This is the last Learnlet for 2016, and so it’s time for some  reflections on what has been an ‘interesting’ year.  I’ll admit it’s been rough, what with losing so many people known through popular media. I guess you get to an age where more and more people who’ve you’ve grown up with in one way or another begin to pass on. And of course serious changes nationally and internationally.  But there are some learnings as well.

So, I did a fair bit of speaking in 2016, keynoting conferences in New York and Beijing, as well as more private events live and online. I spoke about mobile learning, deeper learning design, innovation, as well as the L&D revolution.  And, of course, I attended the usual suite of industry conferences, notably the eLearning Guild events and Online Educa.  I also was engaged in a number of consulting engagements, working with folks to deepen their understanding (and mine), to achieve meaningful outcomes.

One learning is the value of travel outside the US.  I actually lived outside the US for 7 years (in Australia), and the perspective of seeing how others live, and looking at the rest of the world (and back  at the US) from other perspectives is a valuable grounding.  The view I had of China before my recent trips was quite different than the reality. I can say the same from previous experience with India.  It’s too easy to be insular.  Instead, it’s helpful to be curious.

And that’s an industry comment too.  I continue to talk (e.g. my workshop in Berlin) and write about deeper learning design.  And I continue to evangelize about it (c.f. the Serious eLearning Manifesto  with my colleagues, and the recent Future of Work project). And yet, the industry seems to continue on in ignorance.  The tools still reflect more of a focus on content instead of experience, for instance. Things get better, but surprisingly slowly. How long until we start treating  learning design with the appropriate respect? We need to get out of our comfort zone!

There are positive signs. My engagements with Learnnovators has  demonstrated that at least some folks care about quality. And I had several client engagements specifically focused on better learning design.  There just need to be more efforts in this area. It’s not hard to tweak processes to generate outcomes that not only  look like good elearning, but actually have a high likelihood of an impact.

I’ve done a lot of reading this year (most recently  The Fifth Discipline, which puts lots of what I’ve learned about organizations into a context).  It amazes me that with robust science at the organizational level as well as the learning science level, we still see so much action in organizations (and society) contrary to what’s demonstrably known. There are positive signs here too, but still too few.  It’s challenging, as it involves crossing discipline and business boundaries, yet the benefits are promising.

And I think the hype about technology improvements are premature.  Wearables continue, of course. And VR has reached the stage where it’s easy to experiment.  Yet in each case, we’re still in the stage before standards emerge that will make a real market.   AR and content strategy are still nascent, but there’s much potential.  Fortunately, analytics is seeing a boon from the standardization around xAPI.  We need to stick to the core learning affordances of new technology to truly grasp the potential.

Looking forward, I see much opportunity, as implied by the gaps indicated above. There’s real opportunity for improvement in the use of technology to facilitate outcomes. We can do  personal and organizational learning better.  We can leverage technology in ways that are closer aligned with how our brains work. As a precursor, we’ll need a broader understanding  of  cognition, but that’s doable.  I’m happy to help ;).

And let me just add a very heartfelt thanks to those of you who I’ve interacted with, this year and in the past. Whether reading the blog, making comments, engaging on social media, attending sessions or workshops, and of course via engagements, I’m very grateful. I hope to connect with you in the future, in any of the above ways or any other. I continue to learn through and with you, and that’s a gift. Again, thank you.

Goodbye 2016, and here’s to making positive changes in the new year.  May it be your best yet.

 

In the course of my research, I came across the project shown here, as represented  by the accompanying  video.  In the video, they show (and tout) the value of their approach to developing pattern recognition around  mathematics.  Further, they argue that it’s superior to the typical rule presentation and practice. And I can buy that, but with many caveats that I want to explore.

So it’s clear that we learn by abstracting patterns across our experiences. We can provide models that guide, but ultimately it’s the practice that works. An extreme example is chicken-sexing (mentioned in the transcript); determining the gender of new-born chicks.  Here, no one can articulate the rationale, it’s merely done by attempts and correct/incorrect feedback!  And the clear implication is that by having learners do repetitive tasks of looking for patterns, they get better at it.

And, yes, they do.  But the open question is what is the learning benefit of that.  Let’s be clear, there are plenty of times we want that to happen. As I learned during my graduate studies, pilots are largely trained to react before their brains kick in: the speed at which things happen are faster than conscious processing.  When speed and accuracy is important, nay critical, we want patterned responses. And it does work for component skills to more complex ones in well-defined domains.  But…

When we need transfer, and things are complex, and we aren’t needing knee-jerk responses, this doesn’t work.  I  would like to train myself to recognize patterns of behavior and ways to deal with them effectively, for instance (e.g. in difficult presentation situations, or negotiations).   On the other hand, in many instances I want to preclude  any  immediate responses and look for clues, ponder, explore, and more.

The important question is when we want rote performance and when we don’t .  Rote ability to do math component skills I’m willing to accept.  But I fear a major problem with math instruction in schools is about doing math, not about thinking like a mathematician (to quote Seymour Paper).  And I don’t want students to be learning the quadratic equation (one of Roger Schank’s most vivid examples) instead of how math can be used a problem-solving tool. The nuances are subtle, to be sure, but again I’m tired of us treating learning like color-by-numbers instead of the rocket science it should be.

Look, it’s great to find more effective methods, but let’s also be smart about the effective use of them. In my mind, that’s part of learning engineering. And I’m by no means accusing the approach that started this discussion of getting it wrong, this is my own editorial soapbox ;).  There’s much we can and should be doing, and new tools are welcome. But let’s also think about when they make sense.  So, does this make sense?

I was reflecting on some of the actions my colleagues and I take.  These are, in particular, colleagues that have been contributing to the field for a long time, ones who know what they’re talking about and that I therefore respect.  I retweeted one  who called for being careful of the source in message. I’ve supported another who  has been on a crusade against myths.  And I joined with some others to promote quality elearning.  And it led me to wonder why.  Why care?  Why take risks and potentially upset people?  And I realized that it’s because I care;  because quality  matters.

So what do I mean?  For one, it’s about  money.  To the extent that people are misled by claims, they can misinvest their money. They might be persuaded to buy products that can’t really deliver what’s promised. They might pursue programs that aren’t going to have a real effect.  We see this a lot, initiatives that don’t achieve the desired outcome. There are lots of ways to fail, but we do know lots about how to do it right. Yet we still see strategies limited to courses, and courses designed poorly, and thus money being wasted that could be doing good.

Yet really,  it’s about people.  It’s about giving them the right tools to do their job, whether in their heads or in the world.  In particular, I think that a field that’s about learning is about helping people improve, and that’s a noble pursuit.  Yet, too much of what’s done is under-informed, if not outright misled.  We need to do  better.

And it’s about us.  If we’re to be professional, if we’re  going to hold our heads high, if we’re going to have a meaningful impact, we have to do what’s right. And if we don’t know what that is, it’s incumbent on us to find out.  And be smart about it.  Be critical in our investigation of messages (including this one ;). We need to have enough background to be able to sift the wheat from the chaff.  And we need to continue to educate ourselves on the science that is behind what we do.  We need to be responsible.

We need to recognize that changing what is arguably the most complex thing in the known universe (the  mind) in persistent and predictable ways is not simple.  And simple solutions, while appealing, are not going to do the job.  They might meet one particular metric, but when you look at the big picture, aligning improvement with respect, you need to have a rich solution.

And I think awareness is growing. We are seeing more people interested in improving their learning designs despite considerable budget and time pressures.  And we’re seeing folks looking beyond the course, seeking to create an approach that’s broader and yet more focused on success.  Finally, we’re seeing people  interested in improving. Which is the first step.

So you can  continue to expect me to work for quality, and back up those who do likewise. Together, we might make this field one to be proud of.  I don’t think we’re quite there yet, but it’s within our reach. We can do this, and we should.  Are you with me?

If you’re interested in getting started, and would like some help to get going faster and further, get in touch!