Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Search Results for: quip

Learning Science Conference 2024

by Leave a Comment

I believe, quite strongly, that the most important foundation anyone in L&D can have is understanding how learning really works. If you’re going to intervene to improve people’s ability to perform, you ought to know how learning actually happens! Which is why we’ve created the Learning Science Conference 2024.

We have some of the most respected translators of learning science research to practice. Presenters are Ruth Clark, Paul Kirschner, Will Thalheimer, Patti Shank, Nidhi Sachdeva, as well as Matt Richter and myself. They’ll be providing a curated curriculum of sessions. These are admittedly some of our advisors to the Learning Development Accelerator, but that’s because they’ve reliably demonstrated the ability to do the research, and then to communicate the results of theirs and others’ work in terms of the implications for practice. They know what’s right and real, and make that clear.

The conference is a hybrid model; we present the necessary concepts asynchronously, starting later this month. Then from 11- 15 November, we’ll have live online sessions led by the presenters. These are at two different times to accommodate as much of the globe as we can! In these live sessions we’ll discuss the implications and workshop issues raised by attendees. We will record the sessions in case you can’t make it. I’ll note, however, that participating is a chance to get your particular questions answered! Of course, we’ll have discussion forums too.

We’ve worked hard to make this the most valuable grounding you can get, as we’ve deliberately chosen the topics that we think everyone needs to comprehend. I suggest there’s something there for everyone, regardless of level. We’re covering the research and implications around the foundations of learning, practices for design and evaluation, issues of emotion and motivation, barriers and myths, even informal and social learning. It’s the content you need to do right by your stakeholders.

Our intent is that you’ll leave equipped to be the evidence-based L&D practitioner our industry needs. I hope you’ll take advantage of this opportunity, and hope to see you at the Learning Science Conference 2024.

Marathons and Sprints

by Leave a Comment

(Empty) Lanes on track on a gym field.

Besides Kahnemann’s Fast & Slow book, I’ve also talked about fast and slow innovation. Fast is where you have a specific problem to solve, or product to design, or thing to research, and you do so. Slow is the innovation that happens because you create opportunities for new ideas to flourish: making it safe, keeping the ‘adjacent possible’ open, facilitating creative friction, etc. Similarly, in my writing, I use both marathons and sprints. What do I mean?

So, I tend to have reasonably long time-frames for writing. I now blog once a week, and I tend to queue these up a week or two in advance. My books, of course, when I’m working on them, have deadlines months ahead. Presentations, too, are a form of communication. Overall, I tend to have months between proposals and when I have to deliver them. Occasionally, I’m asked for something on a short time frame, but even that’s several days.

And, in my life, I tend to have time (typically, in the morning) to respond to short term requirements, and also time to nick away at the longer term requirements. I’ve become relatively good at leaving projects open to contribute to them as I can. So, largely, this is the ‘marathon’ life. That is, I take care of details, and then take time to polish off the bigger projects. Which, I acknowledge, is a luxury. The tradeoff is that I haven’t had a secure income for most of the past 2.5 decades ;).

What also happens is that, at some point in my nicking away at a project, it comes together. The picture that’s been gestating finally emerges. Then, I tend to suddenly find myself grinding it out. It could be a chapter, a book, a presentation, or just an article, but ultimately it takes shape. That said, for my most recent tome, an iterative process emerged. I kept sending out the latest version to someone else, and rearranging it based upon their feedback. That is, until I realized that the latest rearrangement felt truly right, and I was done!

This varies, of course. Sometimes I’m asked for something short term, and then I tend to fall back on things I’ve already thought through. This blog, as I’ve mentioned in many ways, forces me to think through things (looking to keep it fed and not repeat myself too much). I don’t mind this, as it still forces me to rearticulate, which often forces me to rethink, which is a good thing! In my reprocessing, I’m not only cementing my understanding, but frequently deepening it!

Overall, however, this cycle of marathons and sprints works. The longer term processing provides the basis for the short-term sprints. As it is, I’m usually as productive as anyone else (possibly more), yet it seems like there’s a lot of time of me just musing. Percolation (fermentation, incubation, pick your metaphor) is a good thing! As a reflection, this strikes me as right. It also strikes me as a prescription: break things up, ensure you have enough time for the big things, and take time to reflect. It works for me! And, I realize, it’s contrary to much of organizational life, which to me says more about organizational life than how you (should) think.

(BTW, in real life, I was always better the longer I had to run; I was usually the slowest person in my phys ed classes in sprints! At least on land…) 

 

The easy answer

by Leave a Comment

In working on something, I’m looking at the likely steps people take. Of course, I’m listing them from easiest to most useful (with the hope that folks understand they should take the latter). However, it’s making me think that, too often, people are looking at the easy answer, not the most accurate one. Because they really don’t know the problem. When does the easy answer make sense? Are we letting ourselves off the hook too much?

So, for instance, in learning we really should do analysis when someone asks for something. “We need a course on X.” “Ok, what tells you that you need this, and how will we know when it’s worked?” In a quick family convo, we established that this sort of un-analytical request is made all the time:

  • “Why isn’t my plant blooming?” (It’s not the season.)
  • “Fix this code.” (The input’s broken, not the code.)
  • …

Yet, people actually don’t do this up-front analysis. Why? It’s harder, it takes more time, it slows things down, it costs more. Besides, we know what the problem is.

DivergeConvergeProblemSolutionExcept, we don’t know what the problem is. Too often, the question or request is making some assumptions about the state of the world that may not be true. It may be the right answer, but it may not. Ensuring that you’ve identified the problem correctly is the first part of the design process, and you should diverge on exploration before you converge on a solution. That’s the double diamond, where you first explore the problem, before you explore a solution.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, this is more efficient. Why? Because you’re not expending resources solving the wrong problem. Are you sure you’ve gotten it right? How do you know when to take the easier path? If you know the answer you need, you’re better equipped to choose the level of solution you need. If you don’t know the question, however, and make assumptions about the root cause, you can go off the rails. And, end up spending effort you didn’t need to.

Look, I live in the real world. I have to take shortcuts (heck, I’m lazy ;). And I do. However, I like to do that when I know the answer, and know that the outcome is good enough to meet the need. I’ll go for the easy answer, if I know it’ll solve the problem well enough. But I can’t if I don’t know the question or problem, and just assume. And we know what happens when we ass-u-me.

A Learning Science Conference?

by Leave a Comment

learning science conference 2024 banner: "Online. Asynchronous & Live Sessions"In our field of learning design (aka instructional design), it’s too frequently the case that folks don’t actually know the underlying learning science that guides processes, policies, and practices. Is this a problem? If it is, what is the remedy?

Consider that you wouldn’t want an electrician that didn’t understand the principles of electricity. Such a person might not understand, for instance, the importance of grounding, leavning open the possibility of burning down the house.

So, too, with learning. If you don’t understand learning science, you might not understand why learning styles is a waste of money, the lack of value of information alone, nor that you should make alternatives to the right answer reflect typical misconceptions. There’s lots more: models, context, and feedback are also included in the topics that most folks don’t understand the nuances of.

If you don’t understand learning science, you waste money. You are likely to design ineffective learning, wasting time and effort. Or you might expend unnecessary effort on things that don’t have an impact. Overall, it’s a path to the poorhouse.

Of course, there are other reasons why we don’t have the impact we should: mismatched expectations on costs and time, SME recalcitrance and hubris, and more. Still, you’re better equipped to counter these problems if you can justify your stance from sound research.

The way to address this, of course, also isn’t necessarily easy. You might read a book, though some can mislead you. And, you still don’t get answers if you have questions. Or, you could pay for a degree, but those can be quite expensive and ineffective. Too frequently they spend time on process and not enough on principles.

There’s another option, one we’re providing. What if you could get the core essentials curated for their relevance? Further, this content is provided for you asynchronously, buttressed by the opportunity for meaningful interaction, in a tight time frame (at different times depending on your location)? Then, the presentation is by some of the most important names in the field, individuals who’ve reliably demonstrated an ability to translate academic research into comprehensible principles? And, finally, this is delivered at an appropriate cost? Does that sound like a valuable proposition?

I’d like to invite you to the Learning Science Conference, put on by the Learning Development Accelerator. Faculty already agreed include Ruth Clark (co-author of eLearning & The Science of Instruction), myself (author of Learning Science for Instructional Designers), Matt Richter (co-director of the Thiagi group), and Nidhi Sachdeva (faculty at University of Toronto). The curriculum covers 9 of the most important elements of learning science including learning, myths and barriers, motivation, informal and social learning, media, and evaluation.

This event is designed to leave you with the foundations necessary to be able to design learning experiences that are both engaging and effective, as well as dealing with the expected roadblocks to success. Frankly, we see little else that’s as comprehensive and practical. We hope to see you there!

Getting Engagement Right

by Leave a Comment

I’m on record stating that I think learning experience design (LXD) is the elegant integration of learning science and engagement. In addition, I’ve looked at both. Amongst the things that stand out for me are that there are an increasing suite of resources for learning science. For one, I have my own book on the topic! There are other good ones too. However, on the flip side, for engagement, I didn’t find much. I had intended to write an LXD book, but then ATD asked for the learning science one. Once it was done, however, I quickly realized that I wanted to write the complement. Thus, Make It Meaningful was born. It’s available, but I’m also running a workshop on the topic, starting this coming week! Four weekly 2 hour meetings, at the convenient time of noon ET. It’s all about getting engagement right. So, what’s covered?

For the first week, there’s an overview of the importance of engagement, and how to set the ‘hook’. We’ll briefly review the reasons why to consider the engagement side (and trust me, this is something you want to do). Then we’ll talk about the first step, getting learners to the a motivated state to begin the learning. We’ll look at barriers to success as well, and what to do.

In the second week, we’ll talk about ‘landing’ the experience. Once the hook is set, it doesn’t mean you’ve got them through the experience. Instead, there’s much to do to maintain that motivation. In addition, you want to ensure that anxiety doesn’t overwhelm the learning, and you want to build confidence. We’ll talk about principles as well as heuristics.

In the third week, we dig into what this means in practical terms. What is an engaging introduction? What about the models and examples? The critical element is the practice that learners perform. We’ll talk about how aligning the practice with the desired objectives while making a compelling context is necessary, but doable.

In the last week, we’ll talk about making a design process that can reliably deliver on learning experience. We’ll take a generic design process and go through the changes that ensure both an effective learning design and an engaging experience. We’ll work from analysis, through specification, and on to evaluation (we won’t talk much about implementation, because of my quip that getting the design right leaves lots of ways to create the solution, and not doing so renders everything else extraneous.

Sure, you can just buy the book, and that’s ok. I’m all about getting the word out, and getting better learning happening for our learners. However, in the workshop, not only do you get the book, but we’ll work through the ideas systematically, put them into practice, and address the individual questions you may have. Look, getting engagement right is an advanced topic, but it’s increasingly what will differentiate our solutions from the knowledge ones that come from typical approaches, no matter how technologically augmented. This stuff matters! So, I hope to see you there.

DnD n LnD

by 2 Comments

multi-sided diceLast Friday, I joined in on a Dungeons & Dragons (DnD) campaign. This wasn’t just gratuitous fun, however, but was explicitly run to connect to Learning & Development folks (LnD). Organized by the Training, Learning, and Development Community (a competitor to LDA? I have bias. ;), there was both some preliminary guidance, and outcomes. I was privileged to play a role, and while not an official part of the followup (happening this week), I thought I’d share my reflections.

So, first, my DnD history. I played a few times while in college, but… I gave it up when a favorite character of mine was killed by an evil trap (that was really too advanced for our party). I’ve played a lot of RPGs since then, with a lot of similarities to the formal DnD games (tho’ the actual ones are too complex). Recently, with guidance from offspring two, our family is getting back into it (with a prompt from a Shakespeare and DnD skit at the local Renaissance Faire).

Then, I’ve been into games for learning since my first job out of college, programming educational computer games. It also became the catalyst for my ongoing exploration of engagement to accompany my interest in cognition/learning, design, and technology. The intersection of which is where I’ve pretty much stayed (in a variety of roles), since then! (And, led to my first book on how to do same.)

Also, about DnD. It’s a game where you create a character. There are lots of details. For one, your characteristics: strength, dexterity, wisdom, intelligence, and more. Those combine with lots of attributes (such race & role). Then, there’s lots of elaboration: backstory, equipment, and more. This can alter during the game, where your abilities also rise. This adds complexity to support ongoing engagement. (I heard one team has been going for over 40 years!)

Characters created by the players are then set loose in a campaign (a setting, precipitating story, and potential details). A Dungeon Master runs the game, Keegan Long-Wheeler in our case, writing it and managing the details. Outcomes happen probabilistically by rolling dice. Computers can play a role. For one, through apps that handle details like rolling the dice. Then folks create games that reflect pre-written campaigns.

One important thing, to me, is that the players organize and make decisions together. We were a group who didn’t necessarily know each other, and we were playing under time constraints. This meant we didn’t have the dialog and choices that might typically emerge in such playing. Yet, we managed a successful engagement in the hour+ we were playing. And had fun!

I was an early advocate of games for learning. To be clear, not the tarted up drill and kill we were mostly doing, but inspired by adventure games. John Carroll had written about this back in the day, I found out. However, I’d already seen adventure games having the potential to be a basis for learning. Adventure games naturally require exploring. In them, you’re putting clues together to choose actions to overcome obstacles. Which, really, is good learning practice! That is, making decisions in context in games is good practice for making decisions in performance situations. Okay, with the caveat that you should design the game so that decisions have a natural embed.

The complexity of DnD is a bit much, in my mind, for LnD, but…the design!  The underlying principles of designing campaigns bears some relation to designing learning experiences. I believe designing engaging learning may be harder than designing learning or games, but we do have good principles. I do believe learning can, and should, be ‘hard fun‘.  Heck, it’s the topic of my most recent tome! (I believe learning should be the elegant integration of learning science with engagement.)

This has been an opportunity to reflect a bit on the underlying structure of games, and what makes them work. That’s always a happy time for me. So, I’m curious what you see about the links between games and learning!

Two steps for L&D

by Leave a Comment

In a conversation, we were discussing how L&D fares. Badly, of course, but we were looking at why. One of the problems is that L&D folks don’t have credibility. Another was that they don’t measure. I didn’t raise it in the conversation, but it’s come up before that they’re also not being strategic. That came up in another conversation. Overall, there are two steps for L&D to really make an impact on.

Now, I joke that L&D isn’t doing well what it’s supposed to be doing, and isn’t doing enough. My first complaint is that we’re not doing a good job. In the second conversation, up-skilling came up as an important trend. My take is that it’s all well and good to want to do it, but if you really want persistent new skill development, you have to do it right! That is, shooting for retention and transfer. Which will be, by the way, the topic of my presentation at DevLearn this year, I’ve just found out. Also the topic of the Missing LXD workshop (coming in Asia Pacific times this July/Aug), in linking that learning science grounding to engagement as well.

I’ve argued that the most important thing L&D can do is start measuring, because it will point out what works (and doesn’t). That’s a barrier that came up in the first conversation; how do we move people forward in their measurements. We were talking about little steps; if they’re doing learner surveys (c.f. Thalheimer), let’s encourage them to move to survey some time after. If they’re doing that, let’s also have them ask supervisors. Etc.

So, this is a necessary step. It’s not enough, of course. You might throw courses at things where they don’t make sense, e.g. where performance support would work better. Measurement should tell you that, in that a course isn’t working, but it won’t necessarily point you directly to performance support. Still, measurement is a step along the way. There’s another step, however.

The second thing I argue we should do is start looking at going beyond courses. Not just performance support, but here I’m talking about informal and social learning, e.g. innovation. There are both principled and practical reasons for this. The principled reason is that innovation is learning; you don’t know the answer when you start. Thus, knowing how learning works provides a good basis for assisting here. The practical reason is it gives a way for L&D to contribute to the most important part of organizational success. Instead of being an appendage that can be cut when times are tough, L&D can be facilitating the survival and thrival strategies that will keep the organization agile.

Of course, we’re running a workshop on this as well. I’m not touting it because it’s on offer, I’m behind it because it’s something I’ve organized specifically because it’s so important! We’ll cover the gamut, from individual learning skills, to team, and organizational success. We’ll also cover strategy. Importantly, we have some of the best people in the world to assist! I’ve managed to convince  Harold Jarche, Emma Weber, Kat Koppett, and Mark Britz (each of which alone would be worth the price of entry!), on top of myself and Matt Richter. Because it’s the Learning Development Accelerator, it will be evidence-based. It’ll also be interactive, and practically focused.

Look, there are lots of things you can do. There are some things you should do. There are two steps for L&D to do, and you have the opportunity to get on top of each. You can do it any way you want, of course, but please, please start making these moves!

Tradeoffs in aesthetics

by Leave a Comment

For the LDA debate this month, Ruth Clark talked to Matt Richter and I about aesthetics in learning. Ruth, you should know, is the co-author of eLearning and the Science of Instruction, amongst other books, a must-have which leverages Rich Mayer’s work on multimedia learning. Thus, she’s knowledgeable about what the research says. What emerged in the conversation was a problem about tradeoffs in aesthetics, that’s worth exploring.

So, for one thing, we know that gratuitous media interferes with learning. From John Sweller’s work on cognitive load theory, we know that processing the unnecessary data reduces cognitive resources available to support learning. There’s usually enough load just with the learning materials. Unless the material materially supports learning, it should be avoided.

On the other hand, we also know that we should contextualize learning. The late John Branford’s work with the Cognitive Technology Group while at Vanderbilt, for instance, demonstrated this. As the late David Jonassen also demonstrated with his problem-based learning, we retain and transfer better with concrete problems. Thus, creating a concrete setting for applying the knowledge is of benefit to learning.

What this sets up, of course, is a tradeoff. That is, we want to use aesthetics to help communicate the context, but we want to keep them minimal. How do we do this? Even text (which is a medium), can be extraneous. There really is only one true response. We have to create our first best guess, and then we test. The testing doesn’t have to be to the level of scientific rigor, mind you. Even if it just passes the scrutiny of fellow team members, it can be the right choice, though ideally we run it by learners.

What we have to fight is those who want to tart it up. There will be folks who want more aesthetics. We have to push back against that, particularly if we think it interferes with learning. We need to ensure that what’re producing doesn’t violate what’s known. It’s not always easy, and in situations we may not always win, but we have to be willing to give it a go.

There are tradeoffs in aesthetics, so we have to know what matters. Ultimately, it’s about the learning outcomes. Thus, focusing on the minimum contextualization, and the maximum learning, is likely to get us to a good first draft. Then, let’s see if we can’t check. Right?

Meta-reflections

by Leave a Comment

Lake reflectionI was recently pinged about a new virtual world, a ‘metaverse‘ inspired new place for L&D. It looked like a lot of previous efforts! I admit I was underwhelmed, and I think sharing why might be worthwhile. So here are some meta-reflections.

I’ve written before on virtual worlds. In short, I think that when you need to be social and 3D, they make sense. At other times, there’s a lot of overhead for them to be useful that can be met in other ways. Further, to me, the metaverse really is just another virtual world. Your mileage may vary, of course.

This new virtual world had, like many others, the means to navigate in 3D, and to put information around. The demo they had was a virtual museum. Which, I presume, is a nice alternative to trying to get to a particular location. On the other hand, if it’s all digital, is this the best way to do it? Why navigate around in 3D? Why not treat it as an infographic, and work in 2D, leading people through the story? What did 3D add? Not much, that I could see.

My take has, and continues to be, as they say, “horses for courses”. That is, use the right tool for the job. I complained about watching a powerpoint presentation in Second Life (rightly so). Sure, I get that we tend to use new technologies in old ways first until we get on top of the new capabilities. However, I also argue that we can short-circuit this process if we look at core affordances.

The followup message was that this was the future of L&D, and we’d get away from slide decks and Zoom calls, and do it all in this virtual world. I deeply desire this not to be true! My take is that slide decks, Zoom, virtual worlds, and more all have a place. It’s a further instance of get the design right first, then figure out how to implement it. I want an ecosystem of resources.

Sure, I get that such a meta verse could be an integrating environment. However, do you really want to do all your work in a virtual world? Some things you can’t, I reckon, machining materials, for instance. Moreover, we have benefits from being out in the world. There are other issues as well. You might be better able to deal with diversity, etc, in a virtual world, but it’ll disadvantage some folks. Better, maybe, to address the structural problems rather than try to cover them over?

As always, my takeaway is use technology to implement better approaches, don’t meld your approaches to your tech. Those are, at least, my meta-reflections. What are yours?

Designing a conference

by Leave a Comment

When I agreed to join as co-director of the Learning & Development Accelerator, I’d already attended their first two conferences. Those had been designed to reflect the circumstances at the time, e.g. the pandemic. In addition, there was a desire on the part of Matt Richter & Will Thalheimer (the original directors) to reflect certain values. Matt and I are running the event again, but times have changed. That means we have to rethink what’s being done. So here’s my thinking about designing a conference.

First, the values Matt and Will started with included being as global as possible, and being virtual. The former was reflected in having presentations given twice, once early in the US day, and then again later. That supported everything from Europe, Africa, and the Mideast to Asia and Australia. The virtual was, at least partly, a reaction to the lack of desire to travel and meet face to face, but also to provide options for those who might struggle.

We’re definitely still focusing on being virtual. Folks who would find it challenging to arrange travel for whatever reason can attend this event. There’s also the environmental considerations. Yes, technology requires resources, but not as much as collective travel. While there’s also a desire to meet different time needs, we’ve found less demand for multiple times. However, we will be recording sessions that are synchronous, so they can be viewed at convenient times. We also are spreading it over six weeks, so that there’s time to consume as much as you want. Further, faculty can choose when they’re offering ;).

The original design was focused on evidence-based L&D (which remains a key guiding principle for the LDA). Matt & Will solicited their presenters based upon their representation, but the agenda was largely what those folks wanted to present. Which, in many ways, reflects what other conferences do. In this new era, we wondered what would make a compelling proposition when you can travel to F2F events. We decided that we wanted to step away from ‘what we get’, and focus on ‘what the audience needs’.

This event, then, has a curriculum, across two tracks, designed to address specific needs. There’s also a different pedagogy than most conferences.We also have specific faculty, rather than presenters based upon submissions. Of course, there are tradeoffs. At least we can share our thinking.

The faculty are folks we know and trust to present evidence-based content. You won’t hear promotion for snake oil, like learning styles. We have a pretty impressive lineup, frankly, of people we think are world-class. This includes folks like Ruth Clark, Mirjam Neelen & Paul Kirschner, Karl Kapp, Julie Dirksen, Kat Koppett, Stella Lee, Nigel Paine, Will Thalheimer, and Thiagi. On top of, of course, Matt and myself. Reality means that a few folks we would’ve liked to have couldn’t commit, but this is a a broad and reputable group.

The tracks are basics and advanced. We want to be able to serve multiple audiences. The intent is that the basic track has the core knowledge an L&D person should know. As best we can, as we negotiate with the faculty, of course. Then, the advanced topics are things that are emergent and need addressing. Of course, there’s no commitment that you have to stay in one or another. As with other conferences, you can pick and choose what to view.

We’re also not just having presentations; we’ve asked the faculty to provide development. That is, we’re intending several rounds of content, activity, and feedback, spread out over several days or weeks. We don’t want people to hear good ideas, and maybe take them back. We want folks to take action! We’re also designing in the opportunity for mentoring.

Of course, there’ll be some social events, and other ways to not only hear content and apply it, but to mingle with faculty and other attendees. We want to foster some community. Also, we’re intending to somewhat front load stuff so that we can adapt. If we hear that we need to do something we haven’t planned, we’re looking to have leeway to address it. The nice thing about being small is the ability to be flexible!

None of this is saying you don’t get much of the same from conferences (except, perhaps, the design). I’ve been on conference program committees, and know conference organizers as well. They typically get more proposals than they can accept, so they can choose a suite that reflect things for various ranges of experience and cover important topics. They may not, however, know all the submitters, and take chances on a few. I laud that, actually, because we can’t know if a new approach or person is worthwhile without experimentation. Still, there is the chance for gaps, and for bad presentations/presenters. They’re also, except for the pre-conference workshops (e.g. my Make It Meaningful one at the upcoming DevLearn), one-off events.

We’re taking a chance on our format, too. We haven’t done it before. It may not work, though we have good reasons to believe it will. So, we hope to see you at the Learning & Development Conference, Oct 10 – Nov 18, if the above thinking about designing a conference sense. We think it does, we hope you do, too.