Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

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?

A heuristic approach to motivation

by Leave a Comment

I’ve been pondering more about curiosity and ‘making it meaningful’ and how we might work on motivation to make learning truly meaningful. I’v come up with a rough cut. So, here’s a proposal for a heuristic approach to motivation.

As I mentioned, the desired true intrinsic motivation may be a goal too far. When possible, perhaps in a deeply specialized field, I’d go for it. In fact, that’s my first recommendation:

1. If there‘s a surprising answer to a question that‘s directly relevant, use it

I’ve seen folks do this by asking questions that the audience is likely to choose one answer, and it’s counter-intuitively wrong. Here, it has to be directly relevant to the question! For instance, asking in a ‘how to do multiple choice right’ class what they think is the right number of choices (turns out: 3). This is close to true intrinsic motivation, because folks interested in the topic might be surprised about the result, and therefore inquisitive. Surprise is great if you can get it!

However, that’s not assured. My second step is a bit more complex, but still straightforward. Here, I’m shooting for the level below intrinsic motivation, and looking for a recognition that someone does need it. Thus, second step is:

2. If there‘s either of the following –

a. Stats demonstrating meaningful aggregate consequences of solving, or not

b. A vivid consequence of solving, or not

– go with it

That is, if you can find either data, or a very visceral personal response, you use that to help people  get that it’s important. It’s playing on the consequences of having, or not, the knowledge. (Which is something I talk about in my LXD workshops, and in my forthcoming one, stay tuned.)

Again, it  has to be meaningful to the domain. Which brings up my last suggestion:

3. If neither, maybe this isn‘t needed!

Reallly, if you can’t find some reason why this is intrinsically important, why are you doing it? Even for compliance training, there’s a reason. Tap into it! Or you’re likely to be wasting time and money. (Give me counter examples, I invite you!)

I’m not sure what order 2a and 2b should be in. Maybe that depends on the audience (individualist vs collectivist?). Still, this is my first stab a heuristic approach to motivation, and I invite your feedback. Make sense, or off track?

Authentic Marketing

by Leave a Comment

I’m not a marketing expert, or even a marketer, so take the following with the proverbial boulder of salt. Still, I have to market Quinnovation, and I’ve advised orgs on marketing (learning) products, and I’ve taken down a lot of bogus marketing. So when something prompted me to reflect, I realized I had some thoughts on authentic marketing.

First, I’ve argued that good marketing is really good customer education. That is, you should be helping your customers understand why your product is the right thing for their needs. Of course, you should be first designing to ensure that it  is the answer. Or, perhaps,  an answer, and then helping your customers to understand if they’re the right customer for this solution.

And, when I’ve studied marketing for services, there are several steps that make sense. First, the clear thing is knowing your customer’s pain, and being able to articulate how you solve that pain. You want to help articulate clearly what the problem is, and what’s it’s costing, so that then you can suggest a solution and the benefits.

At core it’s about building up a solid, scrutable, case. Which is, in essence, building up trust that you know what you’re talking about, and that you can truly meet the need.

And that may not be the quick easy way. It appears to be the case that some folks would rather use clickbait-style advertising. Perhaps to cover up from not having a defensibly different product or solution? When there are hundreds of LMSs around, how do you differentiate yourself?   And I guess it works, because I keep finding new examples of marketing that goes for the cheap ploy rather than authentic education.

So I guess this is a plea for being an aware consumer. It’d be great if orgs started building products that really do make their customers awesome, and then use authentic marketing to sell them. In lieu of that, be wary. Look for unsubstantiated hype, buzzword bandwagon behavior, and style over substance. Know what you need, take your time to do due diligence, and spend wisely. Caveat emptor, after all.

The plusses and minuses of learning science research

by 1 Comment

A person who I find quite insightful (and occasionally inciteful ;) is Donald Clark. He built and sold Epic, an elearning company, and now he leads a learning AI company, Wildfire. He’s knowledgeable (for instance, having read up and summarized centuries of learning theorists), willing to call out bad learning, and he’s funny. And so, when he reported on a new study, I of course looked into it. And I find that it points out the plusses  and  minuses of learning science research.

To be clear, this is about his product, so there’s a vested interest. However, he’s got integrity; he’s not going to sully his reputation with a bad study. And, it’s a good study. It rightly demonstrates an important point. It’s just that it stops short of what we need for full  learning.

So, his product does something pretty amazing. You give it content, and it can not only answer questions about the content (as, for instance, some chat tools do), it can turn the tables and ask  you questions about the content. That is, it can serve as a sort of tutor. Which is all to the good.

What it can’t do, of course, is design meaningful practice. As Van Merriënboer’s Four Component Instructional Design (4C/ID) points out, you need to know the information, and you also need practice applying it. And I reckon we’re still far from that. So, while this is part of a whole solution (and Donald knows this), it’s not the full solution. He’s subsequently let me know it can do language tasks, which is impressive. I’m thinking more of contextualized scenarios, however.

The study demonstrates, as you might expect, that breaking up a video into reasonable chunks, and having system-generated questions asked in-between, led to 61% better retrieval, going from getting 8 to 14 questions right. That is a big improvement. it’s also impressive, since it’s generating those questions from video! That is, it parses the video, establishes a transcript, and then uses that to generate a knowledge base. Very cool.

And it’s a well-designed study. It’s got a control group, and a  reasonable number of subjects. It uses the same test material, for an AB comparison. Presumably, the video chunking was done by hand, into four pieces. The chunking and break might account for the difference, which wasn’t controlled for, but it’s still a big improvement. Granted, we know that watching a video alone isn’t necessarily going to improve retention (except, perhaps, over some other non-interactive way of dumping content). But still, this is good as it’s an improvement and a lot of work was saved.

What I quibble about, however, is the nature of the retrieval. The types of questions liable to be asked (and it’s not indicated), are knowledge questions. As suggested above, knowledge is a necessary component. But using that knowledge to make decisions in context is typically what our goals are. And to achieve such goals, you basically have to practice making decisions in context. (Interestingly, the topic here was equality and diversity, a topic he has complained about!)

Knowledge about a topic isn’t likely to impact your ability to apply it. What will  make a difference are actually doing things about it, like calling it out, having consequences, and actively working to remedy imbalances. And that requires separate practice. Which he’s acknowledged in the past, and rightly points out that his solution means you can devote more resources to that end.

Thus, the plusses of learning science research are we nibble away at the questions we need to answer, and find answers about the questions we ask. The minus, of course, is not necessarily asking the most important questions. It’d be easy to see this and say: “we’ve improved retention, and we’re done”. However, it won’t necessarily lead to reducing the behaviors being learned about, or building ability to deal with it.  There are plusses and minuses of learning science research, and we need to know the strengths, and limitations, of it when we hear it.

Top 10 Tools for Learning 2020

by Leave a Comment

It’s time, once again, for Jane Hart’s excellent Top 10 Tools for Learning survey. And, so, it’s time once again for my reflections. Here are my take on the top 10 tools that support my learning.

The first way I learn is to process what I’ve seen. That, toolwise, is largely about representing and communicating.

Processing Tools

1-2. Writing is arguably the top way I reflect. And, so that’d put Microsoft Word at the top of my list. That’s where I write books and articles first. And, of course WordPress is how I write my blog (e.g. here!).   Writing is a way to sort out how I think about things. As I say, things that end up in presentations and books tend to show up on blog first. Well, one of the main ways.

3-4. Besides writing, two ways I sort out my understandings are to diagram and to outline. I use OmniGraffle as a general purpose diagramming tool because, well, it largely works the way I want to think about it. Diagrams, mind maps, even recently as sort of posterboard. And I use OmniOutliner to do, well, outlines. Another way to map out structures. I’d use a less costly tool, but…the columns feature is really helpful for annotation. Both, unfortunately, are Mac only (and sadly quite dear).

5. Keynote is how I create presentations, another way I do, and then share, my thinking. Diagrams are a big part of my talks, punctuated with stock photos to represent concepts (from Pixabay and occasionally Unsplash). I believe (and don’t have evidence for) that using an image that relates to the concept but doesn’t exactly communicate it leaves open some curiosity that then gets connected. And that this leads to better comprehension (I avoid bullet points in live presos, and save them for handouts). Anyone got that data?

The second thing I do is see what other people are pointing to and have to say, and ask them questions   as well. So the second category is about interacting with others.

Social tools

6. Twitter is a regular feature of how I see what people are pointing to, as well as pointing to things I’ve found as well. Chats there are fun, too. Like Jane, Tweetdeck is my tool of course on my Mac. I have to use the Twitter client on iPad/iOS, since they’ve taken away Tweetdeck on the iPad (grr).

7. I like FeedBlitz as a way to sign up for blogs, as it brings them into my inbox, instead of me needing a separate app. Reading a select list of blogs is one of my tactics. That’s how people can sign up to get my blog in email, too.

8. Slack has also been a major component of getting things done, mostly with IBSTPI. It’s a handy way to get things done with others.

9-10. Social networks are a big part of my learning, which means that Facebook and LinkedIn also play big roles. Facebook’s more personal, ie less about work, but I learn about   many societal things there. And LinkedIn is a place for learning as well, professionally as opposed to personally.

And…

Honorable Mention: to round out the picture (10 is such an arbitrary number ;), sharing collaborative documents, e.g. Google Docs, is a major way to collaboratively process and learn together. Also socially, Zoom and BlueJeans (the latter’s almost the same, and what ISBTPI uses) are used a lot to discuss and negotiate understandings. And email, of course (using the Mac Mail client) is a major way I learn, e.g. blogs appear there, and it’s a major way I interact.

DuckDuckGo has become my goto search engine (and Brave as my browser,  at least on my Mac, awaiting cross-device sync), because I don’t need to spread my data any further than necessary. And searching is a big part of my learning.

As an aside, owing to the pandemic, like everyone else I’ve been doing much more with Zoom to interact with colleagues than I had in the past. And I find, interestingly, that the ways I reach out are more opportunistic: I’ll use FB Messenger, or a Twitter DM, or a LinkedIn message, or an email depending on who, why, and what tool I’m in at the time. There may be some method to the madness, but I’m not confident on that point ;).

So, there’re my Top 10 Tools for Learning. I hope you’ll post or send your list to Jane too, so we can continue to see what emerges.