I was asked to comment on intrinsic motivation, and was pointed to an article claiming that it’s a myth(!). Given that I’m a staunch advocate of intrinsic motivation, I felt this was something that I should comprehend. Is intrinsic motivation a myth? My inclination is ‘no’, but let’s explore.

As background, there’s usually a distinction made between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation is, to me, when you use external incentives to motivate someone to do something. You can use tangible offerings like money or products/produce, or more ephemeral rewards like points. Intrinsic motivation is, instead, finding out what people care about and tapping into that. Helping them see that this behavior aligns with their own intentions, so to speak.

The article claims that all intrinsic motivation is merely subverted extrinsic motivation. There are things we want, but it’s shameful to admit it, so we disguise our intent. Which is a very behavioristic way to view it. And I think it’s wrong.

There are debates about our motivators. Altruism, for instance, would seem to be contrary to one’s interests, since doing something for others would disadvantage oneself. However, a more complex view suggests that there are benefits to altruism. Improving society improves the world for our offspring, for instance. So doing things for the common good isn’t, to me, a legitimate challenge.

But there are also our interests. Intellectual interests. You could argue that they are to serve a larger purpose like a bigger paycheck, but we also expend resources to do things we enjoy: our hobbies, entertainment, and the like. So there doesn’t have to be a totally mercenary motivation.

And, my point isn’t to try to find fault with anyone’s argument, but instead to find useful ways forward. What can, and should we do? First, we should find out why whatever we’re teaching is important. Here’s a hint: if we can’t find the reason, why are we bothering?  Otherwise, let’s make that reason manifest to the learner!  Safety, less errors, faster solutions, happier customers, these are all plausible. When, of course, learners understand how their role fits in to the bigger picture (read: purpose).

Of course, if we can segment our learners to the point where we can tap into elements unique to the audience, we might do even more. For a course on project management for civil engineers working on large infrastructure projects, for instance, I exaggerated it one level to terraforming planets.

So, I want to promote, not deny, intrinsic motivation. Finding a real reason people should do something is far better than trying to incite them to do things they otherwise wouldn’t want to do. There are more nuances, about building habits, but my short answer is to find why it’s important, and work on that. It’s a better long-term bet.

This past week, I spent two days at ATD’s Techknowledge conference. I gave a talk on ‘transforming learning’, and another (largely) on myths. And I participated in a couple other things, including helping out a colleague for her session. But I want to reflect on the rest of the event. So here’s an ATD TK2020 retrospective.

First, I should note, I did not mindmap the keynotes (in case you missed them). I used to do it all the time. However, the app that I used to do it has a new edition out, and it’s pricey. And, I don’t have enough other use for it. I can sketch out ideas in my note-taking app. So…guess that’s gone by the wayside. We’ll see if I find out an alternative.

I did try to take notes. And, because I’d read recently that drawing was a better note-taking technique (don’t recall the exact link, but this suggests the benefit), I tried to draw. Old habits…I mostly wrote. And they weren’t worth publishing.

The conference itself was interesting because they were experimenting. For instance, there was no expo. Vendors had suites, and several tried to get me to meet with them. But didn’t have a viable business case for me to care (I’m not a candidate for your LMS, for instance ;). And they were set up to have several simultaneous speakers at the same time. Even on the same stage!

What I’m talking about here is that there was this little audio device you hung around your neck. It had 6 channels, and a plug for earphones (also provided). So, right after the opening keynote, there was the first of what they called ‘supersessions’. Here, three people were up on different parts of the same stage, and gave three different talks. You set the channel to the one you wanted to hear (or the two you wanted to switch between ;). And, it worked. Largely. One of the presenters for one of the sessions kept running around and interacting (interrupting) the others.

And there were six stages in one room, and you could jump between them, or sit and listen to one. Without, note, being distracted by the others. On the other hand, it was hard to have audience interaction. They couldn’t hear one another, and for instance the one I did I really could’ve benefited from a flip chart (which I asked for but didn’t get).  Still, it largely worked.

There were some more traditional talks in another room (I did one of those, too). And they were, well, familiar. Not that that’s a bad thing.

One other thing that was interesting was a ‘hackathon’. Here, a worthwhile not-for-profit posed a challenge and volunteers were divided up into teams to address it. Unfortunately, it seemed to be more focused on visual design. I tend to think that infusing learning science is more likely to be a problem in their elearning.  (So, of course, I made that my own challenge.) Still, it helped the org, and provided an opportunity to interact.

I ran into my friends and colleagues more, and the discussions were perhaps a little easier to engage in. I liked the more intimate feel. Though I confess to having missed the expo (perhaps because I couldn’t find as much to criticize!). And the food was quite good (the Wed lunch in particular).

I did note that there were still some zombies running around. There was a dialog between two folks who were supposedly talking about the future of work, but played a lot of the ‘millennial’ card. Bad speaker, no Twinkie!

Overall, I laud their willingness to experiment. I know the Guild does a fair bit of it as well, but this was more unusual from a large (and often inflexible) organization. As a fan of ‘learning out loud’, I hope it’s useful to provide an ATD TK2020 retrospective, and if you were there, I welcome your thoughts!

Last week, I ranted about a myth that seems inextinguishable. And I ran across another one in a place I shouldn’t have. And I keep seeing others, spotting them roaming around loose. Like zombies, they seem to rise from the dead. We need death to zombies. Particularly learning myth zombies!

There are several that seem overly prolific. I’ve already ranted about learning styles, but it’s pernicious. And others keep cropping up. In addition to the ‘images 60K faster than text’, I saw the Millennials and Generations twice this week!  And…the list goes on.

And this is despite a continued effort to debunk these deathwalkers!  There’re mythbusters who continually call out the false claims. There’s the Debunker Club. Amongst the publications by Jane Bozarth for the research library of the eLearning Guild, there are several myths-related compendiums.

And, immodestly, I wrote a whole book about myths!  Trying to point out why it’s appealing, showing why they’re wrong, and providing alternative approaches that are sounder. And I was asked to do it, so there’s a clear need. I’m not asking you to buy it, unless it helps, but you need to be aware of the myths.

What to do? Well, first, please help. If you see a myth, call it out. You don’t have to do it publicly, you can always talk to the person quietly afterward. But don’t let it slide. (Some of those at the event will read this blog; long story but thanks, Paul. ;)

So, I’m calling you all to be zombie hunters. Please!  Death to zombies, for the sake of our industry, our professionalism, and our learners.

Update: In fact, after I’d queued up this post for publication, I went to an event where people were sharing. While most were very useful and thoughtful, three of the shares violated what’s known!  One was so-called ‘brain training’, in this case activating right-left brain simultaneously. That also violates the right/left brain myth! Another was on Strengths, which I haven’t addressed, but the one cited was the one that doesn’t have peer reviewed research (ie not the VIA strengths). Finally, one was on ‘color’ personality, which is based upon Meyers-Briggs, which is flawed both theoretically and psychometrically. Yikes, they’re everywhere!

Update 2: I was pointed to a post on LinkedIn about building a VR demo…on the MBTI!  Ouch. The MBTI is flawed theoretically (it’s based on Jungian archetypes, which he just made up) and psychometrically. It’s pretty horrific to think of VR being used to present information (like attending a PowerPoint presentation in 2nd Life, which happened); to do it on such a flawed concept is doubly scary.

My post earlier this week on the images processed 60K faster prompted some discussion (over on LinkedIn ;). And there appears to be some debate about the topic. I think it revolves around the issue of just what’s in an image. So let’s unpack that.

So, the claim is that ‘images’ are processed 60K faster than text. And, of course, trying to find the actual citation has been an exercise in futility. But can we address it on principle? I’ll suggest we can.

Let’s take it apart. What’s in an image?  Is it a photo? A diagram? An infographic? Even a video?  I think we need to nail it down. So let’s talk about the presumed cognitive processing that goes on.

Let’s start with photos. They capture context. If it’s a familiar context, processing likely happens almost immediately. But others? Not so fast. Unless a context has already been established, a picture isn’t going to make much sense. That is, we probably should account for the context processing as part of the story.

As soon as we get to diagrams, the story gets more complex. Ok, Jill Larkin and Herb Simon once opined on Why a Diagram is worth 10000 words, but it’s about mapping conceptual relationships to spatial relationships. And I’ll still argue you need to process the elements, and the relationships, before you understand it. So it’s not instantaneous.

And, yes, there’s the lovely example in Don Norman’s Things That Make Us Smart, where he showed how a relationship was more quickly processed than the equivalent text description (he kindly didn’t mention it was from my Ph.D. thesis ;). Yet not all text can be replaced by images.  What would convey Nike’s Just Do It slogan more concisely than that text? You’d have to establish the relationship first. E.g. their ‘swoop’. As I mentioned, familiar words are processed essentially as images, as whole words, not being processed by individual characters.

The same holds true for infographics, by the way. They’re not ‘grokked’ immediately. They need to be parsed in terms of message, and flow, and information. They’re a mashup of text and info, but that doesn’t make it any faster. Though they may support retention, but we should use diagrams and images appropriately with text.

Video’s even more complex. It’s a linear medium, as is text. And it’s powerful, but is it processed more efficiently? Again, I think it depends on what you’re saying. A video can be a narrated slide show. Is that faster than reading the text? I read faster than folks speak.

Which brings me to my take-home conclusion. A simple statement like “images processed 60K faster than text) is misleading. What image? It all hinges on what’s in an image. Be vary wary of such claims. In the previous article, I provided some questions to ask yourself. And I may have to rant again about myths in general!