Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

The (Post) Cognitive Perspective

by 5 Comments

I’m deeply steeped in the cognitive sciences, owing to a Ph.D. in cognitive psych. Fortuitively, this was at the time my advisor was creating the cognitive science program (and more). So I’ve a bias. Yet I also have a fair bit of empirical evidence that taking a cognitive perspective accomplishes things that are hard to do in other ways. So let me make the case that the cognitive perspective is more than just a useful one, but arguably a necessary one.

I‘ll start by reflecting back on something I wrote before, about virtual world affordances. At the time, platforms like Second Life were touting the advantages of an immersive navigable world. Of course, the promises were all-encompassing: everything would move to virtual worlds. In retrospect, it didn‘t eventuate. Why? I argue it’s because the cognitive overhead of virtual worlds means that there has to be a sustained value proposition, and that came from when you truly need 3D immersion and social.  

Similarly, when I wrote my books on games and mobile, I focused on the cognitive impacts. The first reason was because technology was changing so fast that anything hardware-specific would be out of date before the book was published. The second is because our brains don‘t change that fast, so what works will work regardless of the technology .  

Note that our understanding of cognition has changed. We‘re now in a ‘post-cognitive‘ era, where the notion that all our formal, logical thinking is done in our heads is wrong. Research is showing that we‘re far more ‘situated‘ than we think, and distributed as well. That includes distributed across external representations and other people! It’s very contextual, and it’s not all in our heads!

So these days, when I look at things, I try to look with a cognitive (ok, post-cognitive) perspective. I look to see how things align, or not, with how our brains work. When I evaluate learning technologies, for instance, I look to see how well they do things like provide meaningful practice: active and contextualized. You can also see when particular technologies (e.g. VR/AR/AI) will be valuable, and not. Similarly, when I look at workplace change proposals, I look at how well they reflect our mechanisms for adapting to change.  

I‘ll argue that these perspectives are valuable. You can quickly see why most training doesn‘t work, cut through hype from vendors, create explanations about why myths are mythtaken, etc. You can save money, be more effective, etc when you align with how our brains work. I‘ve talked before about how there are gaps. This is the flip side, how to avoid those gaps, and do better.   In short, you‘re better able to assist your organization in being more effective (and efficient).  

That‘s why I‘m pleased that I am able to put these basics into the learning science book, and workshops. It‘s possible to get better at this sort of perspective. It‘s also possible to get it on tap as needed. However, it does take both the cognitive understanding and the experience in applying it. So, how‘s your cognitive perspective?

On a side note, I want to encourage you to consider my workshop at DevLearn on Make It Meaningful, a full day exploring how we make learning experiences deeply engaging (adding to effectiveness). This is also the topic of my online workshop through the Learning Development Accelerator. This is, to me, the most important topic to  complement  learning science. (Available as a book and workshop. ;) In both cases, I’m trying  to help us  stop making boring courses that people want to avoid, and suggest that this  can be done for most any topic. It also leads to more effective learning outcomes! Hope to see you at one! (Of course, if your organization would like your own private version, let me know!)

Complexity in Learning Design

by Leave a Comment

a fractalI recently mentioned that one of the problems with research is that things are more interconnected than we think. This is particularly true with cognitive research. While we can make distinctions that simplify things in useful ways (e.g. the human information processing system model*), the underlying picture is of a more interactive system.  Which underpins why it makes sense to talk about Learning Experience Design (LXD) and not just instructional design. We need to accommodate complexity in learning design.  (* Which I talk about in Chapter 2 of my learning science book, and in my workshops on the same topic through the Allen Academy.)

We’re recognizing that the our cognition is more than just in our head. Marcia Conner, in her book  Learn More Now  mentioned how neuropeptides passed information around the body. Similarly, Annie Murphy Paul’s  The Extended Mind talks about moving cognition (and learning) into the world. In my Make It Meaningful workshops (online or F2F at DevLearn 19 Oct), I focus on how to address the emotional component of learning. In short, learning is about more than just information dump and knowledge test.

Scientifically, we’re finding there are lots of complex interactions between the current context, our prior experience, and our cognitive architecture. We’re much more ‘situated’ in the moment than the rational beings we want to believe. Behavioral economics and Daniel Kahneman’s research have made this abundantly clear. We try to avoid the hard mental work using shortcuts that work sometimes, but not others. (Understanding when is an important component of this).

We get good traction from learning science and instructional design approaches, for sure. There are good prescriptions (that we often ignore, for reasons above) about what to do and how. So, we should follow them. However, we need more. Which is why I tout LXD  Strategy! We need to account for complexity in learning design approaches.

For one, our design processes need to be iterative. We’ll make our best first guess, but it won’t be right, and we’ll need to tune. The incorporation of agile approaches, whether SAM or LLAMA or even just iterative ADDIE, reflects this. We need to evaluate and refine our designs to match the fact that our audience is more complex than we thought.

Our design also needs to think about the emotional experience as well as the cognitive experience. We want our design processes to systematically incorporate humor, safety, motivation, and more. Have we tuned the challenge enough, and how will we know?  Have we appropriately incorporated story? Are our graphics aligned or adding to cognitive load? There are lots of elements that factor in.

Our design process has to accommodate SMEs who literally can’t access what they do. Also learner interests, not just knowledge. We need to know what interim deliverables, processes for evaluation, times when we shouldn’t be working solo, and tools we need. Most importantly, we have to do this in a practical way, under real-world resource constraints.

Which is why we need to address this strategically. Too many design processes are carry-over from industrial approaches: one person, one tool, and a waterfall process. We need to do better. There’s complexity in learning design, both on the part of our learners, and ourselves as designers. Leveraging what we know about cognitive science can provide us with structures and approaches that accommodate these factors. That’s only true, however, if we are aware and actively address it. I’m happy to help, but can only do so if you reach out. (You know how to find me. ;) Here’s to effective and engaging  learning!

Reading Research?

by Leave a Comment

I was honored to have a colleague laud my Myths book (she was kind enough to also promote the newer learning science book), but it was something she said that I found intriguing. She suggested that one of the things in it includes “discussing how to read research”. And it occurs to me that it’s worth unpacking the situation a wee bit more. So here’s a discussion about how we (properly) develop learning science that informs us in reading research.

Caveat: I  haven’t been an active researcher for decades,  serving instead to interpret and apply the  research, but it’s easier to say ‘we’ than “scientists”, etc.  

Generally, theory drives research. You’ve created an explanation that accounts for observed phenomena better than previous approaches. What you do then is extend it to other predictions, and test them.  Occasionally, we do purely exploratory studies just to see what emerges, but mostly we generate hypotheses and test them.

We do this with some rigor. We try to ensure that the method we devise removes confounding variables, and then we use statistical analysis to remove the effects of other factors. For instance, I created a convoluted balancing approach to remove order effects in my Ph.D. research. (So complicated that I had to analyze a factor or two first, to ensure it wasn’t a factor, so I could remove it from the resulting analysis!). We also try to select relevant subjects, design uncontaminated materials, and carefully control our analysis. Understanding the ways in which we do this requires an ability to know about experiment design, which isn’t common knowledge.

Moreover, we then need to share this with our colleagues so that they can review what we’ve done. We need to do it in unambiguous language, using the specific vocabulary of our field. And we need to make it scrutable. Thus, we publish in peer-reviewed journals which mean others have looked at our work and deemed it acceptable. However, the language is deliberately passive, unemotional, and precise, as well as focused on a very narrow topic. Thus, it’s not a lot of fun to read unless you  really care about the topic!

There are problems with this. Increasingly, we’re finding that trying to isolate independent variables doesn’t reflect the inherent interactions. Our brains actually have a lot of complexity that hinder simple explanations. We’ve also found that it’s difficult to get representative subjects, when what’s easy to get are higher education students in the developed world. There are also politics involved, sad to say, so that it can be hard for new ideas to emerge if they challenge the entrenched views. Yet, it’s still the best approach we have. The scientific method has led to more advances in understanding than anything else!

There are things to worry about as a consumer of science. For one, there are people who fake results. They’re few, of course. There’s also research that’s kept proprietary, for financial reasons. Or is commissioned. As soon as there’s money involved, there’s the opportunity for corruption (think: tobacco, and sugar). Companies may have something that they tout as valid, but the research base isn’t publically available. Caveat emptor!

Thus, being able to successfully read research isn’t for everyone. You need to be able to comprehend the studies, and know when to be wary. The easy thing to do is to look for translations, and translators, who have demonstrated a trustworthy ability to help sort out the wheat from the chaff. They exist.

I hope this illustrates what reading research requires. You can take some preliminary steps: give it the ‘sniff’ test, see if it applies to you, and see who’s telling you this (and if anyone else is agreeing or saying to the contrary) and what their stake in the game is. If these steps don’t answer a question, however, maybe you want to look for good guidance. Make sense?

 

Coping with Change: A Book Review of Flux by April Rinne

by 1 Comment

How do we cope with change? There’s a myth that we resist change, but Peter de Jaeger busted that in a talk I heard where he pointed out that we make changes all the time. We get married, take a different job, have kids, all of which are changes. The difference is that these are changes we choose! However, in this era of increasing change, we’re likely going to face more and more changes we didn’t expect. Can we improve our ability for coping with change? Yes, says April Rinne in her book  Flux: 8 Superpowers for Thriving in Constant Change.

And  here’s a caveat: I am part of a  group she put together to talk about Flux while writing the book. I’m in the acknowledgements.

April, faced with a heavy unchosen change in her teens, carried that with her. It’s driven her interest in change and how we can learn to cope.  Given that we’re in an era of increasing change, she recognized that we would benefit from having some approaches to improve our reslience.  She looked at a wide variety of inputs, and has distilled her learnings into 8 mental frameworks that assist.

The underlying focus is on a flux  mindset, that is, a stance that change is coming and to be accepting, not resisting. The eight different ways of looking at the world are deliberately provocative, but also apt:

  • Run Slower
  • See What’s Invisible
  • Get Lost
  • Start with Trust
  • Know Your ‘Enough’
  • Create Your Portfolio Career
  • Be All the More Human
  • Let Go of the Future

Each gets a chapter, with illustrations of the challenge, and practical ways to enact. You may find, like I did, that some are familiar, others are more challenging. Each comes from either or both of ancient wisdom  and practical experience. The ones that were new I find to be all the more interesting. And useful!

That’s the real key. It’s very much aligned with what we know about how our brains work (a big issue with me, as this audience has probably learned ;). Some areas I feel like I’ve a handle on (e.g. run slower), and others are things are more challenging (e.g. see what’s invisible). There are bound to be areas of work for you. The upside of that work, however, is likely to be a better ability to ‘be’.

This is a book that you’ll want your loved ones to read, because what it provides aligns with a view of the world as it could and should be. It’s a guide for coping with change that addresses not only individuals, but organizations and society as a whole.  Highly recommended.

Iterating and evaluating

by Leave a Comment

Design cycleI’ve argued before about the need for evaluation in our work. This occurs summatively, where we’re looking beyond smile sheets to actually determine the impact of our efforts. However, it also should work formatively, where we’re seeing if we’re getting closer. Yet there are some ways in which we go off track. So I want to talk about iterating and evaluating our learning initiatives.

Let’s start by talking about our design processes. The 800 lb gorilla of ADDIE has shifted from a water flow model to a more iterative approach. Yet it still brings baggage. Of late, more agile and iterative approaches have emerged, not least Michael Allen’s SAM and Megan Torrance’s LLAMA. Agile approaches, where we’re exploring, make more sense when designing for people, with their inherent complexity.

Agile approaches work on the basis of creating, basically, Minimum Viable Products, and then iterating.  We evaluate each iteration. That is, we check to see what need to be improved, and what is good enough. However,  when are we done?

In my workshops, when talking about iteration, I like to ask the audience this question. Frequently, the answer is “when we run out of time and money”. That’s an understandable answer, but I maintain it’s the  wrong answer.

If we iterate until we run out of time and money, we don’t know that we’ve actually met our goals. As I explained about social media metrics, but applies here too, you  should be iterating until you achieve the metrics you’ve set. That means you know what you’re trying to do!

Which requires, of course, that you set metrics about what your solution should achieve. That could include usability and engagement (which come before and after, respectively), but most critically ‘impact’. Is this learning initiative solving the problem we’re designing it to achieve?  Which also means you need to have a discussion of why you’re building it, and how you know it’s working.

Of course, if you’re running out of time and money faster than you’re getting close to your goal, you have to decide whether to relax your standards, or apply for more resources, or abandon your work, or…but at least you’re doing so consciously. Yet this is still better than heuristically determining that three iterations is arbitrarily appropriate, for example.

I do recognize that this isn’t our current situation, and changing it isn’t easy. We’re still asked to make slide decks look good, or create a course on X, etc. Ultimately, however, our professionalism will ask us to do better. Be ready. Eventually, your CFO should care about the return on your expenditures, and it’ll be nice to have a real answer. So, iterating and evaluating  should  be your long term approach. Right?

Making it Meaningful

by 1 Comment

I volunteer for our local Community Emergency Response Team (CERT; and have learned lots of worthwhile things). On a call, our local organizer mentioned that she was leading a section of the train-the-trainers upcoming event, and was dreading trying to make it interesting. Of course I opened my big yap and said that’s something I’m focusing on, and offered to help. She took me up on it, and it was a nice case study in making it meaningful.

Now, I have a claim that you can’t give me a topic that I can’t create a game for. I’m now modifying that to ‘you can’t give me a topic I can’t make meaningful’.  She’d mentioned her topic was emergency preparedness, and while she thought it was a dull topic, I was convinced we could do it. I mentioned that the key was making it visceral.

I had personal experience; last summer our neighbor was spreading the rumor that we were going to have to evacuate owing to a fire over the ridge. (Turns out, my neighbor was wrong.) I started running around gathering sleeping bags, coats, dog crate, etc. Clearly, I was thinking about shelter. When I texted m’lady, she asked about passports, birth certificates, etc. Doh!

However, even without that personal example, there’s a clear hook. When I mentioned that, she mentioned that when you’re in a panic, your brain shuts down some and it’s really critical to be prepared. However, she mentioned that someone else was taking that bit, and her real topic was different types of disasters. Yet my example had already got her thinking, and she started talking about different people being familiar with an earthquake (here in California).

I thought of how when talking with scattered colleagues, they disclaim about how earthquakes are scary, and I remind them that  every place has its hazards. In the midwest it could be tornados or floods. On the east coast it’s hurricanes. Etc. The point being that everyone has some experience. Tapping into that, talking about consequences, is a great hook.

That’s the point, really. To get people willing to invest in learning, you have to help people see that they  do need it. (Also, that they don’t know it now,  and that this experience will change that.). You need to be engaged in making it meaningful!

Again, in my mind learning experience design (LXD) is about the elegant integration of learning science with engagement. You need to understand both. I’ve got a book and a workshop on learning science, and I’ve a workshop at DevLearn on the engagement side. I’ve also got a forthcoming book and an online workshop coming for more on engagement. Stay tuned!

More Marketing Malarkey

by 2 Comments

As has become all too common, someone decided to point me to some posts for their organization. Apparently, interest was sparked by a previous post of mine where I’d complained about  microlearning. While this one  does a (slightly) better job talking about  microlearning, it is riddled with other problems. So here’s yet another post about  more marketing malarkey.

First, I don’t hate microlearning; there are legitimate reasons to keep content small. It can get rid of the bloat that comes from contentitis, for one. There are solid reasons to err on the side of performance support as well. Most importantly, perhaps, is also the benefit of spacing learning to increase the likelihood of it being available. The thing that concerns me is that all these things are different, and take different design approaches.

Others have gone beyond just the two types I mention. One of the posts  cited a colleague’s more nuanced presentation about small content, pointing out four different ways to use microlearning (though interestingly,  five were cited in the referenced presentation). My problem, in this case, wasn’t the push for microlearning (there were some meaningful distinctions, though no actual mention how they require different design). Instead, it was the presence of myths.

One of the two posts opened with this statement: “The appetite of our employees is not the same therefore, we must not provide them the same bland food (for thought).” This seems a bit of a mashup. Our employees aren’t the same, so they need different things? That’s personalization, no? However, the conversation goes on to say: “It‘s time to put together an appetizing platter and create learning opportunities that are useful and valuable.”  Which seems to argue for engagement. Thus, it seems like it’s instead arguing that people need more engaging content. Yes, that’s true too. But what’s that got to do with our employees not having the same appetite? It  seems to be swinging towards the digital native myth, that employees now need more engaging things.

This is bolstered by a later quote: “When training becomes overwhelming and creates stress, a bite-sized approach will encourage learning.” If training becomes overwhelming and stressful, it  does suggest a redesign. However, my inclination would be to suggest that ramping up the WIIFM and engagement are the solution. A bite-sized approach, by itself, isn’t a solution to engagement. Small wrong or dull content isn’t a solution for dull or wrong content.

This gets worse in the other post. There were two things wrong here. The first one is pretty blatant:

There are numerous resources that suggest our attention spans are shrinking. Some might even claim we now have an average attention span of only 8 seconds, which equals that of a goldfish.

There are, of course, no such resources pointed to. Also, the resources that proposed this have been debunked. This is actually the ‘cover story’ myth of my recent book on myths! In it, I point out that the myth about attention span came from a misinterpreted study, and that our cognitive architecture doesn’t change that fast. (With citations.) Using this ‘mythtake’ to justify microlearning is just wrong. We’re segueing into tawdry marketing malarkey here.

This isn’t the only problem with this post, however. A second one emerges when there’s an (unjustified) claim that learning should have 3E’s: Entertaining, Enlightening, and Engaging. I do agree with Engaging (per the title of my first book), however, there’s a problem with it. And the other ones. So, for Entertaining, this is the followup: “advocates the concept of learning through a sequence of smaller, focused modules.” Why is smaller inherently more entertaining? Also, in general, learning doesn’t work as well when it’s just ‘fun’, unless it’s “hard fun”.

Enlightening isn’t any better. I do believe learning should be enlightening, although particularly for organizational learning it should be transformative in terms of enhancing an individual’s ability to  perform. Just being enlightened doesn’t guarantee that. The followup says: “Repetition, practice, and reinforcement can increase knowledge.” Er, yes, but that’s just good design. There’s nothing unique to microlearning about that.

Most importantly, the definition for Engaging is “A program journey can be spaced enough that combats forgetting curve.” That is spacing! Which isn’t a bad thing (see above), but not your typical interpretation of engaging. This is really confused!

Further, I didn’t even need to fully parse these two posts. Even on a superficial examination, they fail the ‘sniff test’. In general, you should be avoiding folks that toss around this sort of fluffy biz buzz, but even more so when they totally confound a reasonable interpretation of these concepts. This is just more marketing malarkey. Caveat emptor.

(Vendors, please please please stop with the under-informed marketing, and present helpful posts. Our industry is already suffering from too many myths. There’s possibly a short-term benefit, however the trend seems to be that people are paying more attention to learning science. Thus, in the long run I reckon it undermines your credibility. While taking them down is fun and hopefully educational, I’d rather be writing about new opportunities, not remedying the old.  If you don’t have enough learning science expertise to do so, I can help: books, workshops, and/or writing and editing services.)

 

A new common tragedy?

by 2 Comments

Recently, my kids (heh, in their 20s) let me know that they don’t use Yelp. That actually surprised and puzzled me. Not specifically because of Yelp, but instead because there’s a societal benefit that’s possibly being undermined or abandoned. I may be naive, but I think that we may be missing an opportunity. So here’s my exploration of a potential new common tragedy.

The idea of the commons is simple, though also somewhat controversial. There’s a shared resource. In the traditional economic model, it’s limited. Thus, everyone taking advantage of it ends up ruining the resource (the infamous ‘tragedy of the commons’). In this case, however, the potential tragedy is different.

Information, as has been said, wants to be free. With the internet, it’s almost that way, and there are almost zero limits on the information (for better or worse). We can take advantage of the information for little more than the cost of a browser-capable device and an internet connection (which can come just with a cup of coffee ;). We can also contribute. That’s social media.

That’s been the premise of some of the more powerful ideas of the internet. If we share information, we can all benefit. Thus, we should offer up information and in return get the benefit. We don’t have to offer it, but if we do we all benefit. It’s cooperation. Social media has led to many great wins. My colleague and friend, Paul Signorelli, has a new book just on that! In his Change the World Using Social Media, he says “social media platforms can…produce positive change”. Of course, there are also problematic uses. The ways in which certain platforms (*cough* Facebook *cough*) have been used to spread misinformation is a caution. Yet, I believe these are problems that are solvable.

Now, Yelp is a service where people can share reviews of almost any service: repairs, meals, … And it’s just an example, there are other ways people share information, such as Wikipedia, NextDoor, etc. Yelp got off to a somewhat idiosyncratic start, owing to claims of favoritism. However, it’s now relatively reliable, I believe. (Am I wrong?)

The possibility is that if everyone fairly uses such as service, that everyone benefits. You do have to offer your own input, but you gain from others. Of course, the service itself must be principled, including a way to self-repair any problems. There can be more than one, though one tends to end up being dominant.

What’s problematic, to me, is why people  wouldn’t participate. For example, my kids. For one, there’s a belief that people only write negative reviews. Yet we do see businesses with ratings from 3 to 5, so clearly there are positive reviews (I’ve done both).  Yelp has helped me find good places to eat and get valuable services. I’ve likewise shared my experiences, to help others.

However, what may not be solvable is getting people on board with the idea of the benefit. If we turn away from this opportunity, we end up losing 0ut. Yes, I can be an idealist, but I’d hope that we can see the ultimate benefit that can be obtained. Across many platforms, ideally. I’d like to avoid a new common tragedy. I’m also willing to be wrong, so I welcome feedback.

 

My ‘Man on the Moon’ Project

by 8 Comments

There have been a variety of proposals for the next ‘man on the moon’ project since JFK first inspired us. This includes going to Mars, infrastructure revitalization, and more. And I’m sympathetic to them. I’d like us to commit to manufacturing and installing solar panels over all parking lots, both to stimulate jobs and the economy, and transform our energy infrastructure, for instance. However, with my focus on learning and technology, there’s another ‘man on the moon’ project I’d like to see.

I’d like to see an entire K12 curriculum online (in English, but open, so that anyone can translate it). However, there are nuances here. I’m not oblivious to the fact that there are folks pushing in this direction. I don’t know them all, but I certainly have some reservations. So let me document three important criteria that I think are critical to make this work (queue my claim “only two things wrong with education in this country, the curriculum and the pedagogy, other than that it’s fine”).

First, as presaged, it can’t be the existing curriculum.  Common Core isn’t evil, but it’s still focused on a set of elements that are out of touch. As an example, I’ll channel Roger Schank on the quadratic equation: everyone’s learned (and forgotten) it, almost no one actually uses it. Why? Making every kid learn it is just silly. Our curriculum is a holdover from what was stipulated at the founding of this country. Let’s get a curriculum that’s looking forward, not back. Let’s include the ability to balance a bankbook, to project manage, to critically evaluate claims, to communicate visually, and the like.

Second, as suggested, it can’t be the existing pedagogy. Lecture and test don’t lead to retaining and transferring the ability to  do. Instead, learning science tells us that we need to be given challenging problems, and resources and guidance to solve them. Quite simply, we need to practice as we want to be able to perform. Instruction is designed action and  guided reflection.  Ideally, we’d layer on learning on top of learner interests. Which leads to the third component.

We need to develop teachers who can facilitate learning in this new pedagogy. We can’t assume teachers can do this. There are many dedicated teachers, but the system is aligned against effective outcomes. (Just look at the lack of success of educational reform initiatives.) David Preston, with his Open Source Learning has a wonderful idea, but it takes a different sort of teacher. We also can’t assume learners sitting at computers. So, having a teacher support component along with every element is important.

Are there initiatives that are working on all this? I have yet to see any one that’s gotten it  all right.  The ones I’ve seen lack on one or another element. I’m happy to be wrong!

I also recognize that agreeing on all the elements, each of which is controversial, is problematic. (What’s the  right curricula? Direct instruction or constructivist? How do we value teachers in society?) We’d have major challenges in assembling folks to address any of these, let alone all and achieving convergence.

However, think of the upside. What could we accomplish if we had an effective education system preparing youth for the success of our future? What  is the best investment in our future?  I realize it’s a big dream; and I’m not in a position to make it happen. Yet I did want to drop the spark, and see if it fire any imaginations. I’m happy to help. So, this is my ‘man on the moon’ project; what am I missing?

Representation Matters

by 1 Comment

There is a deep sense of where and how representation matters. Then there are less critical, but still important ways in which presentation counts. It includes talking about stereotypes, and calling out inappropriate labeling. Concepts matter, clarity matters, transparency matters. So here are two situations that are worth critiquing.

The first one that struck me this morning was an announcement. A researcher has created a petition asking Pew Research to stop using the ‘generations’ label. They’ve been using it in their research, and yet (as the petition points out) their own research shows it’s problematic.

Now this is a myth I called out in my last book  (specifically on the topic of problematic beliefs). There are several complaints, such as that the boundaries are arbitrary, and the stereotyping is harmful. While we can differ by age, discrepancies are better explained by experience than by ‘generation’.

Another problem came in an article I was connected to on LinkedIn. In it, they were making the case for micro learning. While there are great reasons to tout the benefits of small bits of timely content, they didn’t really distinguish the uses. Which is a problem, since the different uses require different designs.

Here’s where representation matters. Pew Research’s reputation, in my mind, has gone down. I used to fill out some surveys from them, and stopped because the assumptions in the categories they were using were problematic. Finding out that they’re a major proponent of generations only aggravates that. Can I really trust any results they cite when the foundations are flawed?

Similarly, the organization that’s touting micro learning solutions has just undermined any belief in their credibility to actually do this appropriately. When you tout stuff in ways that show you don’t understand the necessary principles, you damage your reputation. I’m not likely to want to use this firm to design my  solutions.

I push strongly for accuracy. This includes evidence-informed design, conceptual clarity, and transparency of motives. If you tout something, do so in a scrutable way. Marketing malarkey only muddies the water, and our industry has enough of a credibility problem.

Yes, there are more important ways representation matters: for kids to see themselves in culturally desirable roles, for voices to be heard. This is a less important aspect, but quality matters. Look at what you are saying, and ensure that it’s worth your audience’s time!