Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

What about books | conferences?

by Leave a Comment

Responding to a frequent question  yet again, I decided to post an answer to the “what about books | conferences?” question.

And, as usual, the transcript.

Once again, after talking about how learning requires meaningful practice, I was asked the seemingly timeless question: “but what about books” Similarly, I regularly get “what about conferences”   So, for the record, let me say when and why books and lectures make sense. And when not. Hopefully I won‘t have to answer another “what about books | conferences” question.

To start, learning is action and reflection. That is, learning ‘outside‘ formal instruction. We act in the world and reflect on it to cement the lesson. It‘s slightly more complicated, because certain things, e.g. Geary‘s biologically primary things, may not really need reflection. Further some things may be really challenging to learn on your own even with reflection. But basically, doing things and reflecting (which can be reading, experimenting, writing/representing), etc is the way we learn on our own.  

Which, as I‘ve argued before, suggests that instruction  be designed action and guided reflection. That is, instructors should be choosing meaningful activities and scaffolding reflection around it. When we‘re designing for novices [link], in particular, when the learner doesn‘t know what‘s important nor why, we need to do the whole enchilada (darn, now I‘m hungry).

Which also means that when we‘ve segued beyond novice to practitioner (and beyond), we begin to know what‘s important and why, and we just need it. We want resources that can fill in the gaps. We want support for reflection.

So now we can explain why we can attend conferences, read books and articles, and the like. When we‘re deeply engaged in something, whether work or a passion, reading a book, listening to someone tell their story, and the like, serves as the necessary adjunct to our activity! They provide the complement to our own endeavors; the reflection to our action!

Now, hopefully, we‘ll never again need to discuss this. Realistically, we can point people here when we‘ get “what about books | conferences”? At least, that‘s my story, what‘s yours?  

Book hiccups

by Leave a Comment

As much as writing books is something I do (and I’m immodestly proud of the outcomes), they don’t always come out the way I expect. And that turns out to be true for almost every one!  So here, for the record and hopefully as both mea culpas and lessons learned, are my book hiccups. And you really don’t have to read this, unless you want some things to check for.

After my first book,  Engaging Learning, came out, someone asked me “how do I know it’s really your book?” He had a valid point, because while there was a bio, there was no picture of me. Somehow, I just expected it (and if memory serves, they’d asked for one). Yet it didn’t appear on the dust jacket nor on the author page. In fact, the only Wiley book that  did have my picture ended up being the next one.

Shortly after my next book came out,  Designing mLearning,  I got an email asking for clarification. The correspondent pointed to a particular diagram, and asked what I meant. It turns out, in editing (they’d outsourced it, I understand), someone had reversed the meaning of a caption for a diagram! Worse, I hadn’t caught it. At this time I can no longer find what it was, but it was an unhappy experience.

For my third book,  The Mobile Academy, I asked my friend and colleague John Ittelson to write the preface. And somehow, it wasn’t in the initial printing!  That was a sad oversight, but fortunately they remedied it very quickly.

I had been upset by how expensive the first two books were. Consequently, I was pleased to find out that my fourth,  Revolutionize  Learning & Development, that I really wanted to see do well, was priced much more reasonably. Of course, then I found out why; it was made with paper that wasn’t of the best quality. At least it’s affordable, and I continue to hear from people who have found it useful.

I’m happy to say that the next one,  Millennials, Goldfish & Other Training Misconceptions  has been hiccup free. After switching to ATD Press (they’d been a co-publisher of the previous book), they did a great job with the design, taking my notion of humorous sketches for each topic and executing against it graphically. It’s been well-recognized.

Unfortunately, as I just found out after getting my mitts on the most recent one,  Learning Science for Instructional Designers,  two of the four blurbs I solicited from esteemed colleagues don’t show up in the book!  They do show up on the ATD site, at least (and of course they’re on my own page for the book). I didn’t get a copy of the back cover beforehand, so I couldn’t have checked. My apologies to them. I checked, and it turns out having to do with a space issue because of book formatting. 🤷  Other than that, I’m  as  happy with this book as the last (that is, really happy)!

I can say that I’ve always tried to write in a way that focuses on the aspects that relate to our mental architecture. The goal is that as the technology changes, the implications are still appropriate. Our brains aren’t changing as fast at the tech! I guess I’m just not ready to accept planned obsolescence, so I’m keeping them available.

So there you have it, the book hiccups that can come with publishing. If you’ve made it this far, at least I hope you have some more things to check to make sure your books come out as good as possible.

 

How I write

by 1 Comment

I’d queued up this topic for a post, and then a conversation with a friend and colleague moved it to the front. We were talking about our process, and he pointed me to an article that nicely catalyzed my thinking. So here’s a brief post about how I write my books (written, of course).

The article my friend pointed me to was titled: “The Simple Way To Outline A Nonfiction Book”, and it’s nicely resonant, and a bit deeper, than my own approach. If you’re thinking about writing a book, I think this is very good advice. And the author even provides a template to get you started. And you should be thinking about writing. It does a couple of things: it forces you to think through your topic, and if it comes to fruition, it gives you some collateral. Be aware: the advice I’ve found to be true is that you make more money giving the book away. It’s a better business card!

So what the article suggests, and what aligns with what I do, is outline. That is, I outline the whole book. He suggests first doing the table of contents, generating your chapters first, then elaborating each. I do a bit more, creating a multi-level outline (often as much as up to five levels, though the innermost level often is just notes to myself what I’ll put in that section). However, this isn’t a one pass thing, it’s iterative. I’ll revisit it a time or two beforehand, and then as I write sometimes I restructure.

Which is why I need industrial strength outlining in my writing package. I want to be able to manipulate the whole document, moving sections. Which is why I use Microsoft Word, I just haven’t found that Pages can do it. Similarly, Google Docs is too awkward, and I never got my mind around Scrivener.

From there, he has a template for chapters as well. It reflects what I’ve seen in many non-fiction books, starting the chapter with a story that sets up the topic. I haven’t been able to get that formulaic, but it might be better!  I tend to write to the outline, but I’m not always telling a story to start, but I do try to set the stage with some interesting element.

Different books have emerged differently. My first,  Engaging Learning, on designing serious games, just flowed. Probably because I’d been thinking about the topic for over a decade… My second one,  Designing mLearning, was much more incremental. I’d write some, then think of something else to add up above, and then maybe a restructure of a bit, and continue, and add a bit more above, and… It was quite the effort to get to the end!  The others have varied.

My most recent effort (I’m working on a ‘Make it Meaningful’ text; how it manifests is still an open question) is an interesting case, since I’ve restructured it somewhat once already, and I think it needs a more major overhaul.  It’s partly that I’m still exploring (and people are lobbing interesting things my way). Also, it’s partly that in trying to incorporate some of my earlier stuff, I was inconsistent. It’s just that even with structure like an outline, you write in spurts, and they don’t always proceed smoothly.

Even in my more immediately forthcoming book,  Learning Science for Instructional Designers, I’d find  that I’d written about the same concept in two different places. While a text is linear, the ideas are interconnected, and can appear more than once in any path through. However, you have to choose one, and saying the same thing again is redundant.

By the way, some of that awareness comes after writing. I’ll admit that it’s an incredible ego crush to get back feedback from the editors: copy and proof. I feel stupid with all the (virtual) red ink I get! Yet, I also see how my writing changes from session to session, and having someone pull it together and point out some reliable flaws helps me improve. I completely value my editors, and am so grateful to them.

Your mileage may vary. If you don’t have a process and structure, however, you’ll struggle more than if you do. Recognize you’ll struggle, at first, and that you should allocate appropriate time. Also, each book is unique and will require its own flow, so also allocate time to discover that on subsequent efforts. Also recognize that even if you block off regular time slots to work, and set goals for those slots (and I don’t do either, by the way, I grab time when I can), you’ll still need to allocate time for revisions and even restructuring.

However, the real value is sharing your learnings. I’ve argued before that you should speak at conferences. If your ideas persist to create a coherent whole, you should consider putting them into book form. Further, if you’ve ambitions to stand out, it’s a useful way. So you should write. In your own way, of course. This is just how I write, but writing, I believe, is a good thing.

 

 

Buzzwords and Branding

by Leave a Comment

I was reflecting on a few things on terminology, buzzwords and branding in particular. And, as usual, learning out loud, here are my reflections.

The script:

So I’ve been known to take a bit of a blade to buzzwords (c.f. microlearning). And, I reckon there’s a distinction between vocabulary and hype. Further, I get the need for branding (and have been slack on my own part).  So, here I talk about buzzwords and branding.

First, vocabulary is important. I’m a stickler (I’m sure some would say pedantic ;) about conceptual clarity. We need to have clear language to distinguish between different concepts. (You shouldn’t say ‘cat’ when you mean ‘dog’, someone’s likely to get a wee bit confused!)

And, to be clear, there’s internal and external vocabulary. For instance, other people don’t really care about objectives, they just want outcomes. This internal vocabulary can be shortcuts, and help us minimize what we need to say to still communicate. Brevity is the soul of wit, after all.

And then there’s hype. The distinction, I reckon, is when we start tossing in buzzwords that are new, drawn from elsewhere, and promise great things. Adaptive and neuro- are two examples of buzzphrases that are open to interpretation but sound intriguing. Yet they require careful examination.

Then, there’s branding. You attach a label to something to identify it specifically. Harold Jarche’s Personal Knowledge Mastery (PKM), for instance, is a brand for a framework. So, too, would be Michael Allen’s SAM (Successive Approximation Model) and CCAF (Context-Challenge-Activity-Feedback). They’re ways to package up good ideas. And of course, t0 take ownership.

This latter step, I confess, I’ve failed on. The alignment in Engaging Learning and the different categories of mobile are two places I dropped the ball. I recently tried a brief attempt to remedy another, when I released the Performance Ecosystem Maturity Model.

I  do have the 4C’s of Mobile, but while that turns out to be useful, it’s not the most important characterization. In a conversation with someone the other day, he asked what I called the mobile framework I mentioned and he found useful. And I didn’t have an answer. I’ve talked about it before, but I didn’t label it. And yet it’s kind of the most important way to look at mobile! I use it as the organizing framework when I talk about mobile (really, the performance ecosystem):

  • Augmenting formal learning
  • Performance support (mobile’s natural niche)
  • Social (more the informal)
  • Contextual (mobile’s unique opportunity)

I wasn’t sure what to brand this, so for the moment it’s the Four Modes of mLearning (4M? 4MM?).

And for games, that alignment I mentioned I briefly termed the EEA: Effectiveness-Engagement Alignment. The point is that the elements that lead to effective education practice, and the ones that lead to engaging experiences, have a perfect alignment. It’s been a good basis for design for me. But, again, that labeling came more than a decade after the book first came out.

Ok, so I was counting on the ‘Quinnovation’ branding. And that’s worked, but it’s not quite enough to hang products on. So…I’m working on it. (And it may be that having ‘Learnlets’ separate from Quinnovation is another self-inflicted impediment!)

Still, I think it’s important to distinguish between buzzwords and branding. And they shouldn’t be the same (trademarking ‘microlearning’, anyone ;). Again, vocabulary is important, for clarity, not hype. And branding is good for attribution. But they’re not the same thing. Those are my thoughts, what are yours?

Flow, workflow, and learning

by 3 Comments

On LinkedIn, a colleague asked “Why do people think that integrating content in the flow of work equals learning in the flow of work?” An apt question. My (flip) response was “because marketing”. And I think there’s a lot to that. But, a comment prompted me to think a little bit deeper, because ‘flow’ is its own meaningful concept and we need to be careful about meaning. So here are some reflections on flow, workflow, and learning.

The response that triggered my reflection was:

I can’t recall the last time I told someone that I was in the “flow” of work today and learned so much!!

Flow state(Which is pretty funny!) The comment was a bit pointed, but it made me think about being in the ‘flow’ state, and the relationship with learning. I’ve previously pointed out how Csikszentmihalyi’s Flow and Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development  (ZoPD) are essentially the same. If the difficulty is too far above your skill level, the experience is frustrating. If it’s too easy, it’s boring. And in between is the flow state, and where learning happens.

Now, when we’re in the ‘flow’ at work (which is different than being in the workflow), we’re performing optimally. And I’m not sure learning happens there. Similarly with the ZoPD. You’re working and I’m not sure learning happens  then. When I state that learning is action and reflection, I think reflection is a necessary component.

Now, the original complaint talked about learning in the workflow, and opined that content in the workflow won’t necessarily equal learning. Another comment pointed out what I believe is often conflated with “workflow learning”, and that’s performance support. There are lots of reasons that we might want content in the workflow to help us succeed, but it may have nothing to do with learning. If, indeed, learning is to happen, it might need some content, and feedback, and so actually break the flow!

Now, I also recognize that many times we’re in the flow of work, but not in the ‘flow’  zone. So, we could definitely be learning in the workflow. And it happens by deciding to look up the answer to some contextually relevant question. Or from a comment from a person. But it’s a bit different than being in the zone, and we’d like to be there in our work too!

And, I wonder whether Vygostky’s ZoPD really aligns with the Flow Zone, or if it needs to be coupled with some offline reflection. It’s certainly possible. Maybe the flow zone is a superset of the ZoPD. More to ponder.

There isn’t a real revelation here about flow, workflow, and learning, other than we have to keep our concepts straight. We need to recognize when we’re supporting performance, and when we’re learning. And we need to be clear about workflow, and being in the flow zone. And there may be more here to unpack. Thoughts?

 

Ritual

by 2 Comments

I’ve talked before about the power of ritual, but while powerful, it also seemed piecemeal. That is, there were lots of hints, but not a coherent theory. That has now changed. I recently found a paper by Nicholas Hobson & colleagues (Schroeder, Risen, Xylagatas, & Inzlicht; warning, PDF) titled  The Psychology of Rituals  that creates an integrated framework. And while my take simplifies it down, I found it interesting.

At core, what the model suggests is that there are two components that are linked together. The first element are things that involve the senses. The second element are the semantics we’re looking to create allegiance and adherence too. And there are important elements about this relationship.

There are a number of elements that are on tap for involving the senses. Certain movements, sounds, and words said or to be spoken can be used. There can also be food, drink, smells, and more. Objects also. Timing is an element; at the micro level of things in order, and at the macro level of the triggers for the ritual.

Semantics come, of course, from your needs. It can be about things you want people to believe, or a set of values you want people to subscribe to. Or, of course, both. From the design purpose, I’d suggest it’s about agreeing to be a member of a community of practice; to undertake certain actions when appropriate, and to uphold certain values.

Interestingly, according to their model, the relationship between the two is effectively arbitrary. That is, there is no intrinsic relationship between what you’re signifying, and how you do so. Rituals are about the practices. Which means you could in theory do just about  anything to make the relationship.

The other thing is that the ritual has to be invariable in its aspects. You define it, and so do it. Note that the execution can vary considerably; from several times a day to upon certain triggering conditions. So, for instance, having completed a course, or before engaging in certain activities.

While such a definition gives us lots of freedom, it also doesn’t necessarily serve as a guide for design. Still, thinking about it in this way does suggest the utility in developing deeply held beliefs and appropriately practiced behaviors. At least, that’s how I see it. You?

What is wrong with (higher) education?

by 7 Comments

I was having a conversation with a colleague, sparked by dropping enrollments in unis. Not surprisingly, we ended up talking about flaws in higher education. He suggested that they don’t get it, and I agreed. He was thinking that they get the tech, but not the learning. I think it’s more complex. There are those that get some parts of the learning right. Just not enough, and not all of it right. Thinking further, post-convo, it occurs to me that there is a layer beneath the surface that matters. So I want to consider what is wrong with higher education.

And, let’s be clear, I’m  not talking about the problems with tuition and administration. Yes, tuition’s risen faster than the cost of living. And yes, there’s little commercial pressure to keep universities free from the persistent creep of increasing administration. I saw an interesting article talking about how universities without a solid financial foundation,  and ones without a good value proposition, will perish. It’s the latter I’m talking about.

I previously mentioned the three pillars I think create a valid learning offer:

  • a  killer learning experience,
  • being a partner in your success
  • and developing you as an individual.

I suggest that all three are doable, but it occurred to me that there’s a bit more to unpack.

The ‘being a partner in your success’ bit is most frequently seen. Here, it’s about looking for signs of trouble and being proactive about reaching out and assisting. It’s not ‘sink or swim’, but recognizing there can be troubles and helping learners cope. The Predictive Analytics work that Ellen Wagner did is the type of opportunity we have here.

The ‘developing you as an individual’ is really building your more general skills: communicating, working with others, a positive attitude, knowing how to search, etc. And, of course, knowing how to continue to learn. Given the rate of change, most of what you learn as the core of a degree may well be out of date in short order!  But you can’t address these skills on their own, they’re specifically about how you do domain things.  And that’s a layer I’ve yet to see.

And the ‘killer learning experience’ is a second area where I think folks still aren’t doing well. My short (and admittedly cheeky) statement about education is that they’re wrong on two things, the curriculum and pedagogy, other than that they’re fine. Most universities aren’t doing a good job of curriculum, focusing on knowledge instead of skills. And some are moving in a good direction. Startups are addressing this area as well.

The other problem is the pedagogy. There’re two elements here: the learning design, and engagement. Too often, it’s still the ‘information dump and knowledge test’. But even when that’s right, making it truly meaningful for the learners is sadly neglected. Even professors who care often forget to put the ‘why’ into the syllabus.

In short, what is wrong with higher education is the ability to successfully execute on  all these points. (It’s true for other education, too, but…) I’ve seen efforts that address one, or two (and plenty that get none right). However, as of yet, I have not seen anyone doing it the way it could be done.  It’s doable, but not without some serious attention to not only the elements, but their successful integration. And it’s important enough that we should be doing it. At least, that’s what I think. So, what do  you think?

Personalized and adaptive learning

by 1 Comment

For reasons that are unclear even to me, I was thinking about personalized versus adaptive learning. They’re similar in some ways, but also different. And a way to distinguish them occurred to me. It’s kinda simplistic, but I think it may help to differentiate personalized and adaptive learning.

As background, I led a project to build an intelligently adaptive learning platform. We were going to profile learners, but then also track their ongoing behavior. And, on this basis, we’d serve up something appropriate for learner X versus learner Y. (We’d actually recommend something, and they could make other choices.)

It was quite the research endeavor, actually, as the CEO had been inspired by Guilford’s learning model. I dug into that and all the learning styles literature, and cognitive factor analysis, and content models around learning objectives, and revisited my interest in intelligent tutoring, and more. I was able to hire a stellar team, and create an approach that was scientifically scrutable (e.g. no learning ‘styles’ :). We got it up and running before, well, 2001 happened and the Internet bubble burst and…

In some sense, the system was really both, in the way I’m thinking about it. I’ve seen different definitions, and one has adaptive as a subset of personalized, but I’m going a different way. I think of personalized as pre-planned alternatives for different groups, whereas adaptive reacts to the learner’s behavior.

Our use of initial profiling, if we only used that, would be personalized. The ongoing adaptation is what made it adaptive. We had rules that would prioritize preferences, but we’d also use behavior to update the learner model. It’s something they’re doing now, but we had it a couple of decades ago.

So, my simple way of thinking about personalized versus adaptive is that personalized is based upon who you are: your role, largely. We’d swap out examples on marketing for people selling services versus those selling products, for instance. Or if we’re talking negotiation, a vendor might get a different model than a lawyer.

Adaptive, on the other hand, is based upon what you  do. So, for instance, if you did poorly on the last problem, we might not give you a more difficult one, but give you another at the same level. Twice in a row doing badly, we might bring you another example, or even revisit the concept. This is what intelligent tutoring systems do, they just tend to require a rigorous model of expertise.

Of course, you could get more complicated. Personalization might have a more and less supportive path, depending on your anxiety and confidence. Similarly, adaptive might throw in an encouraging remark while showing some remedial materials.

At any rate, that’s how I differentiate personalized and adaptive learning. Personalized is pre-set based upon some determined differences that suggest different learning paths. Adaptive calculates on the fly and changes what the learner sees next.  How do you see it?

Learning science again

by 4 Comments

In an earlier post, I made a defense  of cognitive psychology (really, to me, cognitive science, a bigger umbrella). And, previously, the case for learning science. And I’m coming at learning science again, with a personal interest.

Learning science is an interdisciplinary field, including cognitive science, educational psychology, and more. Having emerged relatively late, it’s now finding a solid footing with a unified approach to looking at how we learn, and how to facilitate it.

Most importantly, having this knowledge is critical for those who practice learning. In fact, I’ve railed against learning malpractice, and that’s a legitimate concern. We, should, as professionals, have a solid basis for our decisions. Just as you wouldn’t want your doctor not to know biochemistry and biophysics, and your electrician not to understand voltage and current, you similarly should want your instructional designers to understand how learning proceeds.

Yet, sad to say, it’s not the case that what we see in practice is well-grounded in what learning science tells us. Such that several of us banded together to prescribe what  should be done!

It goes beyond courses, of course. We shouldn’t be using courses when job aids will suffice, as cognitive science tells us. (Our brains are bad at remembering rote, abstract, arbitrary, and voluminous information.) We should be facilitating informal learning as well.

All of this, done right, depends on understanding learning science, again. Seriously, everything that L&D does largely boils down to knowing how our brains work. And the better we know it, the better we can make decisions. This includes avoiding myths, buying platforms and services, designing experiences, facilitating learning, and more.

So what can you do? There are a fair bit of resources out there already. I’ve created a reading list. I’ll have more to announce soon. I can also announce that I’ll be running a learning science (er, effective learning strategies) workshop, through HR.com. It’s a five week session, starting Oct 21. Cog Sci 101, learning artifacts, social/emotional/cultural, I’ve tried to give a good coverage.  I believe, as the first one, it has a ‘pilot’ pricing!  Whether I see you there or not, I hope you do ensure a good basis for your practice.

In Defense of Cognitive Psychology

by 4 Comments

A recent Donald Clark post generated an extension from Stephen Downes. I respect both of these folks as people and as intellects, but while I largely agreed with one, I had a challenge with the other. So here’s a response, in defense of cognitive psychology. The caveat is that my Ph.D. is  in Cognitive Psychology, so I may be defensive and biased, but I’ll try to present scrutable evidence.

Donald Clark’s post unpacks the controversies that surround efforts to measure the complicated concept of ‘intelligence’.  He starts with the original Binet measure, and talks about how it’s been misused and has underlying problems. He goes through multiple intelligences, and emotional intelligence as well, similarly unpacking the problems and misuses. I’m reminded of Todd Rose’s  End of Average,  which did a nice job of pointing out the problems of trying to compress complex phenomena into single measures.

He goes on to talk about how it may be silly to talk about intelligence. His argument talks about all the different ways computers can do impressive computational tasks, under the rubric  artificial intelligence (AI). While I laud the advances, my focus still remains on IA (intelligence augmentation), that is, using computers in conjunction with our own capability rather than purely on AI.

Stephen Downes responded to Donald’s article with a short piece. In it, he takes up the story of intelligence and argues that education and cognitive psychology have put on layers of ‘cruft’ (“extraneous matter“) on top of the neural underpinnings. And I have a small problem with that. In short, I think that the theories that have arisen have provided useful guidance for designing systems and learnings that wouldn’t have emerged from strictly neural explanations.

Take, for example, cognitive load. John Sweller’s theory posits that there are limits to our mental resources. Thus, having extraneous material can interfere with the ability to process what’s necessary. And it’s led to some important results on things like the importance of worked examples, and making useful diagrams.

We can also look to principles like Bjork’s desirable difficulty. Here, the type of practice matters (as also embodied in Ericsson’s deliberate practice), needing to be at the right level.  This might be more easily derivable from neural net models, but still provided a useful basis for design.

I could go on: the value of mental models, what makes examples work, the value of creating a motivating introduction, and so on. I’d suggest that these aren’t obvious (yet) from neural models. And even if they are, they are likely more comprehensible from a cognitive perspective than a neural. Others have argued eloquently that neural is the wrong level of analysis for designing learning.

I will suggest, in defense of cognitive psychology, that the phenomena observed provide useful frameworks. These frameworks give us hooks for developing learning experiences that are more complicated to derive from neural models. As I’ve said, the human brain is arguably the most complex thing in the known universe.  Eventually, our neural models may well advance enough to provide more granular and accurate models, but right now there’s still a lot unknown.

So I’m not ready to abandon useful guidance, even if some of it is problematic. Separating out what’s useful from what’s been overhyped may be an ongoing need, but throwing it all away seems premature. That’s my take, what’s yours?