Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Cognitive and Learning Sciences

by 1 Comment

You’ll see a lot of vendors/sessions/webinars touting neuroscience or brain-based. And you really shouldn’t believe it.  Yes, our brains are composed of neurons, and we do care about what we know about brains.  BUT, these aren’t the right terms!  Ironically, we have to be smarter than that.  Why?

Library levelsNo argument that neuroscience is advancing, rapidly. With powerful tools like MRI, we can understand lots more about what the brain does. And as we do, our understanding overall advances. But  for our purposes, neural is the wrong level.

Yes, learning is really about strengthening neural links. However, we don’t address individual neurons. Instead our thinking is really patterns of activation  across neurons. So, we activate patterns. And, typically, if we’re addressing higher-level thinking than motor reactions (think: decisions about actions), we’re activating complex combinations of patterns.

To do so, we’re working at the symbolic level. Images representing concepts, diagrams, and  language. And this is the  cognitive level! It’s the level above neural.  And above that, the social.  And while it’s about the brain, saying it’s based on the brain is a muddy concept. Do you mean neural, or cognitive, or…? Clarity matters.

Cognitive science as a field was defined to be an integrative approach to everything about our thinking: consciousness, language, emotion, and more.  Departments of cognitive science tend to include psychologists, linguists, sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers, and, yes, neuroscientists.  For instruction, and other aspects like performance support and informal learning, however, cognitive (or social) is the right level.

And, to be clear, learning sciences are a subset of the cognitive sciences. So you really should have a working understanding of the basics of learning science if you’re designing courses. And of the bigger picture of cognitive science to do the new L&D.

Conceptual clarity  about  our field, is important  to our field. We need to know what we’re doing, and resist hype that is misleading if not flat-out wrong. It’s nice to think we’re doing cool stuff, but not if we don’t have the basics down. Invest in solid learning and performance design first. Then we can get fancy.

Mental models are the agents of learning

by 1 Comment

I was talking with my friend and colleague Harold Jarche about how he’s expanding his valuable Personal Knowledge Mastery to teams and at the organizational level. Walking through his diagram, what is critical, what is being exchanged, are mental models. And I thought this an interesting insight.

I’ve talked before about mental models, and they’re important for learning. What they do is provide a causal basis for understanding what happened, and predicting what  will happen.  And that’s important. From such models, we can therefore evaluate different options, and choose the one that has the best outcome.  They may not help in new areas, but they give us a basis for new and unique combinations of circumstances.

So, individually, we make decisions based upon models. In fact, our brains build models to explain the world. (Important for instruction to provide good ones.)  And so when we experiment and reflect we may try to capture these models. Senge, in The Learning Organization talked about mental models as one of his 5 disciplines.

When we’re brought in on a team as a complementary set of knowledge and skills to solve a problem, we’re coming in with our models. In the ‘coherent organization‘ model, these have been developed through our community of practice, and are brought to bear on challenges we’re addressing. Results are shared back, particularly new insights. Similarly, our communities should be tracking others for models to appropriate and adapt.

Thus, the mental tools we use in this new age of information and innovation are conceptual causal models. We need tools to capture, represent, and share these models. And most importantly, I reckon, we need to understand the nature of these models to facilitate us taking the best advantage of them.

Our models may be exchanged, but they’re not transactional. Like a smile, we can give the away and still have them. But we can, and should, continue to acquire and develop them. Models are our value to our field and organizations.

Quip: learning & instruction

by Leave a Comment

I spoke at the ATD International Conference last week on myths. I said a number of things (and a number were said about it, too :). However, one comment seems to be getting more traction than others. Moreover, it’s something I say regularly. So I thought I should add it to my collection of Quinn Quips.

The statement is simple:

Learning is action and reflection; instruction is  designed action and  guided  reflection.

What do I mean here? In life, things happen. We make choices, and there are consequences. When we observe them, and reflect, we begin to notice patterns. Some of this  can happen unconsciously, but if we want to improve fastest, reflecting helps. This can involve just thinking, or writing, or diagramming, or other ways of representing the contingencies and emerging models.

However, when we want to guide learning, e.g. instruct, one of the tasks we can undertake is creating a problem, and asking the learner to solve it. If we provide resources, and support the thinking afterwards, we increase the likelihood of learning outcomes.

A critical feature of this statement is that the choices of action that we design, and the choices of resources to support reflection (content  and representation tools), are critical. And, of course, we might need a series of activities (or application opportunities) to support learning.

An interesting option that emerges here is the opportunity for contextual learning. When an individual is engaged in a task relevant for learning, we can take advantage of it. With resources and reflection facilitation, a performance requirement becomes a learning opportunity!

It’s important that we understand the difference, but recognize (and reflect) the core.

Myths in one week…

by Leave a Comment

Next week, I’ll be presenting on myths at ATD’s International Conference (Tues, 1PM).  Moreover, there’ll be a book signing at 4PM!  I hope to see you there, and, for more reasons than you might first imagine.

For one, ATD’s supposed to be supplying me with special bookmarks.  Always nice to have a book mark specific to the book, I reckon. I haven’t seen them yet, but if they’re leveraging the cool design work of Fran Fernandez they used for the book, they’ll be great.  But wait, there’s more…

Pick of debunker ribbonI’ve also arranged for some special ‘Debunk’ badge ribbons.  These limited edition collectors items (*ahem* :) are available to those who can show me their copy of the book (digital or print).  It’s to proudly wear on your badge showing you’re fighting on the side of learning science.  (As to the pic: the ribbon was not  supposed to be ‘cantelope’. Fortunately, the company is making it right so these ones have gone back. They will be orange, and the print and design will be the same. Fingers crossed they arrive in time!)

There are other ways to find out more.  You can of course buy the book; either through Amazon (Kindle too) or via ATD (PDF too). (Rumor has it that using the code ‘SPRINGBOOKS18’ at ATD will get you 10% off!)

Of course, there’s the ATD webinar for members on May 24th at 11AM PT (2PM ET). There’ll be one for the Debunker Club on June 6th at 10AM PT (1PM ET), details forthcoming.    Other webinars are in the works, so stay tuned.

And there’ll be interviews. Also forthcoming.  Yes, I’m trying to get the word out, but it’s for a good cause: better learning!

So, if you’re going to ICE, please do say hello (and safe travels).  I know San Diego (and love it): undergrad and grad school at UCSD, and brother still lives there, so I visit a lot. My recommendations: fish tacos (Rubios is a safe bet), carnitas (e.g. Old Town Mexican Cafe), and carne asada burritos (but only at a taqueria, not at a restaurant). There are some great local brews; Stone, Pizza Port, and Ballast Point all make a good drop.  Also, margaritas  if you can get them made properly, not with a mixer. Hope to see you there!

It’s here!

by Leave a Comment

Book and MeSo, as you (should) know, I’ve written a book debunking learning myths. Of course, writing it, and getting your mitts on it are two different things!  I’ve been seeing my colleagues (the ones kind enough to write a blurb for it) showing off their copies, and bemoaning that mine haven’t arrived.  Well, that’s now remedied, it’s here! (Yay!)  And in less than a week will be the official release date!

My publishing team (a great group) let me know that they thought it was a particularly nice design (assuring me that they didn’t say that to  all the authors ;), and I have to say it looks and feels nice.  The cover image and cartoons that accompany every entry are fun, too (thanks, Fran Fernandez)!  It’s nicely small, yet still substantial.  And fortunately they kept the price down.

You can hear more about the rationale behind the work  in a variety of ways:

I’ll be doing a webinar for the Asia Pacific region on Thursday 19 Apr (tomorrow!) 6PM PT (9AM Friday Singapore Time).

I’ll be presenting at ATD’s International Conference in San Diego on Tuesday, May 8th at 1PM.

(There will also be a book signing in the conference book store at 4PM. Come say hi!)

There’s a webinar for ATD on May 24th at 11AM PT (2PM PT).

Another webinar, for the Debunker Club (who contributed) on June 6 at 10AM PT, 1PM ET. Details still to come.

Also, Connie Malamed has threatened to interview me, as have Learnnovators.  Stay tuned.

So, you’ve no excuse not to know about the problem! I’d feel a bit foolish about such publicity, if the cause weren’t so important.  We need to be better at using learning science.  Hope to see you here, there, or around.

 

Plagiarism and ethics

by 1 Comment

I recently wrote on the ethics of L&D, and I note that I  didn’t  address one issue. Yet, it’s very clear that it’s still a problem. In short, I’m talking about plagiarism and attribution.  And it needs to be said.

In that article, I  did say:

That means we practice ethically, and responsibly. We want to collectively determine what that means, and act accordingly. And we must call out bad practices or beliefs.

So let me talk about one bad practice: taking or using other people’s stuff without attribution.  Most of the speakers I know can cite instances when they’ve seen their ideas (diagrams, quotes, etc) put up by others without pointing back to them.  There’s a distinction between citing something many people are talking about (innovation, microlearning, what have you) with your own interpretation, and literally taking someone’s ideas and selling them as your own.

One of our colleagues recently let me know his tools had been used by folks to earn money without any reimbursement to him (or even attribution).  Others have had their diagrams purloined and used in presentations.  One colleague found pretty much his entire presentation used by someone else!  I myself have seen my writing appear elsewhere without a link back to me, and I’m not the only one.

Many folks bother to put copyright signs on their images, but I’ve stopped because it’s too easy to edit out if you’re halfway proficient with a decent graphics package.  And you can do all sorts of things to try to protect your decks, writing, etc, but ultimately it’s very hard to protect, let alone discover that it’s happening. Who knows how many copies of someone’s images have ended up in a business presentation inside a firm!  People have asked, from time to time, and I have pretty much always agreed (and I’m grateful when they do ask). Others, I’m sure, are doing it anyway.

This isn’t the same as asking someone to work for free, which is also pretty rude. There are folks who will work for ‘exposure’, because they’re building a brand, but it’s somewhat unfair. The worst are those who charge for things, like attendance or membership, or organizations who make money, yet expect free presentations!  “Oh, you could get some business from this.”  The operative word is ‘could’.  Yet they  are!

Attribution isn’t ‘name dropping‘. It’s showing you are paying attention, and know the giants whose shoulders you stand on.  Taking other people’s work and claiming it as your own, particularly if you profit by it, is theft. Pure and simple.  It happens, but we need to call it out.  Calling it out can even be valuable; I once complained and ended up with a good connection (and an apology).

Please, please, ask for permission, call out folks who you see  are plagiarizing, and generally act in proper ways. I’m sure  you are, but overall some awareness raising still needs to happen.  Heck, I know we see amazing instances in people’s resumes and speeches of it, but it’s still not right.  The people in L&D I’ve found to be generally warm and helpful (not surprisingly). A few bad apples isn’t surprising, but we can do better. All I can do is ask you to do the right thing yourself, and call out bad behavior when you do see it.  Thanks!

 

Warning: Snake Oil

by 1 Comment

So this just appeared in my email this morning.  Can you tell what’s wrong?

“The next generation of L&D is here. Millennials are quickly becoming the majority of the world’s workforce. They will need training to become successful leaders. But, because they’ve grown up with mobile devices and digital technologies, they learn differently than previous generations. A solid understanding of millennial learning styles will help you create effective training programs.”

Dr Shmoos snake oil

Yep, snake oil. We’ve hit the myth jackpot!  How many can you spot?  This is the type of stuff marketers come up with that you can’t fight if you don’t know our brains (and more).  So let’s take it apart, shall we?  (This is  so  much fun!)

First, ‘next gen of L&D‘.  Um, maybe.  I don’t see things being done all that differently. It’s more evolution than revolution (despite my exhortations to the latter ;).  Still, no real myth yet.

Next, ‘millennials‘. And, yes, we have a winner!  The evidence says that there’re no meaningful differences between generations.  And if you think about it, it’s much more a continuum than discrete separations. It may be convenient, but it undermines people’s individuality. It’s really a mild form of age discrimination, dealing with people by the year they’re born instead of their unique circumstances. So, we’ve got our first myth. How much would you pay for this?  But wait, there’s more!

Need ‘leadership training’?  Er, yeah, so does pretty much everyone. Some folks may get there naturally, but that’s not the way to bet.  Moving on…

‘Learn differently’ because of growing up digital. This is the ‘digital natives’ story and the ‘digital learning’ story. And both have been debunked.  Turns out that folks who’ve grown up with digital technology aren’t necessarily any better at it. They don’t do better searches, for instance.  They  may be more comfortable, but that’s not what the claim is.  Again, this is sort of discrimination, categorizing people by their environment rather than their individual capability.

And, there’s the story that we’re now learning in fundamentally new ways.  Er, not. Our brains haven’t evolved that fast. We still need sustained and varied retrieval practice and feedback. No ‘knowledge downloads’ yet.  So here we have two, two, two myths in one! (Throwback: who recognizes  the reference?)  Keeping count? We’re up to three.  Now how much would you pay?  But wait, there’s still  more!

‘Learning styles’.  Ow!  The zombie that won’t die; kill it, kill it!  Back to the evidence: there’s no meaningful and reliable instrument to measure styles, so you couldn’t identify them.  And there’s no evidence that adapting to them helps either (which is implicit).  So really, this is  two more myths!  Wow, 5 myths in one paragraph. You’d be hard pressed to do better on purpose!

Manifesto badgeI worry who might fall prey to this marketing campaign.  I hate to tell you this, but there’s no there there.  You’d be far better off putting your effort in improving your learning design than buying into this misguided and misleading effort. If you want help with that, let me know (that’s what I do!), and there are plenty of resources (c.f. the Serious eLearning Manifesto).

Folks, my book on myths is coming out at the end of April. You can be prepared to defend yourself for the cost of just a few coffees. And, you can pre-order it now.  Our industry needs to get onto a proper basis. This is one small step, but one that needs to be taken.

Myths book cover

 

The meta-program

by Leave a Comment

A couple of weeks ago, I posited what I thought might make the basis for a sustainable degree program. That is, one that prepares students for a world with increasing change. In it I talked about the domains that I thought would provide a solid basis, but I did  not talk about something else important.  It’s also about the learning to learn and work skills that accompany the foundational knowledge. It’s about ‘meta’ skills.

Meta-skills, like learning to learn and learning to work well (21C skills), can’t be developed on their own. They  need to be layered on top of other things. We teach them  across  other domains, so they’re abstracted and can be reapplied to new problems and situations.   Thus, these challenges must reappear across the curriculum.

What skills?  I think things like the ability to research questions, design and run experiments, communicate results, collaborate, ask and answer questions in ways that work, and more.  This includes using technology for these tasks, as well as working with others.  Thus, creating spreadsheets, diagrams, and presentations is as much a part as is participating in and leading projects, commenting constructively, and coaching and mentoring.

So, using an application-based pedagogy,  there are a series of activities that require application, but they vary in type: research, design, problem-solve, interact, and in output. Then we evaluate those cross-discipline skills as well as the domain knowledge and skills.  How was your research process on this interface design project?  How well did you communicate your learnings from that experiment on recursion in learning programs?

Curriculum  and the pedagogy can be refined, and in fact are interleaved. Then we use technology to serve both as a tool for learners to construct (make) outcomes, and to track their progress.  We need to go meta in both!

And this isn’t true just for formal education, and can and should play a role in organizational learning as well.  We shouldn’t take our learners’ learning skills for granted, and we can and should track and develop them as well.  This isn’t currently supported, but perhaps can be in existing tools, or we may need a new platform.  But we should, I suggest.  Your thoughts?

Possible versus practical

by Leave a Comment

Last week, I gave a presentation to the local chapter of ATD. And I was surprised that their request was for mobile learning. Now that  is something I can speak to, but given that my book on the topic came out seven years ago now, it seemed like a dated topic. And I was wrong.  And the difference is between what’s possible and what’s practical.

Ok, so I am somewhat out ahead of the curve.  My games book came out in 2005, but the market wasn’t quite ready.  I similarly think my L&D revolution book, in 2014, was ahead of the market (the topic is finally getting more traction, close to four years later), though closer. But I thought the mlearning book was timely (not least because my publisher asked for it more than it was my initiative ;).

However, the audience was eager.  And it was relatively large for the group.  And it took a comment from the organizer to raise my awareness.  He said (and I paraphrase): “you think that it’s old, but it’s not old for everyone”. And that was indeed a wakeup call.  Because while mobile to me is very practical, for many it’s still possible.

I  do tend to move on once I reckon I’ve figured something out. I’m interested when it’s still something to be understood or solved. Once I have my mind around it, my restless brain is on to something new.  That’s why I have this blog, for instance, to wrestle with new thoughts. If they get organized enough, it becomes a presentation or even a book.  (Though sometimes I do ones that are requested, e.g. my forthcoming one on myths, and I’m supposed to be reviewing the second round of proofs!)

But the interesting thing to me is to look beyond my own bubble (and what my colleagues are talking about).  We’re looking at what’s possible but not yet done, or what’s on the horizon. Yet I need to remember to continue to tout what’s now on the menu, and recognize not everyone’s yet started moving.  The things that I think are already practical to implement are still on the ‘possible’ list for others.

If you’re reading this blog, you’re probably with me, but feel free to let others know that the things in my past I’m still happy to help with!  In any way: consulting or workshops or even speaking.  For instance, I’ll be talking engagement for the Guild at Learning Solutions, and in a webinar for AECT’s Learner Engagement group.  Just as I talk new things, like myths.  What goes around comes around, I guess, and what’s been possible is now practical.  Ask me how!

 

Consciously Considering Consciousness

by 2 Comments

Consciousness is an interesting artifact of our cognitive architecture. And no, (despite being a native Californian ;) I’m  not talking about social or environmental or higher consciousness. Here I’m talking about our conscious thinking, the insight we have (or not) into our own internal thinking. And it’s interesting  and  relevant.

First, we really don’t have a full understanding of consciousness. It’s a phenomena ew pretty much all experience, but the actual mechanism about how, or where, it arises in our brain is still a mystery.  How do we have this perception of a serial narrative in our head, but our brain is massively parallel?  Yet it’s there. At least, to conscious inspection ;).

Actually, much of our processing  is subconscious. We compile away our expertise as we develop it. We use conscious dialog (internal  or external) to shape our performance, but what we actually  do gets stored away without explicit access. In fact, research says that 70% of what experts do (and that’s us, in our areas of expertise) isn’t accessible. Thus, experts literally  can’t tell us what they do! (Warning, warning: important implications for working with SMEs!)

In fact, consciousness is typically used to deal with situations that aren’t practiced: conversations on topics, dealing with unique problems, and of course learning new things.  Informal learning is pretty much all conscious, while formal learning is about practicing to make the conscious become unconscious!

Which, of course, is why the ‘event’ model of learning doesn’t work. There’s not enough practice, spaced out over time, for that learning to become automated. And we don’t expect our formal learning to get us all the way there, we use coaching and feedback to continue to happen.

As learning experience designers or learning engineers, our job is to make sure we provide the  right support for using our conscious thoughts to guide our practice.  That includes models to explain and predict outcomes, and cognitive annotated examples to model the appropriate solution. And, of course, practice that gradually develops the expertise in appropriate sized chunks and spacing between.  I suppose we should be conscious of consciousness in our design ;). So what am I unconsciously missing?