Thinking more about Friston’s Free Energy Principle and the implications for learning design prompted me to think about play. What drives us to learn, and then how  do we learn?  And play is the first answer, but does it extend? Can we play to learn beyond the natural?

The premise behind the Free Energy principle is that organisms (at every level) learn to minimize the distance between our predictions and what actually occurs. And that’s useful, because we use our predictions to make decisions. And it’s useful if our decisions get better and better over time. To do that, we build models of the world.

Now, it’d be possible for us to just sit in a warm dark room, so our predictions are right, but we have drives and needs. Food, shelter, sex, are drives that can at least occasionally require effort. The postulate is that we’ll be driven to learn when the consequences of not learning are higher than the effort of learning.

At this level, animals play to learn things like how to hunt and interact. Parents can help as well.  At a higher level than survival, however, can play still work? Can we learn things like finance, mathematics, and other human-made conceptions this way? It’d be nice to make a safe place to ‘play’, to experiment.

Raph Koster, in his  A Theory Of Fun,  tells us that computer games are fun just because they require learning. You need to explore, and learn new tricks to beat the next level.  And computer games can be about surviving in made-up worlds.

The point I’m getting to is that the best learning should be play; low stakes exploration, tapping into the elements of engagement to make the experience compelling. You want a story about what your goal is, and a setting that makes that goal reasonable, and more.

To put it another way, learning  should be play. Not trivial, but ‘hard fun’.  If we’re not making it safe, and providing guided discovery to internalize the relationships they need, to build the models that will make better decisions, we’re not making learning as naturally aligned as it can be. So please, let your people play to learn. Design learning experiences, not just ‘instruction’.

I went to hear a talk the other day. It was about competency-based education (CBE) for organizations. Ostensibly. And, while I’m now affiliated with IBSTPI, it’s not like I’m a competency expert. And maybe I expect too much, but I really hope for people to be clear about the concept. Alas, that’s not what I found.

So, it started out reasonably well, talking about how competencies are valuable. There were a number of points, and many made sense, although some were redundant. Maybe I missed some nuance? I try to be open-minded. It’s about creating clear definitions of performance, and aligning those with assessments. Thus, you’re working on very clear descriptions of what people should be doing.

It got  interesting when the speaker decided to link CBE to Universal Design for Learning (UDL).  And it’s a good program.  UDL talks about using multiple representations to increase the likelihood for different learners to be able to comprehend and respond. This, in the talk, was mapped to three different segments: engaging the learners in multiple ways, communicating concepts in multiple ways, and allowing assessment in multiple ways. And this is good. For learning. Does it make sense for CBE?

To start, the argument was, you should make the rationale for the learning in multiple ways. While in general CBE inherently embodies meaningfulness in the nature of clear and needed skills, I don’t have a problem with this. I argue you should hook learners in emotionally  and cognitively, and those can be separate activities. There was a brief mention of something like ‘learning styles’, but while now wary, I was ready to let it go.

However, the talk went on to make a case for multiple representations of content. And here the slide  explicitly  said ‘learning styles’ and used VARK. And don’t get me wrong, multiple representations and media are good,  but not for learning styles! The current status is that there’s essentially no valid instrument to measure learning styles, and no evidence that even if you did, that it makes a difference. None. So, of course, I raised the issue. And we agreed that maybe not for learning styles, but multiple representations weren’t bad.

The final point was that there could be multiple forms of assessment. At this point, I wasn’t going to interrupt again, but at the end of the session raised the point that the critical element of CBE is aligning the assessment with the performance! You can’t have them do an interpretative dance about identifying fire hazards, for instance, you have to have them identify fire hazards! So, here the audience ultimately agreed that variability was acceptable  as long as it measured the actual performance. Again, I don’t think the speaker was clear about the concept.

There were two major flaws in this talk. One was casually mashing up a couple of essentially incommensurate ideas. CBE and UDL aren’t natural partners. There can be overlapping concepts, but… The second, of course, is using a popular but fundamentally flawed myth about learning. If you’re going to claim authority, don’t depend on broken concepts.

To put it another way, I think it’s fair to expect speakers to be clear about the concept. (Either that, or maybe the lesson is that Clark shouldn’t be allowed to listen to normal speakers. ;)  Please, please, know what you’re talking about before you talk about it. Is that too much to ask?

Recently, colleague Jos Arets of the 70:20:10 institute wrote a post promoting evidence-based work. And I’m a big fan, both of his work and the post. In the post, however, he wrote one thing that bugs me. And I realize I’m flying in the face of many august folks on whether to promote direct instruction or guided discovery. So let me explain myself ;).

It starts with a famous article by noted educational researchers Paul Kirschner, John Sweller, and Richard Clark. In it, they argue against “constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching”. That’s a pretty comprehensive list. Yet these are respected authors; I’ve seen Richard Clark talk, have talked with John Sweller personally, and have interacted with Paul Kirschner online. They’re smart and good folks committed to excellent work. So how can I quibble?

First, it comes from their characterization of the opposition as ‘minimally guided’.Way back in 1985, Wallace Feurzig was talking about ‘guided discovery’, not pure exploration. To me, that’s a bit of a ‘straw man’ argument. Not minimally guided, but appropriately guided, would seem to me to be the appropriate approach.

Further, work by David Jonassen for one, and a meta-analysis conducted by Stroebel & Van Barneveld for another, suggested different outcomes. The general outcome is problem-based (as one instance being argued against) doesn’t yield  quite as good performance on a subsequent test, but is retained longer  and transfers better. And those, I suggest, are the goals we  should care about.  Similarly, research supports attempting to solve problems even if you can’t before you learn.

And I worry about the phrase “direct instruction”. That easy to interpret as ‘information dump and knowledge test’; it sounds like the old ‘error-free learning’! I’m definitely  not accusing those esteemed researchers of implying that, but I am afraid that under informed instructors could take that implication. It’s all too easy to see too much of that in classrooms. Teacher strategies tend to ignore results like spaced, varied, and deliberate practice. Similarly, the support for students to learn effective study skills is woeful.

Is there a reconciliation? I suggest there is. Professors Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark would, I suggest, expect sufficient practice to a criteria, and that the practice should match the desired performance. I suspect they want learners solving meaningful problems in context, which to me  is problem-based learning. And their direct instruction would be targeted feedback, along with models and examples. Which is what I strongly suggest. The more transfer you need, however, the broader contexts you need. Similarly, the more flexible application required would suggest the gradual removal of scaffolding.

So I really think that guided exploration, and meaningful direct instruction, will converge in what eventuates in practice. Look,  insufficiently guided practice isn’t effective, and I suspect that they wouldn’t suggest that bullet points are effective instruction. I just want to ensure that we focus on the important elements, e.g. what we highlighted in the Serious eLearning Manifesto. There  is a reason to think that direct instruction or guided discovery isn’t the dichotomy proposed, I’ll suggest. FWIW.