealing with the situations that use the information. I think we can work from platitudes to pragmatics, and should. What do you think?

Don’t just do!

by Leave a Comment

Look, doing is good. It’s better than not doing, for sure. When I say doing, by the way, I mean doing the things that need to be done. In your work, for instance. You should do your instructional design, your strategy. That’s all good. However, I want to suggest, it’s not enough. Don’t just do, do more! At least, if you want to continue to learn (and you should; let’s not talk about the alternative, but either you’re growing, or, well, you’re not).

What I’m talking about, here, is that just doing your job isn’t a bad thing, but you can and should do more. Most folks I talk to, at local chapter events and the like, want to go above. That’s why they’re there, after all. People say they want to learn and they want to get recognition. I’ve previously addressed that, talking about writing session descriptions. But there’s more.

I’ve also written about being an expert. Having a unique voice, a perspective, and sharing it. I think that’s important, too. However, there’s one more step I suggest that I don’t seem to have shared before. And that’s doing more.

First, of course, is taking advantage of opportunities to learn. I happen to know there are many free webinars. There are also talks that you can attend for a low fee. For more, you can attend online or in-person workshops. Then there are conferences. You likely will want to get your org to pay, but maybe even sometimes put in your own money. If you’ve a commute or other time, listen to podcasts, there are lot of those free too again I happen to know.

Read books; I work out my local library heavily, not just for fiction (which I devour), but also non-fiction. Interlibrary loan is a gift, use it if you can! Certain books are worth buying, creating a valuable library. I’ve got a shelf next to my desk that’s full of some of the best books known, so I can grab them to refer to certain things.

As you get your mind around the field, you’ll start seeing things in different ways. Not only will your work improve, but you’ll begin to find your own voice, a step on the way to expertise. Wrestle with things, and then share when they make sense. You’ll likely help others.

Then, do one further step. Don’t just attend the local chapter events, and conferences, contribute. Serve on a committee. There’s a lot to be learned in this way.  You’ll meet folks, get exposed to new ideas, and make it easier to go further. It’s a good stepping stone on the way to speaking, for one. It’s also a way to give back to those who’ve contributed.

Sure, you can just do your job. Exist. Consume and produce. But I think there’s more to life, and I think if you’re here, you agree. So, here’re some concrete actions to take. Don’t just do, do more.

Skills to move into L&D?

by 2 Comments

Our colleague, Connie Malamed, posed a question on Twitter. She asked: “What areas and skills are essential (in order of importance if possible) for those who want to transition into learning and development.”  So, I used some of my tiny brain and generated an initial list. I’m sharing it for her (I responded with just the categories on Twitter), and for discussion. I welcome your thoughts on skills to move into L&D.

The first category I thought of was the basics of cognitive science: perception, consciousness & context, elaboration, retrieval, etc. I think (strongly) that if you know the basics of the Human Information Processing (HIP) loop, you have a foundation to understand so much more. Not just instructional design, but basically designing for people: graphic, interface, marketing, etc design. I think anyone who designs for people ought to know it. I’m surprised, frankly, that it’s not more central.

From there, the next step, and this is where we get L&D-specific, is learning science. Here I mean the role of models, examples, emotion, etc. These are phenomena that emerge from our HIP system, but are unique to learning (there are others that aren’t as specific to our roles). This is what we have to understand so that we can understand the precepts of learning experience design (LXD).

I think that in L&D, you also have to understand the process of design itself. Particularly the things that are our adaptions to the flaws in our cognitive architecture, but as learners and as designers. Here I’m talking about things like the need for iteration and formative and summative evaluation, (proper) brainstorming, etc. For instance, I got a lot of mileage out of bringing what was known from interface design to instructional design; that field was much more astute about design than was ours at the time.

Integrating the above is LXD, which I think we ought to know. That is, taking the principles above about design and learning and turning that into a process that reliably yields experiences that develop real performance. If we’re designing solutions, we need to know the science and the engineering thereof.

There are also some additional fields that have a big impact on the ability to be successful in L&D in the real world. Thus, you need things like good project management (scheduling, resource allocation, risk management, etc), for one. Even if assigned a project manager, you still need to be personally effective. Which incorporates, I suppose, time management similarly, effectively using calendaring, ‘todo’ lists, etc. There’s also working with others: being a good teammate, knowing how to work with SMEs and other stakeholders, etc. You also need to know the basics of business: planning, budgeting, strategy, also things like supply/demand, and change management in particular (interventions are org changes, and need to be treated as same).

Connie also said: “I have an opinion and would like to hear yours. ” So, here’ve been my thoughts on the skills to move into L&D. What are yours?

Two steps for L&D

by Leave a Comment

In a conversation, we were discussing how L&D fares. Badly, of course, but we were looking at why. One of the problems is that L&D folks don’t have credibility. Another was that they don’t measure. I didn’t raise it in the conversation, but it’s come up before that they’re also not being strategic. That came up in another conversation. Overall, there are two steps for L&D to really make an impact on.

Now, I joke that L&D isn’t doing well what it’s supposed to be doing, and isn’t doing enough. My first complaint is that we’re not doing a good job. In the second conversation, up-skilling came up as an important trend. My take is that it’s all well and good to want to do it, but if you really want persistent new skill development, you have to do it right! That is, shooting for retention and transfer. Which will be, by the way, the topic of my presentation at DevLearn this year, I’ve just found out. Also the topic of the Missing LXD workshop (coming in Asia Pacific times this July/Aug), in linking that learning science grounding to engagement as well.

I’ve argued that the most important thing L&D can do is start measuring, because it will point out what works (and doesn’t). That’s a barrier that came up in the first conversation; how do we move people forward in their measurements. We were talking about little steps; if they’re doing learner surveys (c.f. Thalheimer), let’s encourage them to move to survey some time after. If they’re doing that, let’s also have them ask supervisors. Etc.

So, this is a necessary step. It’s not enough, of course. You might throw courses at things where they don’t make sense, e.g. where performance support would work better. Measurement should tell you that, in that a course isn’t working, but it won’t necessarily point you directly to performance support. Still, measurement is a step along the way. There’s another step, however.

The second thing I argue we should do is start looking at going beyond courses. Not just performance support, but here I’m talking about informal and social learning, e.g. innovation. There are both principled and practical reasons for this. The principled reason is that innovation is learning; you don’t know the answer when you start. Thus, knowing how learning works provides a good basis for assisting here. The practical reason is it gives a way for L&D to contribute to the most important part of organizational success. Instead of being an appendage that can be cut when times are tough, L&D can be facilitating the survival and thrival strategies that will keep the organization agile.

Of course, we’re running a workshop on this as well. I’m not touting it because it’s on offer, I’m behind it because it’s something I’ve organized specifically because it’s so important! We’ll cover the gamut, from individual learning skills, to team, and organizational success. We’ll also cover strategy. Importantly, we have some of the best people in the world to assist! I’ve managed to convince  Harold Jarche, Emma Weber, Kat Koppett, and Mark Britz (each of which alone would be worth the price of entry!), on top of myself and Matt Richter. Because it’s the Learning Development Accelerator, it will be evidence-based. It’ll also be interactive, and practically focused.

Look, there are lots of things you can do. There are some things you should do. There are two steps for L&D to do, and you have the opportunity to get on top of each. You can do it any way you want, of course, but please, please start making these moves!

A placebo effect?

by 1 Comment

I was thinking about what too often we see as elearning. That is, the usual content dump and knowledge test. There’s good reason to believe that it isn’t effective. So, why are we seeing it continue? Is it a placebo effect?

I tend to view this as a superstition. That is, the belief that information presentation will lead to behavior change is held implicitly. I think it originates from a legacy perspective that we’re logical, and therefore new information will yield impact. (Not.) Regardless, it exists.

I was inclined to wonder if, really, it’s a placebo. That is, doing something with a hope that things change, but the onus is on the individual, not the intervention. There’s not going to be any actual effect, but it makes people feel better. Of course, the role is different here; the placebo makes the doctor feel better! (Or the health system? I’m muddling my metaphor…:)

It may not be that in practice, of course. There is a ‘faith’ that “if we build it, it is good”. So, biz units can ask for a course, and get one. They’ve provided content and access to SMEs. However, they push back when asked “what’s the actual problem”, let alone asked for measures.  It’s like they think the job can be done with information. They are happy with the appearance of a solution, because it’s easy, and no one’s checking.

We, of course, have to change this perception. If we continue to let folks believe they can give us content and we’ll deliver meaningful change, shame on us. Of course they don’t care about the measures, and they want things to be easy. We have to, however.  It may as well be a placebo effect, because the ultimate impact is a likely null as sugar pills, unless the patient wants to change. It’s probably not a great metaphor, but somehow it still seems apt. Thoughts?

The Role of a Storyboard?

by 1 Comment

In a recent conversation, the issue of storyboards came up. It was in the larger context of representations for content development. In particular, for communicating with stakeholders (read: clients ;). The concern was how do you communicate the content versus representing the experience. So, the open question is what is the role of a storyboard?

So, there are (at least) several elements that are important in creating a learning experience. One is, of course, the domain. What are the performance objectives? Moreover, how are you providing content support. Specifically, what models are you using, and what examples. Then, of course, there’s the practice. Ideally, practice aligns with the performance objectives, and the models and examples support the practice.

There’s also the experience flow. How are you hooking learners up front? We are concerned with balancing the quantity of content with the actual practice, keeping engagement throughout.

In both cases, we need to communicate these to the clients. Too often, of course, clients raise concerns about making sure ‘the content’ is covered. In many cases, they really don’t understand that less is better, and have a large amount they’ve heard from subject matter experts (SMEs). Not knowing, of course, that SMEs have access to what they know about the domain, but less about what they do! Thus, they’re looking to make sure the content’s covered.

There will also be concern about the experience. This, likely not ideally, comes after assurance about the content. I personally have experienced situations where stakeholders say ‘ok’ to a storyboard, but then balk at the resulting experience. Some (surprisingly high) proportion of folks can’t infer an experience from a storyboard.  This has been echoed by others.

The question is what is the role of a storyboard. In game design, there is a (dynamic) design document that captures everything as it develops. Is this the right representation to communicate the experience? It  communicates to developers, but is it good for clients? I argue that we want more iterative representations, for instance getting sign-off on what we’ve heard from the analysis and documenting what will be the focus of the design. We also want to separate out the domain from the experience.

Overall, I advocate representing the experience, for instance in (mocked up) screenshots with narration to represent a sample interaction. That can accompany the storyboard, but when folks have to sign-off on an experience, and they can’t get it from the usual representations, you’ll need an augment. I wonder whether we should fight against presenting the content that’ll be covered.

We should show the objectives, models, and examples, but fight against content ‘coverage’. Cathy Moore does a good job in her ‘Action Mapping’ to argue that what the minimum is to achieve success on appropriate performance tasks is a good goal. I agree, as does learning science. The role of a storyboard is to capture development for developers. It may not be the right communication tool for stakeholders. I welcome your thoughts.

Grounded in practice

by Leave a Comment

Many years ago, I was accused of not knowing the realities of learning design. It’s true that I’ve been in many ways a theorist, following what research tells us, and having been an academic. I also have designed solutions, designed design processes, and advised orgs. Still, it’s nice to be grounded in practice, and I’ve had the opportunity of late.

So, as you read this, I’m in India (hopefully ;), working with Upside Learning. I joined them around 6 months ago to serve as their Chief Learning Strategist (on top of my work as Quinnovation, as co-director of the Learning Development Accelerator, and as advisor to Elevator9). They have a willingness to pay serious attention to learning science, which as you might imagine, I found attractive!

It’s been a lot of marketing: writing position papers and such. The good news is it’s also been about practice. For one, I’ve been running workshops for their team (such as the Missing LXD workshop with the LDA coming up in Asia-friendly times this summer). We’ve also created some demos (coming soon to a sales preso near you ;). I’ve also learned a bit about their clients and usual expectations.

It’s the latter that’s inspiring. How do we bake learning science into a practical process that clients can comprehend? We’re working on it. So far, it seems like it’s a mix of awareness, policy, and tools. That is, the design team must understand the principles in practice, there need to be policy adjustments to support the necessary steps, and the tools should support the practice. I’m hoping we have a chance to put some serious work into these in my visit.

Still, it’s already been eye-opening to see the realities organizations face in their L&D roles. It only inspires me more to fight for the changes in L&D that can address this. We have lots to offer orgs, but only if we move out of our comfort zone and start making changes. Here’s to the revolution L&D needs to have!

 

Curriculimb

by 3 Comments

Ok, so I’m going to go out on a limb here, and talk a wee bit about what I’ve been learning about designing curricula. I care about doing it right (and probably haven’t always). It’s not the average course that’s the issue, but big ones, or multiple courses addressing skill gaps. It’s been challenging to find a systematic approach, which is why I’m teetering on a curriculimb.

So, the issue is how to develop a curriculum. I know in higher ed (I was there once) it tends to be a process of figuring out what content they need, and distributing across courses. It’s probably more art than science, where you move stuff around until it feels like you’ve got the right sized amount of content for each subject and it covers the ‘right stuff’. How people meet the criteria can vary. In a more research institution, I could design my HCI course my way. In more teaching-focused institutions, people may actually be given course syllabi to teach to!

My problem is when I have an uncertain amount of content, say for a large domain, and I want to develop specific capabilities. On principle, we should work backwards from the final performance. Which might include some very rich types of capabilities, so we might have a lot of concepts and practice involved. We’d need to create a large map. We might even break it up into conceptual stages (e.g. with programming: learning conditionals and then loops), and addressing them separately.

You probably also need to provide some practice to deal with misconceptions. That is, where are folks likely to get off track and maybe discouraged? Then you want to create practice for that. The things you’d rather they learned before it matters.

When I looked for good principles around this, it seemed like most of what I found basically said it’s iterative, there are no overarching principles (except work backwards and iterate ;). Which was less than satisfying, and some evidence-based practice would be nice.

Now, one of the things I was pondering in the dark of the night was how AI could help. I’ve been hearing how it can parse content and create maps. However, I also realized that to do so, it needs well-structured content. Kind of a circular argument. I think we need people to define it then AI can align it.

Again, right now it seems more like an art than a science. And I get that; it’s a lot like designing in engagement: create a first best guess and then test. Still, there are some solid results in engagement that give us some grounds for the first pass. I feel less like that at the next level up. So, I’m out on a curriculimb, and welcome help getting down!

Attention is underrated

by 1 Comment

Attention is a complex phenomena. Thinking that we can simply address is probably naive. Worse, there is at least one pervasive myth about it. Trivial attention is probably overrated, but meaningful attention is underrated.

Attention, I’ll suggest, is how we pay conscious awareness to our thinking. We pay attention to the sensory stream that’s available, and as working memory is has limits, our attention chooses what ends up being in working memory (which is where we see conscious thought). This is the picture I paint in Learning Science for Instructional Designers,  my recent book on how we learn. That’s how I learned it in grad school, and little seemed to change that.

As an aside, I suggest that the basic human information processing loop is something that is critical to understand. This is true for learning designers, but I would suggest there’s broader applicability. Knowing how information flows:

  • from sensory store to working memory via attention
  • from working memory to long term memory via elaboration
  • back to working memory via retrieval
  • and to decision from working memory

as a simplified story, shows how humans work in many ways. It gets more complex in important ways, but this is a key basis. On top of it comes aspects of how we think, and learn, but this is the core.  It benefits anyone dealing with people, basically: UI, marketing, etc. In short, most everyone.

Recent pictures of the information processing loop suggest, however, that attention has a bigger purview. They have it influencing most of the above. Which may be more accurate, in that if you need to attend to what’s in working memory, and manage the process of attending to information while evaluating what decision to make. You must maintain conscious focus on what you want to learn.

The myth, which still persists, is that our attention span has dropped to 8 seconds. Which folks tout as less than that of a goldfish. (How do we know what the attention span of a goldfish is?) The origin of this myth came from StatBrain misinterpreting a study, and was amplified since it was published by Microsoft Canada.  Marketing, mind you, not their research group! A myth I busted in a previous book!

There is apparently some evidence that our attention span has dropped (to 4o-something seconds, not eight), but we can still disappear into movies, novels, and games for hours. I reckon it’s about how engaging it is. Which, not completely surprisingly, is the topic of my most recent book, Make It Meaningful.

So, please, avoid the myths, and learn the core. Attention is underrated, as is the whole human information processing loop. Learn it, and benefit.

Misleading Malarkey

by 2 Comments

Recently, I saw a claim that was, well, a tad extreme. Worse, I think it was wrong, and possibly harmful. Thus, I feel it’s right to address it, to avoid misleading malarkey.

So, here’s the claim that riled me up:

Short-form edutainment is the most effective teaching method for both children and adults. TikTok and YouTube shorts will ultimately replace high schools and universities. Employment sector will phase out LMS systems and replaced with AI-powered compliance tools. If you are considering instructional design as a career, you may want to become a YouTuber or TikToker instead.

If you’ve tuned in at all, you’ll know that I’m a fan of engagement, properly construed.  Heck, it’s the topic of my most recent book! So, talking about the value of engagement in learning is all to the good. However…

…this claim goes over the top. Most notably, there’s the claim that edutainment is the most effective teaching method. If only! That puts me off, because teaching should yield a learning outcome, and just watching video shorts won’t do that (under most circumstances). Not surprisingly, I asked for research.

The author pointed to a study where mice genetically low on dopamine learned better when given dopamine. Yes, but the study had the mice do more than just watch videos, they performed tasks! I tried to go deeper, saying that engagement may be desirable, but it’s not sufficient. Without practice, watching entertaining and informative material (e.g. edutainment) isn’t a path to learning outcomes.

The conversation was derailed by my comment that edutainment had gotten a bad name from games. In the 80s, in an industry I was in, this was the case! I was accused of having a ‘gamification’ mindset! (Ahem.)  I tried steering the conversation back to the point it’s not about gamification, it’s about engagement combined with practice.

Interestingly, there was an almost parallel conversation about how engagement wasn’t the same as learning (which I pointed to in the exchange). The general take is that engagement is desirable but insufficient. Yes! Yet here we see the claim that engagement is all we need!

I believe in engagement for learning. I just don’t believe that by itself it will lead to learning. Learning science supports both the value of engagement, and the necessity of practice and feedback. That’s all. But claims like the above are misleading malarkey. It may be we’re talking an outrageous marketing claim (infamy is better than not being known at all?), but when it misleads, it’s a problem. Am I missing something?