We interrupt your regularly scheduled reading for this commercial announcement:

What is Learning Experience Design (LXD)? Further, why should you care? Finally, (and arguably most important) what does it mean you should do differently? Those, to me, are important questions. My short answer is that LXD is the elegant integration of learning science and engagement. Which, to me, implies some important nuances on top of what’s traditionally done in instructional design (ID). How to address it? There’s actually quite a lot in LXD, but it’s also a lot of overlap with traditional ID practices and processes. I reckon the easiest (and best) way to address it is to talk about the delta. That is, what’s different between the two. So, in my role for Upside Learning, I developed a missing LXD workshop. We ran it internally to good outcomes, and now, you can take it!

I believe that the difference starts with objectives; you can’t make a meaningful experience if you don’t have learners acquiring relevant new skills (not just an information dump). From there, there are nuances on designing individual practice activities, and then aggregated into practices (that is, putting practices together). Moving on, we look at the content elements of models and examples, and then the emotional aspects of learning. The workshop closes by looking at a design process that accommodates these. Recognizing that folks don’t want to throw out their whole process to start anew, it works from a generic model.

In the workshop, I cover each of those topics in a week; so it’s a six week experience. In between, I ask attendees to do some interim processing to both cement their understanding and to change their practices. Each week we’ll cover underlying concepts, see examples of what we’re talking about, actively process the information, and do a major application task.

To make this available more broadly, Upside’s partnered with the Learning Development Accelerator (LDA) to deliver it. Full disclosure: I’m co-director of the LDA, and Chief Learning Strategist for Upside Learning (in addition to my ongoing role for Quinnovation). (So, it’s all about me! :) Seriously, I think this puts together the tools I believe are necessary to lift our industry.

To be clear, since the advance notice timeframe puts this in summer, we’re offering it in Asia time-frames first (tho’ anyone is welcome!):

Australian Eastern Standard Time: July 7, 14, 21, 28, August 4 and 11 from 12h00 to 14h00 each day
Singapore Time: July 7, 14, 21, 28, August 4 and 11 from 10h00 to 12h00 each day
India Standard Time: July 7, 14, 21, 28, August 4 and 11 from 07h30 to 09h30 each day
New York Time: July 6, 13, 20, 27, August 3 and 10 from 22h00 to 24h00 each day

We’re offering it for US$100 to LDA members, and US$350 to non-members (for only $40 more, you get the full LDA offerings as well).

We’re planning to offer the missing LXD workshop again at a later date at East Coast/Europe friendly times (probably at a steeper price, we’ll have worked the bugs out ;). You can find out more at the LDA site. It’s got learning science and engagement bundled up into a coherent whole, for those who’ve already been doing ID and want to lift their game. I hope you’ll find it worth your while.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled reading until next week at the usual time.

For many reasons, I end up reading relevant books to our field. A recent one underway is Wiggins & McTighe’s Understanding by Design. In it, I found a quote that really resonated. It highlights to me one of the biggest barriers I think we face, that the details matter. Not everyone will see this, however.

So, the quote is from Bransford, Brown, & Cocking’s masterwork, How People Learn, funded by the National Academies of Sciences. It chronicles what was known at the time about the subject of learning, aggregating learning science research. I don’t know if it’s true outside the US, but within you can get a free PDF copy!

Wiggins & McTighe’s book is a primary argument for working backwards. They’re not concerned with the pedagogy, but the planning. Of course, it also matters what your learning goals are. Thus, they also discuss what understanding means. That’s where this quote comes from:

Many approaches to instruction look equivalent when the only measure of learning is memory. …Instructional differences become more apparent when evaluated from the perspective of how well the learning transfers to new problems and settings.

This resonates because it highlights something I think we struggle with. To folks who don’t know any better, as I’ve argued before, well-produced, versus well-designed and well-produced, is hard to distinguish. As a respondent noted, we don’t always even test memory! Yet our goals should be (retention and) transfer.

I think the field has fallen into a superstition that information dump and knowledge test is learning! Which is mistaken, but if you don’t know any better, it’s hard to tell. Reckon we have to continue to focus on outcomes, measuring if  learning transfers to new problems and settings. When we do, we’ll have evidence to help make the case for learning that works. Then we can have the resources to pay attention, reflecting that the details matter. ‘Til then, we’ll continue to fight to do it right.

Humor is important, we have to address this seriously!

Speaking of irreverent, I’ve argued, in the past, that we don’t use comics enough in learning. In general, I mean serious comics, graphic novel formats, to tell dramatic stories. However, we can use comics for humor, as well. In particular, to accomplish our motivation goals on opening. So here I ponder comic openings.

To start, as I mention in talking about making learning meaningful, I believe you need to open up people emotionally. Even before you open up cognitively! We know that activating relevant knowledge is important cognitively, but I suggest that it won’t stick as well unless you’ve piqued their awareness. I’m arguing that we need a visceral awareness that this is relevant.

It doesn’t take much, but I suggest it is worth doing. I like to use the consequences of having, or not, this ability is what’s key. There are things you can do that you couldn’t without it. Making that clear is, to me, a WIIFM (What’s In It For Me).

I believe you can do this dramatically or humorously. That is, you could make a dramatic story of saving someone because of the information you have, or the bad outcomes from not having it. Then there’s the alternative.

You can also have humorous aspects of having the info. For instance, saving the day not because the hero knows it, but the sidekick happens to, instead. However, my favorite approach is to humorously point out the consequences of not having the knowledge. (OK, admitting my predilection for sarcasm. ;) This can be done with just a simple comic! I’ve done so in content we developed for a client, and am doing so again in a demo we’re creating.

It might also set the tone for the learning. It can help learners relax, trust that the environment’s safe, reducing anxiety.

I suggest this is easy to create, easy to develop, quick, engaging for the learners, and effective. Now, I don’t have specific research on that (I’d love to: anyone got pointers or want to do the study?). However, I think it’s a plausible inference from what we do know from learning science.

I’ll also acknowledge that there are times this won’t be the best approach! Certain topics probably aren’t good candidates, similarly certain audiences might similarly not match. However, I do think it’s more broadly applicable than we think. Even for modules within an overall topic. If they’re inexpensive and high impact, use them liberally. So I’ll suggest we use comic openings liberally!

I’m not flamboyant, nor funny. I’m occasionally irreverent, and those who know me personally can probably regale you with my love for puns and wordplay. Of course, I think irreverence is undervalued, and am inclined to think it may be the only truly effective tool for addressing myths, superstitions, and misconceptions. So I took some time on my walk today and thought about it a bit. Here’re the results with some extensions.

X Styles (e.g. learning, leadership, etc)

Why don’t you just use astrology? It’s cheaper, and has about as much validity!

Dale’s Cone

People will believe about 10% of what you write, 50% of what has a cute alliterative phrase, 70% of what you tout in a video, and 90% of what’s in a well-produced infographic. (Aside: I think this is the secret to marketing.)

Images processed 60K times faster than text

That has to be right, because images are processed visually, while text is processed…hey, wait a minute!

Attention span of a goldfish

Because we no longer…’scuse me, I’ve a notification on my phone…

Generations

This new generation has no respect for tradition, said the ancient Greek philosophers.

I could go on, but that would spoil the fun. I’d like to hear yours! Cheers to irreverence!

Of late, I’ve been talking a fair bit about my take on learning experience design (LXD). To me, it’s the elegant integration of learning science with engagement. Of course, I’m biased, as my two most recent books are specifically to those ends! I don’t claim it’s automatic, but I do believe that with practice, it gets easier. You need to address both process and product, of course.

Our goals are, ultimately, to achieve learning outcomes, typically retention and transfer. That is, retaining skills over time ’til needed and transferring to all appropriate (and no inappropriate) situations. This requires, cognitively, sufficient practice and an appropriate spread of contexts. Emotionally, it requires an initial hook and then maintaining commitment through the experience via relevant activities.

I’ve been running a workshop with my partner, Upside Learning, on the ‘missing bits’. That is, the fine tuning that takes what you normally do in ID and fills in the extra steps that will successfully provide the integration. It’s been great for stress-testing the workshop (stay tuned!), and extremely insightful. I get to hear what these smart and experienced folks are realizing in their own practices, and what they’re struggling to change.  That’s my goal, of course: to help them bake learning science and engagement into their processes and products.

One of the concerns, not surprisingly, is that it takes more time. That includes upfront analysis (which clients can also resist). Then it requires a bit more thought on designing practice and winnowing content. Finally, it should be iterative. I’m not the only one focusing on the latter, of course. However, I argue that it ultimately really doesn’t take that much more time, but there will be a speed bump until the new way of thinking becomes automatic.

Still, it will require adjusting how we develop, to impact what we develop. Process and product are linked at the wrist and ankles. Understanding the underlying principles, the learning science and engagement integration, is a necessary foundation. That’s my take, I welcome yours.

I’ll be offering a free webinar with Training Magazine Network on the core principles of LXD on Wednesday March 22 at 9AM PT (noon ET). I note that if there’s a conflict, they’ll make the recording available afterwards if you register. I welcome seeing you there!

Let me suggest that one of the biggest gaps in our thinking is about doing. Too often, we think about ‘learning’ as the end goal, and it’s not. (I’ve gone as far as suggesting we rename L&D!) We need to rethink and ask about doing, not learning; we need to ask about people: what to do?

To start with, for organizational needs we don’t learn for intellectual self-gratification. (Though, too often, it seems that way: ‘awareness’ courses continue to perplex me. What possible organizational value will they achieve?) Instead, there should be identified gaps that are targeted because remedying them will improve outcomes.

There’s a whole process of analysis that starts with looking at gaps between ideal and real performance. Where are we lacking? Then, for any particular gap, we look for the root cause: is it a lack of skill, lack of knowledge, lack of resources, lack of motivation, … ? This up front work keeps us from using training to address a misalignment between incentives and desired behavior, for instance. Training isn’t going to keep people from doing things that are in their best interest! (And rightly so.)

Then, when we identify the root cause, we can target the appropriate intervention. Not all interventions may be within L&D’s purview, of course. We design courses. We could also be the ones who design performance support and facilitate informal learning (who better?). Of course, we shouldn’t be responsible for hiring or resourcing or compensation; at least not without a job description and skilling rethink. Our organizations deserve to invest in things that will move important needles.

This all is a shift to a focus on performance, on doing, not learning. While there are a variety of terms, this, to me, falls under the label ‘performance consulting’. It starts by asking “what should people be doing?” With the caveat that they aren’t doing now, or are doing wrongly. Then we ask “why?” Finally, we’re ready to design a solution. We’re focusing on outcomes. If it’s skills, it has to be in the head; and learning’s involved. If it’s knowledge, if it has to be in the head, learning can be involved, otherwise we should put it in the world. And so on.

My intent here is to suggest focusing on performance, not learning or knowing. That makes a better focus for investment, and is easier to recognize when it’s been remedied. So, what to do? Focus on performance first. Determine if a learning solution is your best choice, before you invest in it. Otherwise, you could be throwing money away. If you’ve got money to throw away, I can help ;), but I’d rather help you use it wisely.

The Learning Development Accelerator is running a mini-conference on performance consulting. It’s four half-days of immersion in the topics, with some of the top folks in the field. All with the usual focus on evidence-based practices. If you want to start doing L&D right, it’s a good start! 

In working with colleagues about redesigning design (our goal is better incorporating learning science into practices), I had a realization. I frequently see in practice, and it’s pretty much the orientation of the tools, that we work forwards. That is, we start at the beginning, work our way forward through content and practice, and end at, well, the end. While this may make sense from a workflow perspective, there’s a fundamental flaw. So I think it’s time we take a step backward.

Once we’ve done the analysis, and put our goal in mind, it can seem reasonable to move forward, through the various steps. It’s one way to create a coherent experience. However, there’s a flaw with this. For one, it takes our eye off the ball. That is, what’s core is what our performers come out able to do. Getting lost in the flow of experience may lead us astray. For another, it’s assuming we’ll get it right the first time. That’s a mistake.

You can start at either of two places to see an alternative. For one, as McTighe and Wiggins have advocated in Understanding by Design, they focus on the outcomes first and work backwards. For another, modern successors to older design practices – Michael Allen’s Successive Approximations Model (SAM), Megan Torrance’s Lot Like Agile Management Approach (LLAMA), Cathy Moore’s Action Mapping, and David Merrill’s Pebble in the Pond, for some prominent examples – all start designing from the practice first. They iterate on the practice with testing, while working backwards to necessary prerequisite problems, until you get to where your audience starts.

This is both pragmatic and principled. On principle, you work backwards from the core problem. This keeps you aligned with the outcome. Then you supplement with the minimal material to help performers succeed. This includes examples, models, etc. Then, like with a proper paper, you write the introduction and closing last. Pragmatically, this keeps the focus on the critical parts, and ensures you’re focusing your valuable time honing the most important elements first.

It’s easy (trust me, I fall prey to this too) to work forward. Still, it’s smarter to take a step backward and work that way. If you want an impact. Which, I suspect, you do. Or you should, eh?