Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

You are here: Home / Archives for strategy

Practicing the Preach

by 4 Comments

I’m working on my next plan for global domination. And as I do, I’ve been developing my thinking, and there are some interesting outcomes. Including a realization that I wasn’t doing what I usually recommend. And I also believe that you should ‘show your work‘. So here I’m practicing the preach.

First, I’m developing my understanding, getting concrete about it. I usually use Omnigraffle as a diagramming tool, to represent my conceptual understandings. And I started doing that as part of the ‘developing thinking’ part. But I started with a diagram, and took the elements out and mindmapped them, and threw in other bits. In short, the ‘diagram’ has become a visual place to store bits and pieces of different diagrams, representations, mindmap, prose, or more. As well as outlining elsewhere. But it’s working out for me, so I thought I’d share.

The overall visualization gives me a place, like a business canvas, to drop stuff on and rearrange. It’s a ‘thinking tool’. I’m also copying part of the the activity map and linking things together to capture the actual flow between content and activities. Etc. A virtual whiteboard, I guess.

Second, one of the things to represent was how this would be communicated. Whether a course, or interactive ebook, or whatever, I want to create a flow. And I realized an activity map might make sense. I haven’t done this before (I’ve used storyboards and diagrams), but I find it interesting. Here’s the current status.

Across the top are the various stages (Introduction, the Principles, the resulting learning Elements, the associated Process, and the Closing). Your stages may vary.  Along the side are the different components (the Content topics, the associated practice Activities, the Emotions I to be evoked, the Stories to tell, and the Tools). I think putting in ’emotion’ is an important step! And then I can drop text bits into the intersections.

Finally, as I started developing the associated content, I realized one thing I advocate is backwards design. That is, envision the performance and how it’s distributed across tools and brains. Then, I realized I hadn’t designed the tools first! I’m going back and doing that. So it’s now in the activity map as well ;).

Just thought I’d share this, practicing the preach, and hope that you find it interesting, if not useful. Feedback welcome!

 

Thinking about reframing

by 2 Comments

I found something interesting, and wanted to share, but…I realize this is supposed to be about my learnings about learning. So, I’m framing it as thinking about reframing ;). Seriously, it’s about extant models and opportunities to rethink.

So, to begin with, I’ve been somewhat frustrated with the traditional model of capitalism. No, not as a plea for communism or something, but because it doesn’t align with our brains. When I champion that we should align with how we think, work, and learn, that’s true at the individual, team, organizational, and societal levels.

The problem is, capitalism assumes that we’re optimizing buyers. That is, we will search out and buy the best products, so there’ll be consistent pressure for quality, and this drives improvement. A lovely theory. With only one small flaw…

We’re not optimizing buyers. Herb Simon was part winner of a Nobel prize (kinda before he went on to be a leader in the cognitive science field) on the fact that we’re satisficing buyers, not optimizing. That is, we’ll buy ‘good enough’. I’ve used the fish shop story to document this. We know how to make light, crispy, non-greasy fish’n’chips. So, the capitalist model would posit that every shop should have beautiful fish. Er, no. You’re just as (more?) likely to find greasy sodden fish. Because we’re not likely to drive one borough/neighborhood/town over to get perfect when what’s close is ‘good enough’.

You can get backup from behavioral economics or the work of Daniel Kahneman about how we aren’t logical beings. The point being, we don’t behave in rational ways. For instance, we’re vulnerable to marketing that affects our perceptions. And economics is linked to politics about whether all the real costs are included. Thus, the fundamental foundation of capitalism is flawed.

As an aside, it’s also predicated on unlimited growth. That is, we’ll continually advance in our ability to meet needs. Yet we live on a finite planet…and yes, I know that there are also technological advances. It’s just that I reckon there are limits to growth.

A serious problem is that the alternatives are also flawed. Capitalism proposes that it passes back by the creator of the superior end product purchasing the components and that cascades backwards. However, to change it, e.g. to track based upon the value of a person’s contribution to the greater good, we’d need bookkeeping to track it.

What I hit a wall against was working within the assumptions. And yet, maybe there’s another way, that is thinking about reframing the problem. Just as I previously talked about replacing happiness with contentment, maybe we can rethink economics. If we think about it differently, can we come up with a different model.

Something pointed me to doughnut economics. And it’s not a full solution, but it does have some interesting properties. The reason it’s called the doughnut model is that there’s a hole in the center, then the body, and then the external limits. The hole consists of the basic capabilities humans need: clean water, reliable and healthy food, etc. This, to me, is kind of the ‘aligning with us’. Then the outside are the practical limits: finite planet, limits on water, energy, air, etc. Between these two are where humans can (and should) live.

It’s a different way of looking at things. I’m not an economist by any means (I find it aversive ;), but I do like looking at society in ways that might make it better. And this model, as far as I know, doesn’t have a clear path to replace our current economic system (e.g. prices on goods). But it’s way of rethinking what matters that’s somehow closer to how we really exist.

The take-home for learning, of course, is being willing to step back and reframe what we think we know. Different perspectives enable different insights. It’s part of the creative process to diverge before you converge. So here’s hoping we can find ways to be thinking about reframing. What ways do you use to think afresh?

Losing our collective minds?

by 3 Comments

microscopeSo, after that mess on Twitter, I next see on LinkedIn a recognized personage who proceeds to claim that learning styles are legit, and promises a post (see tomorrow’s review). And, the basis for this claim is fundamentally wrong. So I’m beginning to fear that we’re losing our collective minds!  Let me be clear about the claim, the problem, and a healthy approach.

The claim started like this:

I know there is a huge camp of folks who say no one has learning styles and they provide all types of links of others who concur. Then there are folks who say they do exist, and change of a period of time (as you age). And you may have more than one.

I admit I am in the latter group, because I have seen it first-hand as a Director of Training, and when I taught at the HS and University levels.

And, this is a problem, because it misrepresents what’s going on. My response was:

Sure, learners differ, no one who’s taught can say otherwise. But, identifying how they differ, reliably? Er, no. And that we should adapt to learning styles? Again, not what research says. And, to be clear about the ‘huge camp’ (why would that be?), we don’t post links to others who concur, we post links to the science that shows that the instruments to measure styles aren’t psychometrically valid and that the evidence shows no benefit to adapting to learning styles. A waste of time and money.

When called out, the response was similar:

You have perspective, I respectfully disagree.

What this response did was suggest that it’s about opinion. Which is not just irritating, but it’s dangerously wrong. I’ve argued before about why myths matter. And, here, specifically, learning styles can cause you to waste money, but more importantly it may have people prematurely limit themselves. To their detriment.

But it’s also the refusal to acknowledge that it’s science, not opinion. Saying, basically, that the folks against learning styles support each other is very different, and wrong. We don’t point to each other, we point to the research!

It gets worse. The commentary on the post went sideways. Despite some apt questions about the legitimacy, there were counter opinions. One comment brought in neuro-linguistic programming! (Debunked, by the way.) It’d be funny if it weren’t so scary!

And, then, the followup, I have ‘perspective’. Sorry, but it’s not about your opinion versus mine. That may work for fashion, art, cinema. Not what we do in medicine, hazardous material, construction, flight, and the like. Even traffic! We follow what’s been demonstrated to save lives (or we should). When we get into the absurd situation of saying your anecdotal evidence is better than the weight of scientific evidence, we’re on a slippery slope to losing our collective minds.

Look, you can prefer vanilla to chocolate. You can like pineapple on your pizza. Or even put ketchup on your hotdog. (Quelle horreur!) I can differ. No one’s hurt. But if you yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre, or advise consuming disinfectant as a virus cure, or using nuclear waste as a skin lotion, you’re violating what’s known. And it’s wrong, if not outright illegal.

Please, be skeptical. Even of what I say! (The scientific method does have its flaws, but it’s better than everything else.) But please value controlled studies over anecdotes. There are lots of ways we can be misled by the latter. We don’t want to be losing our collective minds, we should be leveraging them. Please help!

An L&D Challenge?

by 1 Comment

A colleague and friend posted about masks, and I weighed in. He suggested that it’s really a learning issue. I’m not sure I agree, but I thought it might be interesting to explore. So here’s an L&D challenge to consider.

First, masks make sense, scientifically. They reduce the chance that someone might contaminate someone else. Given, specifically with COVID-19, that there’s a significant period of airborne contagion before the infected person is symptomatic, wearing a mask is a simple preventative measure.

Now, there are some complicating factors in our current case. My friend suggested mixed messages in the media are a confounding factor. Some leaders, for instance are not wearing them. And, other responsible individuals have provided unclear information about their value.

And, wearing masks has become politicized. Some are seeing not wearing masks as a sign of rebellion or resistance to a perception of government intrusion. For some reason, wearing masks upon request is seen as different than wearing, for instance, foot coverings in food establishments. From a scientific perspective, this is inappropriate.

Now, I recently took Ashley Sinclair’s marketing for L&D course at the Learning & Development Conference (#LDC2020, learningdevelopmentconference.com). In it, she reminds me that we buy on emotion. That is, we make our decisions emotionally, and then justify the choice with logic. So, the choice isn’t necessarily a rational one.

So this creates an L&D challenge, if we want to consider it as a design problem. What can and should we do? If we had the opportunity, how would we do it? What could we do to help make mask wearing more acceptable?

We could try education, with statistics, or horror stories. There’re are statistical arguments about the likelihood of infection of each party if one, the other, or both wear masks. Or we can tell tales about the horrible effects the virus has on the human body.

We could try sarcasm. I’ve been struck with the Queen lyric revisions (“no mask on your face, big disgrace, spreading your germs all over the place”), for instance. But that’s not necessarily going to work (even if it is fun). Sarcasm can be inappropriate in the face of entrenched viewpoints.

Or we can try guilt, about carrying risks to family members or friends. If you get it, even if the effects are mild or unnoticeable, you could still infect someone you’re quaranteaming with. Raising awareness about the potential consequences can change people’s behavior.

Finally, we can appeal to better nature. Like being someone who takes the grocery cart back to the collection area, or using your turn signals, it’s just polite. It’s considerate of others, and that’s what makes a society work.

By the way, I wear a mask to the store (it’s required where I live, to be fair). I also wear a (microfiber) bandanna when I walk around the neighborhood that I pull up whenever I’m passing someone, even though we’re almost always more than 6 feet apart. I don’t do it for me, I do it for others. Because while I’m not high-risk, I could get infected and not know it for a few days, and I’d hate to be responsible for someone else getting it from me. Not that I’m keen to find out how I’d react to the virus, either.

So, how do we do it? How do we get people to stop viewing it as an imposition, but as a social obligation that benefits everyone? This is what I mean by an L&D challenge: this is the type of thing we should be able to solve. Now, I know it’s not in our control, so this is a thought exercise, but one that’s not easy. And that’s what we also face in our real situations. So, what would you do?

(Oh, and wear a mask when you’re out in public, please. You don’t know who you might be helping.)

 

Myths, publishers, and confusion

by 4 Comments

Myths book coverOn twitter the other day, I was asked how I could on one hand rail against myths, and on the other work with orgs who either sell or promote DiSC and MBTI. The problem, it appears, was a perception that I’m deeply involved with orgs that perpetuate the problem. I thought I’d try to clarify all this, and make sense of myths, publishers and confusion.

The dialog started as a reaction to an article I pointed to on twitter. This article made what I thought was a pretty good case against tools like MBTI and DiSC. And that matters. The arguments raised in the article were legitimate, and even didn’t go far enough. For instance, MBTI is based on Jungian archetypes, which Jung just made up!  So, one question raised is why ask practitioners to change, why aren’t we challenging the businesses?

For one response, I don’t call out the practitioners. I sympathize!  In the myths book, I deliberately addressed the appeal before pointing out it’s wrong (and, importantly, point to better alternatives). Instead, I rail against the tools. That, to me, is where the problem lies, and implicitly indicts the vendors. Now, the org that now owns DiSC was my first publisher. However, they bought it after I was locked into a contract with them. And when I heard, I complained about the choice to them. But they didn’t consult me on it ;).  And yes, they published my first 3.5 books. I dissociated from them on other reasons, but I’m no longer engaged.

Was there any relationship between DiSC and what I wrote? I was able to complain about learning styles in my fourth book with them. It’s a huge company, with many different divisions. There’s no provision to not say things that are contrary to their business interests. They publish and sell what they can sell. They can publish what’s right, and sell stuff that’s not. That’s their confusion, I reckon, not mine.

I’m now publishing with another org, who had, in the past, had learning styles in their competency model. When I found out, I asked and was told it was not in the latest version of the model. They also do make money selling exhibit space to folks with these tools. Note that the folks I work with may not agree, but also have to work in their part of the org and have little contact with the other entity (that makes much money). Yet, to their credit, they asked me to write the myths book. In fact, after I gave a myths talk to launch the the book, an anonymous audience member complained that they shouldn’t have speakers that disparage vendor products. And, they’ve continued to have me write and speak. Again, I suggest that’s their issue, not mine. I’m not responsible for that relationship between myths, publishers, and confusion.

And, yes, there are voices that cry out for the tools. For instance a TD article claimed that such tools are popular. (Under the guise of saying they’re effective.) Which is problematic. Asking folks for their assessments of tools they’ve invested in introduces a clear source of bias. We know that people’s judgments of effectiveness may not match reality. So it’s a problem. But not one I’m in a position to change (though I quietly try).  It does muddy the water. Which, to me, speaks even more to talk about how to review science and what science already says.

I try to be a consistent voice for science in our practice. My publisher gave me a forum to speak that to an audience that needs to hear the message. There are others who echo that voice (see Mythbusters here). I’d welcome having the opportunity to address those who are making the decisions to buy these tools. I don’t have reliable access (I welcome any assistance ;). Instead, now they can give the book to those leaders to bolster the resistance.

So, are my publisher activities part of the business end, or the education end? Do you really concern yourselves with my previous relationship or current publisher? I note that it’s pretty much a hands-off relationship: “if you propose a valuable offering, we’ll publish it.”

I’m saying “here’s what Quinnovation has to say” and the orgs are endorsing it. Not the other way around. Is that accurate? Do you see that as a conflict? I’m perfectly willing to be wrong, and if so I welcome ideas how to be more clear about what and how it’s wrong.

I think I’m fighting a good fight, for the right reasons, and pretty much in the right way. But it’s not my perspective that matters. So I ask you, am I off the mark here? Am I helping or hurting the issues in myths, publishers, and confusion?

Talking meaningful learning

by Leave a Comment

So, I’ve previously mentioned the Learning & Development conference I’ll be participating in that starts late this month. And, their main sessions are not webinars, but basically mini-courses (with lots of variation). But they’ll also be having live sessions. Given that I’ve ‘asked and answered’ the question about where things go wrong, it’s time for me to get real. So I’ll be talking meaningful learning. Let me talk about each more.

First, of course, meaningful learning is about getting the learning science right. I’ve argued (and continue to do so) that we’ve got to fix the core of our learning designs before we worry about fancy new hardware like AR and VR. If the core’s wrong, we’re just gilding bad design (and gilded bad design is still bad design). If we don’t focus on the right objectives, manage attention, set challenge appropriately, provide the right models and examples, and most of all have the right practice, we’re wasting our time. As I’ve also said, once we’ve got that right, we’ve got lots of ways to implement it.

So, the asynchronous course I’ll be offering are the basics of learning science. Our information processing cycle, and the artifacts of our cognitive architecture. We’ll talk those things above, and have fun doing it!  You’ll get to experience several of the phenomena we’re talking about. And process the takehome messages.

For the live session (at two different times, we’re spanning the globe!), yes, I’ll talking meaningful learning. It is still based upon the contents of Engaging Learning (and previous posts), but a) pulled out of games into specifications for regular learning, b) expanded with all I’ve learned since then (and I’ve been continuing to explore what’s known and what that implies), and of course c) it’s, well, live!

If, by the way, you are thinking about attending the conference, but have some struggles with cost, get in touch with me. I may have a way to help out ;).  I hope to see you there, whether you want to be talking meaningful learning, or for any of the other myriad reasons.

Making learning meaningful?

by 5 Comments

So, last week, I asked the musical question: where are we going most wrong? I followed that up asking what most would help.  I also suggested  that I had my own answers.  So I have answers for each. My answer for the first part, where we’re going wrong, is somewhat complex. But for the second, I’m thinking that the biggest opportunity is making learning meaningful. My thoughts…

So, where we go most wrong is, to me, tied together. I think it’s mostly that we’re starting on the wrong foot. We’re not ensuring that we’re addressing the real problem. We take orders for courses, and then take what the experts tell us needs to be in. This gives us the wrong objective, the wrong content, and the wrong practice!

I’ve suggested that measurement might be the best solution for this. If we measured our impact (not our efficiency), that drives us to focus on things were we can make a difference.  Time for a shout out to Will Thalheimer and LTEM (or whatever it becomes). Or use appropriate techniques instead of throwing a course at everything.

If we had the right objective, there’s still the challenge of making sure we’re talking about ‘do’, not know. However, I think it’s less likely.

Most importantly, I think there’s good support for evidence-based learning design. Whether it’s Michael Allen, Julie Dirksen, Cathy Moore, Patty Shank, Mirjam Neelen, or someone else, there’s good guidance for design. Basically, how to create practice that aligns with outcomes, resource with models and examples, etc.

One area, however, I think we reliably get wrong and there’s not as much guidance for, is making learning meaningful. Not only is Keller the only ID theorist talking about the emotional side, there’s not much other systematic guidance. Rance Green’s new book on instructional story design gives a good stab, but I think there’s more. And while Nick Shackleton-Jones book has some good ideas, his model also has a fundamental flaw.

And I have addressed this. My book Engaging Learning was about designing games for learning, but the alignment at the core is applicable to making learning personally relevant. And, of course, my thinking’s continued. I’ve been digging in deeper into the emotional side.

So, my thinking is that this might be an area to really unpack and get concrete about. It’s been part of my approach to LXD, but I’m wondering about not trying to cover all the learning science, and focus on the unique elements of engagement. I’m signed up to speak on it at the Learning and Development Conference, but the question is whether I start doing more. Should I focus on making learning meaningful? And I really, really welcome your thoughts on this!

 

Where are we going most wrong…

by 4 Comments

…and what’s most important to fix?  I was a co-conspirator on the Serious eLearning Manifesto, and we identified 8 values that separated typical elearning from serious elearning. However, I suspect that not all are as important, nor hard to fix. And, thinking about what my unique contribution could and should be, I wondered where best to target my efforts to avoid going most wrong. I have some thoughts, but…

First, I’d like to ask you two questions:

  1. What are the best inflection points to improve learning?
  2. Which would you most want to have help in addressing?

Note that they might be two completely different things.

Now, it could be a number of things.  Any one of the eight could be problematic. And it might be another that’s where you most would like help.

Is it getting the right objectives in the first place? We might fail to do the proper performance consulting. Thus, we’d be developing learning solutions that aren’t going to meet the need.

Another possibility is that we’re not providing the right support. We’re not providing useful models and examples instead of a content dump with what’s to hand.

We might not be helping learners understand why they should care. Are we missing out on developing motivation? Making it meaningful?

Another problem might be giving them abstract concepts instead of concrete practice. Are we asking them to do things in situations they recognize?

Also, we could be asking for them to recite knowledge back to us instead of applying it. Are we asking them to make decisions like we need them to make after the learning experience?

And we might be giving them simple feedback like “right” and “wrong” instead of providing them first with the consequences of their actions. And, we could be ensuring that the alternatives represent some real ways people go wrong, and providing feedback that addresses those specific misconceptions.

There’s also the possibility (probability?) that we’re not spacing out the learning. We could still be using the ‘event’ model, not reactivating the knowledge as appropriate.

And, of course, we might not be individualizing the challenges. We could be adapting to demonstrated learner capability. Are we?

Not only might one or more of these be the biggest contributor to a lack of learning impact, but some might be more challenging than others to address. And, of course, which ones should I be focusing on? I do address all in a variety of ways (c.f. the learning science 101 session I’ll be doing for the Learning Development Conference), but I’m thinking of focusing in.

And I have an idea where we may be going most wrong. But first, I’d like to hear your ideas. I’ll weigh in next week. And, of course, I could be wrong. So let me know!

 

NOT Learning Engineering

by 2 Comments

wrenchI recently wrote about two different interpretations of the term ‘learning engineering’. So when I saw another article on the topic, I was keen to read it. Except, after reading it, I thought what it was talking about was not learning engineering, or, at least, not all of it. So what do I mean?

I think this article goes wrong right from the title: Learning Engineering Is Learning About Learning. We Need That Now More Than Ever. And I’m a big fan of learning about learning!  Though, typically, learning about learning (or as I like to call it, meta-learning) is for learners to learn about learning to be more effective. But I certainly believe instructors/instructional designers need to learn about learning. But is that what learning engineering is?

The article actually makes a great point: most instructors don’t, and should, be reviewing their teaching and improving systematically. Absolutely!  That’s an important point. It’s part of prototyping, development, and testing. It’s part of learning engineering, for that matter, in either interpretation. However, two flaws. One, it’s not all of learning engineering, and it’s not just ‘learning’ about learning, it’s about doing. As in, learning about it and then applying that learning.

The article goes further, citing the importance of using models and data. Interestingly, the claim is that using the data isn’t the hard part, but using models is. And, again, I’m a big fan of models and evidence. And I talked much about how we need to provide models for learners as well as use models to guide our design. That is, experimentation is driven by theory and theory fills in gaps. So I’m all for it.

It’s just that this article claims that systematically reviewing what you’re doing and improving is the sum total of learning engineering. Learning engineering is applying learning science to the design of learning experiences, but it’s the design as well as the review. It is iterative, but it’s broader than just the course too. It’s about the technology, infrastructure, culture, and more. In either interpretation of learning engineering, it’s more than just being a reflective practitioner.

So, while I agree with the sentiment and specifics of the paper, I don’t agree with their construal of the term. Reviewing and refining is great, but it’s not learning engineering, or at least not all of it. I think we’re not yet done with the term, but I hope we can be clearer about what’s at stake. And, yes, I’m a bit pedantic on it, but there’re reasons for clarity. We do need more professionalism, but that’s easier when we’re conceptually clear.

Will we still need L&D?

by Leave a Comment

In a document shared with me recently, there was this statement: “The assumption that there will always be a managed learning function”. I find that interesting to contemplate. If we ever get better about developing self-learning skills in school or university (ideally the former), could we eliminate the need for organizational courses?  E.g. will we still need L&D?

The notion is that once folks are better at self-learning, the reason for organized courses could fade. If schools start developing learn-to-learn skills, wouldn’t everyone be able to take responsibility for their own learning? Alternatively, could the role of L&D ramp down?

David Geary has been identified as a proponent of a distinction between evolutionarily different levels of learning. The idea as I comprehend it is that we’ve evolved to learn certain types of things. The flip side is those don’t include man-made constructs like mathematics, economics, and such. Thus, our learning to learn first has to develop abilities in these new domains. But that could happen.

And then there’s the notion of bootstrapping in a new domain. We start as novices in new domains, and those may be some organizational proprietary material. The domain’s likely built upon some predecessor concepts that may be familiar, but can a motivated and self-effective learner get this in a reasonable amount of time, or will they benefit from a learning experience?

If, of course, we extend L&D to support informal learning (and I suggest we should), there’s another opportunity. Until schools also develop effective communication and collaboration skills, L&D would be useful. There’s the further issue of creating a learning culture, too, where people share and cooperate. The predisposition could and should again be developed in schools, but until then…

And one final opportunity is facilitating communities of practice to become responsible for development paths, resource curation and creation, and documenting and developing ongoing domain expertise. There’s the facilitation role here for L&D until that time, but it could become part and parcel of community practice.

So, conceivably, there’s a future without L&D. That is, individuals, teams, and communities are effective self-learners. That day, I fear, is a long way off. Moving in that direction isn’t a bad move for L&D, because worries about performing oneself out of existence are premature. Schools haven’t been effective in uptake of learning science, and pressures have reduced the curricula to a limited (and misguided) core. Until then, asking “will we still need L&D” is a far-fetched question.

So I think the demise of L&D is up to L&D. What I mean is that L&D can be just about (ineffective) courses, or it can move into a more valuable position to the organization. And, if we’re clever, we’ll have found our own continuing value proposition to the org before the demise of our existing role.

Ultimately, I believe that a unit in the organization responsible for maintaining alignment with how we think, work, and learn will always have a role. We just have to put ourselves in that position. Viva la revolution!