Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Templates as content model extensions

by 2 Comments

I’ve been touting content models for, well, years now. Interestingly, I’m currently doing some more concrete work on them, from the bottom-up. Instead of looking at top-down implementation of governance and structure, the focus is on guidance for creating resources at scale. Yet the two are related, and I think it’s worth looking at templates as content model extensions.

The notion of content models is that instead of creating full courses, we build content in chunks, and pull them together by rule. Or even more appropriately, deliver the appropriate chunk to the right person at the right time. It’s been happening for web design for years, but for some reason the notion of content management systems lags in L&D. Yes, there are entailments – governance, strategy, engineering – but the alternative is that lingering legacy content that’s out of date but no one can deal with.

That’s the top level focus. Underpinning this, of course, is getting the content right, and that means having some good definitions around the content. I’d done that many moons ago, and in a current engagement it’s reemerging. The situation is that there are a number of people all writing content around this particular initiative, and it’s uncoordinated (sound familiar?). The realization that clients are struggling is enough of a driver to look for a solution.

Without a content management system, as yet, it still makes sense to systematize the resources around a map of the space, ensuring they align to what we know about how people learn and perform. That latter is important, because many times they just need the answer now, not a full course.

What we’ve ended up doing is creating meta-content that tell how to develop content that meets particular needs. With entailments, such as assembling a representative team to determine what’s needed and the labels to use. It also involves drafting and testing these content guides, prior to broader use.

It’s the tactical step of a strategic goal to provide support for people to successfully meet their needs. And, to be clear, to reduce the reliance on the support staff. Leveraging the cognitive and learning sciences, we’re building templates as content model extensions. This is before there’s even the technology support available to be more proactive, but planning for the possible future is part of the strategy.

I’ll be presenting a session on this at the DevLearn conference in October. If you’re interested and going to be there, I welcome seeing you.

Emotion, or motivation, or…

by 4 Comments

I’ve been promoting the importance of the emotional ‘hook’. Which I was called out on, rightly. I freely admit that the phrase is less than fully accurate. So let’s explore the issue of whether we’re talking emotion, or motivation, or…

As context, one perspective from cognitive science is thinking of our ourselves as comprised of three components. One is cognitive, that is what we think and know. Which is malleable, as we can learn more! A second component is termed affective, that is who we are. Which isn’t malleable; these are our fixed characteristics, certainly personality (e.g. OCEAN/HEXACO). Finally, there’s our conative component. This is our intent: to learn, to act, and arguably what we value. 

This last bit, the conative, is what I suggest we neglect in our learning design. We address the cognitive, and there’s little to do on the affective side, but we too often basically assume that the learner is ready for what we’re presenting. Which I suggest is a mistake. 

There’s considerable evidence that we perform better when we’re engaged. When experiences are motivating, and anxiety is kept to a minimum, and our confidence is built, etc. Further, we can address these. We can help folks see the WIIFM, make it psychologically safe, and provide appropriate levels of challenge with useful feedback. (And we should!) However, too often we don’t.

So I use the shorthand term ‘emotion’ to address this.  I use the term to separate from the cognitive in a shorthand way. The problem, of course, is whether anxiety and motivation are truly ‘emotions’. Effectively, they’re not. My stance, however, is that I can’t be talking ‘conative’ to folks who aren’t aware of that concept!

I also resist just talking about motivation. Anxiety is an issue. So too is confidence. John Keller’ has his ARCS model (arguably the only ID theorist considering the conative aspect, though I don’t know if he uses that term ;). His model incorporates gaining/maintaining Attention, manifesting the Relevance of what’s being learned, building Confidence, and ensuring Satisfaction from the experience. Really, we want an umbrella term for these elements. 

There is the concept of engagement. However, it’s been trivialized. Claims that ‘click to see more’ is more engaging, that points & leaderboards are engaging, etc. have undermined the term. So I avoid it to avoid getting mired in that morass. Instead, I think talking about emotion as a shorthand way to address the non-cognitive. Yet…

I was called out for talking about an ‘emotional hook’ by a very learned client. Rightly so. The question is, do we have a better term? Is there a more appropriate and yet still accessible way ta talk about this? Obviously, I haven’t thought so as yet, but I want to keep learning. So if you’ve a better solution, please do let me know. (Feel free to also say that this approach is probably the only solution, at least for now.) Otherwise, I’ll keep looking for a better approach than emotion, or motivation, or…

I’ll be discussing ‘emotion’ in a session for the Learning Guild’s LXD conference, coming up at the beginning of next month. I’m also presenting a two half-days pre-event online workshop on LXD overall, integrating emotion with science. I’ll also explore ‘engagement’ in a full day face-to-face pre-con workshop at their DevLearn conference in October). Hope to see you at one of these!

Activities ‘beyond the course’

by 1 Comment

wrapped presentSo, somehow I got on Myra Roldan‘s #MyraMonday question list. She asks a question every Monday, dobbing in some likely (or, in my case, gullible) victims to respond. And I do (unusually ;), because occasionally it’s good to challenge your mind. This past week, the question was particularly interesting: about what you’d do if there weren’t elearning. Of course, there were the usual answers, but several were very interesting. Here’re some of the ideas and underlying thinking about activities ‘beyond the course’.

So, I had heard about someone who was exploring ‘escape rooms’ for learning. (Spoiler: it was Myra, hence the question. ;) I was reminded, however, and added in some other ideas:

surprise box, host a murder, scavenger hunt, choose your own adventure…

My thinking is that there are lots of ways of invoking intent and action, and providing feedback. The box could contain some content and instructions, e.g. “film yourself doing…” or “do X and write it up”. Or some actual device to act upon (think of the old science kits they sent with correspondence courses). Host a murder mystery party would be some Live Action Role-Playing (LARP) activity that includes instructions, roles, and reflection guidance (a group ‘surprise box’). Scavenger hunt could have you looking for resources for new arrivals to learn their way around, or to do safety checks, or… Choose your own adventure book is basically a text-based branching scenario.

Kevin Thorn (last week’s You Oughta Know guest of the LDAccelerator) suggested comics Not surprising, since that was the topic we had him on for, and also the focus of his thesis. Comics are underused, I believe, and yet have valuable properties. Another viable way to develop learning, particularly if you can tie them to challenges.

Then, Alan Natachu weighed in with even more creative ideas:

Lots of infographics and cryptograms
Book ciphers
Red / Blue filters (look through a colored lens to reveal a hidden message)
Tune into a custom radio frequency that repeats a message
Text messages to a secret contact (a.k.a. Phone a friend)

Again, we’re looking at ways to get people to process content (and apply it). What I like is how he started tapping into alternate technologies. It’s easy to stay in our comfort zone, as I was doing. It’s useful to take some time to reflect and deliberately explore alternatives. Different questions (like Myra’s) can prompt some out of the box thinking, as can deliberate prompts to consider other things. That is, systematic creativity isn’t an oxymoron ;).

There is a followup on this: why aren’t we doing these things  already?  We should be looking at other mechanisms. Yes, there are some learnings, and some resource requirements. However, once they’re part of our repertoire, they become just another tool in our quiver.

We can, and should, be looking at activities ‘beyond the course’. There’re the benefits of novelty, but also different affordances. Better yet, we could theme them to align with particular courses. There is a real opportunity to make our learning stick better, and that is the real bottom line. So let’s get creative  and achieve better outcomes.

 

2022 ITA Jay Cross Memorial Award: Céline Shillinger

by Leave a Comment

Harold Jarche’s elegantly crafted announcement:

The Internet Time Alliance Memorial Award, in memory of Jay Cross, is presented to a workplace learning professional who has contributed in positive ways to the field of Informal Learning and is reflective of Jay‘s lifetime of work.

Recipients champion workplace and social learning practices inside their organization and/or on the wider stage. They share their work in public and often challenge conventional wisdom. The Award is given to professionals who continuously welcome challenges at the cutting edge of their expertise and are convincing and effective advocates of a humanistic approach to workplace learning and performance.

We announce the award on 5 July, Jay‘s birthday.

Following his death in November 2015, the partners of the Internet Time Alliance — Jane Hart, Charles Jennings, Clark Quinn, and Harold Jarche — resolved to continue Jay‘s work. Jay Cross was a deep thinker and a man of many talents, never resting on his past accomplishments, and this award is one way to keep pushing our professional fields and industries to find new and better ways to learn and work.

The 7th annual Internet Time Alliance Jay Cross Memorial Award for 2022 is presented to Céline Schillinger.

In her recent book, Dare to Un-lead, Céline asks, “Can there be liberty, equality, and fraternity at work” Then she shows examples of how this can be achieved. As Head of Quality Innovation & Engagement at Sanofi Pasteur Céline helped to create the ‘Break Dengue’ global community to fight dengue fever. Céline understands the power of community. She says that, “If you cannot find a community of practice for your professional development, then create one.”

Céline has often challenged the status quo, especially regarding the lack of diversity in many workplaces.

“What really matters is to mirror the diversity of the world we serve. We need more women… more humanities majors… more people of colour… more professionals coming from other jobs… in short, a much bigger diversity of viewpoints at all levels. We also need more network and co-construction across levels, as the old pyramidal system is no longer fit for purpose.”

Céline has said that companies must cultivate their rebels in order to remain relevant to their workers, while staying competitive in their arenas. These rebels can let them see beyond the organization‘s walls. We are sure that Jay Cross would agree.

Links:

https://weneedsocial.com/about-me

https://weneedsocial.com/praise-dare-to-unlead

https://www.europeanpharmaceuticalreview.com/article/69269/quality-lever-transformation-sanofi/

LXD by Design

by Leave a Comment

Learning Experience Design (LXD), I argue, is the elegant integration of learning science with engagement. All well and good, of course, but how do you introduce it? Specifically, how do we engage people already actively designing? There are a number of ways to cut it. You could talk about the cognitive underpinnings, the implications for the elements of learning, or via the changes in the design process. I do the latter two, with a focus on the engagement side (which I feel is underdeveloped), in my latest book, “Make It Meaningful“. However, what if you’re trying to do both? Here’s a case to visit LXD by design.

It seems pretty safe to say that most people will resist totally throwing out their entire design process. There’s lots of investment. Further, most design processes have a useful basic structure. This suggests looking for the smallest tweaks that will yield the biggest impacts. We’re looking to incorporate the effectiveness of learning science with the emotional appropriateness of engagement. What does this require?

The first change is in the analysis. LXD simply  can’t work without performance objectives. If you’re just trying to make people aware, you’re not really on a transformative journey. You want to be focusing on equipping people so that they’re (meaningfully) changed through the process. You also need some new information: why this is necessary  for the learners, and why experts find it interesting enough to study. There’s more, but this is key.

Then, your design process differs. You are being creative,  given that you’re not just directly practicing. You’re also tuning to get the experience optimized. So, you need to build in some brainstorming, and iteration. In pragmatic ways, of course.

Implementation is also more iterative. You’ll be investing slowly, to allow pivots and to keep the overall costs contained. Postponing programming and preferring paper are components of this.

Even your evaluation is different. You are testing, now, not only effectiveness, but also the experience. Which you may have been doing (*cough* smile sheets *cough*), but you need to test both sequentially, not just one  or the other.

All along, there are small changes that will help integrate learning science elegantly with engagement. Making those critical changes will likely take a bit longer, at least at first. On the other hand, you should be getting real outcomes  and more engaged learners. Which, ultimately, is what we should be doing.

I’ll be covering this in a workshop for the Learning Guild in two half-day sessions prior to their LXD conference at the beginning of August. (Also doing a session during the conf on emotion.) I hope you’ll find LXD by Design to be a practical and useful, even  transformative, experience.

Reality Checks

by 2 Comments

Of late, there seem to be a rising number of claims: for X or Y, or against Z. This, by the way, happens outside L&D as well, so feel free to extrapolate. Here, however, I want to talk about the necessity of, and some practices for, reality checks.

The problem is that people have vested interests in particular views. Many of the claims that are pushed generate revenue for them, directly or indirectly. They may want you to buy their product, avail yourself of their services, or more. And I get it; I too need to keep the wolves from the door. However, there are ways legit and less so to do it.

So one of the first reality checks is: what does who stand to gain? What’s their angle? Just as when I criticize something and you should rightly query why I’m raising the issue, similarly you should be asking the same of the claim. What’s their angle?

I’m pretty clear that I want our industry to be solid, and yes I want to be someone you might bring in to assist you in avoiding the pitfalls and hew to the best outcomes for your org. Similarly, the folks I’m critiquing might have an angle. They may have a tool, for instance, that they want you to use. Find out what their personal benefit is!

This looking at both sides is a second reality check. I recently heard a colleague claim that when he looks at something new, he immediately looks for contradicting evidence. That’s pretty smart, given that our cognitive architecture has a confirmation bias. That is, we’re inclined to look for information that supports our beliefs, and discount any other. I reckon it’s worth keeping an open mind.

This is a way you can go deeper. What do others say? Are their trusted folks who are supporting the view, or are they leery? What’s their expertise? Some folks will allude to some relevant expertise only for it to be shown that it’s tangential. Similarly, what’s the data say? Is there data? How valid is it? Is it relevant to you?

Ultimately, I want you to  stay curious! I reckon that we all can learn more, and should. Learning more doesn’t mean just accumulating information, it means being willing to be wrong, admitting it, and improving. You need to be running your own reality checks on what you, and others, believe. Here’s to a steady increase in the reality of our field!

Critical ID/LXD Differences?

by 4 Comments

I’ve argued both that Learning Experience Design (LXD) is an improvement on Instructional Design (ID), and that LXD is the  elegant integration of learning science with engagement. However, that doesn’t really unpack what are the critical ID/LXD differences. I think it’s worth looking at those important distinctions both in principle and practice. Here, I’m talking about the extensions to what’s already probably in place.

Principle

In principle, I think it’s the engagement part that separates the two. True, proper ID shouldn’t ignore it. However, there’s been too little attention. For instance, only one ID theorist, John Keller, has really looked at those elements. Overall, it’s too easy to focus purely on the cognitive. (Worse, of course, is a focus purely on knowledge, which really  isn’t good ID).

I suggest that this manifests in two ways. First, you need an initial emotional ‘hook’ to gain the learner’s commitment to the learning experience. Even before we open them up cognitively (though, of course, they’re linked)! Then, we need to manage emotions through out the experience. We want to do thinks like keep challenge balanced, anxiety low enough not to interfere, build confidence, etc.

We have tools we can use, like story, exaggeration, humor, and more to assist us in these endeavors. At core, however, what we’re focusing on is making it a true ‘experience’, not just an instructional event. Ideally, we’d like to be transformational, leaving learners equipped with new skills and the awareness thereof.

Practice

What does this mean in practice? A number of things. For one, it takes creativity to consider ways in which to address emotions. There are research results and guidance, but you’ll still want to exercise some exploration. Which also means you have to be iterative, with testing. I understand that this is immediately scary, thinking about costs. However, when you stop trying to use courses for everything, you’ll have more resources to do courses right. For that matter, you’ll actually be achieving outcomes, which is a justification for the effort.

Our design process needs to start gathering different information. We need to get performance objectives; what people actually need to do, not just what they need to know. You really can’t develop people if you’re not having them perform and getting feedback. You also need to understand  why this is needed, why it’s important, and why it’s interesting. It is, at least to the subject matter experts who’ve invested the time to  be experts in this…

Your process also needs to have those creative breaks. These are far better if they’re collaborative, at least at the times when you’re ideating. While ideally you have a team working together on an ongoing basis, in many cases that may be problematic. I suggest getting together at least at the ideating stage, and then after testing to review findings.

You’ll also want to be testing against criteria. At the analysis stage, you should design criteria that will determine when you’re ‘done’. When you run out of time and money is  not the right answer! Test usability first, then effectiveness, and then engagement. Yes, you want to quantify engagement. It doesn’t have to be ‘adrenaline in the blood’ or even galvanic skin response, subjective evaluations by your learners is just fine. If you are running out of time and money before you’re achieving your metrics, you can adjust them, but now you’re doing it on consciously, not implicitly.

I’m sure there more that I’m missing, but these strike me as some critical ID/LXD differences. There are differences in principle, which yield differences in practice. What are your thoughts?

Shameless self-promotion

by Leave a Comment

We interrupt your usual blog fodder with this commercial announcement. Our programming will resume after this break:

Me with the bookOk, well, there actually is some shame. I don’t usually do this, but I don’t think it’s unjustified (and I’m excited). My next book is now  out!  In fact, it’s in my mitts. Obviously, it can be in yours, too. Now, there’s a screwup in the printing, but it’s minor (and possibly a blessing)? Anyway, it’s time for some shameless self-promotion.

So,  Make It  Meaningful: Taking Learning Design from Instructional to Transformational is designed to complement the learning science books by providing the other half of the Learning Experience Design (LXD) story. I believe LXD is the  elegant integration of learning science and engagement. The former’s well covered; this addresses the latter (and the integration). I immodestly think it’s a substantive contribution.

However, while the book looks great (to my admittedly biased eye), the title didn’t make it onto the spine! It’ll look a touch weird on your shelf. On the other hand, presuming that’s fixed (working on it), that means that any current versions will be collector’s items, right? Well, maybe…(looking for silver linings).

As a side note that I’ll be running a workshop on this topic at the DevLearn conference in Las Vegas in October. I’ll also be running a LXD design workshop online to accompany the conference in August.

So that’s it, my almost shameless self-promotion. You can check out more about it here or  here.

We now return you to your usual blog, (p)resuming next week at the same bat time, bat channel.  

What’s In It For Them?

by Leave a Comment

One of the things I talk about in my most recent book,  Make It Meaningful, is the importance of communicating the WIIFM (What’s In It For Me). I do think it’s important, but in recent work I’ve found an interesting alternative. I’m not sure I completely have my mind around how to address it, so as I’m wont to do, here’s some ‘thinking out loud’ about What’s In It For Them (WIIFT).

To start, WIIFM is about connecting learners to a visceral understanding of the reason for the learning experience. There should be a clear value proposition, to them.  It can be either having to do with either the consequences of having the resulting skill, or not. The point is that they ‘get’ that they need this (then there’s more). I believe that learners will invest in learning if they understand why.

However, in this instance, we have audiences who may or may not be interested. This is a suite of offerings, different for different potential clients. What we want here is for them to quickly determine  whether there’s WIIFM. We don’t think everyone will be appropriate for every thing we’re providing. Importantly, we don’t want them to waste time on ones that aren’t relevant. So we very quickly want to establish what’s in it  for the appropriate audience.

There are a number of ways to send signals. For one, the filename and the title of the resource can (and should) be clear what this particular thing about. Then, there should be a brief description of why this particular thing exists. Then, there can be a brief introduction saying what is going on. Obviously, all should align, so that folks can get in with the minimal effort to get there.

This, to me, suggests that the intro either explicitly making it clear  who we think  is   the audience, or provides an initial statement of what the outcomes are so that individuals can self-select. I’m not sure yet which I think is better, or even whether it’s useful to do both. There’s a tradeoff, of course; brevity is useful, and so is clarity. I suppose we can always make our best guess in the instance. For sure we’ll test it.

So, I’ve been led to wonder how to communicate What’s In It For Them so that they know whether they’re ‘them’ or not! There are also probably converging influences. I reckon marketing has this issue, as does documentation? What have seen/done/found out? I welcome your input.

 

The ‘late adopter’ strategy

by 2 Comments

I was asked about the latest techno-hype, bionic reading. At the same time, there’s a discussion happening about learning affordances of the metaverse. I realize my strategy is the same, which I learned many years ago (wish I could remember from whom!). The short version is, wait until the dust settles. Why? Let’s evaluate the late adopter strategy.

So, for anything new, there all-too-frequently seems to be a lot of flash. In my experience, a lot more than substance! That is, many things rise, and most fall. When things calm down after the initial exuberance, most simply disappear. There are myriad factors: acquisition and shut down by competitors, other elements fail despite a good premise, or even unexpected factors outside of control (e.g. a pandemic!). Of course, the usual suspect is that there’s no real there there!

I remember the hype over Second Life, and recognizing that the core elements were 3D and social. Yet, what we saw were slide presentations in a virtual world. Which was nonsensical. I’ve suggested before that you can infer the properties of new technologies, in many cases, by considering their cognitive affordances. I’ll await the meta-verse manifestation, but it seems to me to be the same, just more immersion. Still, lots of technical and cognitive overhead to make it worthwhile.

Similarly with bionic reading. There’s now  lots  of anecdotal suggestions that it’s better. That’s not the same, however, as a true experimental study. Individual experiences don’t always correlate with actual impact. There’re myriad reasons for this too, e.g. self-fulfilling prophecy, perception vs reality, etc. Still, I really want to have some more convergent evidence. Here it’s harder to do the affordances. Yes, it might support people who have difficulty reading, but might it interfere with others? How will we know?

On the basis of the above, however, I suggest waiting until something’s been around, and then if it persists, start investigating what the affordances might be. Many things have come and gone, and I’m glad I didn’t bite. I might then be late to a platform, but that’s OK. I still tend to get opportunities to innovate around ideas of application  after they’re established, because, well, that’s what I do ;). Affordances help, as does lateral thinking and having on tap  lots of mental models to spark ideas.

We’re too easily enchanted with the latest shiny object. No argument it’s worth experimenting with them, but don’t swallow the hype until you’ve either had your own data, or someone else’s. I reckon rushing in has a greater opportunity for loss than gain. Let those with needs, resources, and opportunity take the first cuts. There’s no need to bleed prematurely, there’ll be plenty of opportunities to need to tune and test again even once principles emerge. So that’s my take on the value of a ‘late adopter’ strategy. What’s yours?