Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

More Marketing Myths

by 1 Comment

The other day a tweet caught my eye that used a myth to get you to click a link. Worse, clicking the link led to another myth. These are folks I think are generally good, and it seems that their actual offering made sense, but the approach does not. It’s just more marketing myths, drawing upon common misconstruals, and that’s not a good thing. I think it’s worth calling out.

It’s like the claim that we’ve dropped to the ‘attention span of a goldfish’ to argue for shorter ads, learning, etc. That, of course, was a misinterpretation of data, with only a couple of implausibilities. First,  how  do you measure the attention span of a goldfish? More importantly, how would we evolutionarily change our cognitive architecture in the span of a few years? Er, no. Attention’s complex, and the argument is spurious. (Ever disappear into a novel/game/book and surface several hours later wondering where the time went? Yeah, that.)

In this case, they were supporting a proposition that makes sense. Instead of just having a research report, they’re suggesting a summary video. Yep, having a dynamic visual presentation of data is a supportable argument. As Jill Larkin & Herb Simon argued in their Cognitive Science  article,  Why A Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words, it’s about mapping conceptual relationships to spatial relationships to allow our strong spatial processing to assist.

What was wrong was that the lead-in in the tweet was saying “65% of the population are visual learners.” Er, no. That’s the learning styles myth. First, there aren’t reliable instruments. Further, people change depending on what’s to be learned, why, where, when, and more.   We learn visually, and auditorily, and kinesthetically, and… Suggesting that we know how many people are a type of learner is basically wrong.

They went on to say “..enhances knowledge delivery by catering to how people want to learn.” There’s research to say that’s not a good basis, either. The relationship between people’s preferences and what’s effective is pretty close to zero.

It gets worse. When I clicked on the link, it took me to this claim: “Studies show that people remember…10% of what they hear, 20% of what they read, 80% of what they see and do”. Nope. That’s the Dale’s Cone myth, and that’s been shown to be made up. You should indeed remember more of what you do, but reading is seeing, and depending on context, hearing might be best, and…This is even worse, conflating seeing and doing. Dale never added numbers, and the numbers just aren’t plausible anyways, being too perfect.

So, really, three myths for the price of two. It’s more marketing myths in service of selling you things. The most important part is that you don’t need to do this! There are perfectly good, comprehensible ways to push this message without relying on myths. Please, be wary, be leery, be a skeptical consumer. Caveat emptor!

Wanna talk meaning, learning science, and more…?

by Leave a Comment

The L&D conference, starting today, has a wide variety of things going on. I’m actually impressed, because in addition to the asynchronous and synchronous sessions I knew about, there are a number of other things going on. Including things I’m in. So, do you wanna talk meaning, learning science, and more…? Here’s when and how.

In addition to the presenters who have prepared asynchronous learning experiences, and the live presentations by the same and others, there are other things going on. There are panels on, for instance, on diversity & inclusion, state of learning, learning technology, women in learning, as just a few. There are also debates on games, evaluation, to e- or not to e-, at least. Lots of interesting topics. But wait, there’s more!

There are also networking sessions, a quiz show, roundtable breakouts, breakfast/cocktail (depending on timezone) networking, … There are also some interviews with prominent folks, both specifically for the conference and some legacy ones courtesy of Guy Wallace (HPT guru). And there’s either or both of more I don’t know about, and more to come.

A special mention for the CrowdThinking project, in collaboration with IBSTPI. My colleague, Fernando Senior, will be leading an event to understand the current and anticipated requirements for L&D roles. And there’s a survey you’re requested to fill out regardless of whether you’re attending the conference. Please help!

As for me, first, my asynchronous session is on Learning Science 101. I’ve created some short videos that talk about, and illustrate, a number of things our cognitive architecture has to account for. And, hint hint, it presages something hopefully to be announced soon.

My synchronous sessions (two different times; they’re making a serious effort to reach out globally) are 3PM ET (noon PT) Wed July 1, and 11AM ET (8AM PT) on July 8. Here, I’ll be talking about what I think is a huge missed opportunity and addressable (tho’ not simple) element of our learning design. I’ll also be part of the panel on learning science (The State of Learning) 8AM PT July 9 and 11 AM PT July 17. And, a reprise of the great debate on evaluating learning or impact (4PM PT 25 June).

And, importantly, I’ll be holding some office hours where we can truly talk about learning science, meaningfulness, and more! So will the other presenters. (They’re still to be set; I’ll update here when I know!)

Of course, there is a host of other really great speakers. Have a look at this lineup! Also, guests for a variety of things will include people like Charles Jennings & Jos Arets, Paul Kirschner, and many many more. Most of the live sessions have two times, so there’s a good chance you can catch them sometime. And there’s no overlap (so far ;), but things going on every day.

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

As you can probably infer, I’m interested in this. It’s not surprising, but most online events have mimicked face-to-face events. Webinars, basically. Here there’s more going on. I don’t expect all of it to work (though it all sounds good), but I love that they’re experimenting to find ways to go beyond. We’ll all learn from this initiative. Hope to see you there if you wanna talk meaning, learning science, and more…

 

Getting Wiser

by Leave a Comment

I’ve been interested in wisdom as a stretch goal. That is, if what I (and, ideally, we) do is help people become smarter, could we go further? Could we help people get wiser? Let’s be clear, I am not claiming that I am wise. Rather, thinking about what wisdom is and trying to be wise would be more accurate ;). It’s led me to look at wisdom quietly, as a background task. And, two recent articles provide a little insight about getting wiser.

The University of Chicago established the Center for Practical Wisdom, which I think is a neat idea. And I receive their newsletter. And in this latest edition were two articles which resonated. They tackle different subjects, and they’re not perfect, but there were take-home messages in each.

In the first, they talk about how wisdom can be useful in trying times like these. This quote is worthwhile:

Could the gift of COVID-19 be that we are traumatized enough that we are finally willing to make long-lasting systemic and personal changes in race relations, inequality, and other ways we deal with one another and ourselves?

And there is a list of characteristics of wise people (my abridged list):

  • do not hyper-focus on the negative and all that is wrong
  • are pragmatic and work constructively for positive change
  • are measured
  • are open and receptive
  • are kind

Not a bad list, I reckon. In general. I like a closing line as well: “Evolution is mutuality.” Can we make changes?

The other talks a bit more philosophically about different approaches to life. My key quote here is:

No matter where I went on planet earth, all of the cultures I interacted with revered contentment as one of the highest states to cultivate in life.

That is, except the ‘west’. It’s claimed that we (er, the western world in general) focus on happiness, and there may be an alternative. That alternative is to aim to be ‘content’. In other words, instead of the ‘more’ strategy (acquiring more = happiness), the alternative is the ‘enough’ strategy. What’s enough to be content?

Not all’s perfect. The first recommended step is mindfulness, which is controversial. But the second, about identifying your contingencies (e.g. “when I know I can retire, then I’ll be happy”) seems relevant. Those sorts of goals can be harmful if they’ve got you on a continual treadmill doomed to dissatisfaction. The last step is to accept all emotions, and being safe to have emotions, without being controlled by them, helps.

I’m not anointing these as the end-all wisdom. Nope, they’re just part of the continual fodder that I process on my path to doing better. Yet, I do think we can be better as a society if we recognize that our approaches have alternatives and we consciously consider them. How we bake them into learning I’m still not sure, but for me it’s all part of getting wiser.

On Diversity and Safety

by Leave a Comment

I normally don‘t speak on this blog outside of my focus on learning. That’s for other platforms. However, I can’t help notice; deaths, protests, abuse. And while I wrestle with what to say, I can’t in good conscious say nothing. And there is a connection: diversity and safety.

I tout the evidence that diversity and safety are critical to the best outcomes, and that‘s true beyond the workplace. It‘s true for society as a whole. And yet, it’s been clear that people of color don’t see the same safety that others do and can’t contribute equally. That. Is. Wrong. And the evidence is becoming all the more visible. It’s past time to address this.

On principle, everyone should be entitled to equal rights. Not only was it the premise upon which my home country was founded, it makes sense on philosophical and scientific grounds. So I’m on the side of fixing things. Black Lives Matter.   That’s what we need to address. Systemically. Thoroughly. When there’s an equal playing field, when we value diversity and safety for all, our world will be better for it.

One other thing consistent with my area of expertise is that learning is part of the solution. Here are links to three things I came across and found relevant to the situation at hand:

Emmanuel Acho’s first Uncomfortable Conversations with a Black Man

Sir Robert Peel’s Principles of Policing

The 8 “can’t wait” research-based policies to reduce deaths

Talking meaningful learning

by Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

Making learning meaningful?

by 5 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Where are we going most wrong…

by 4 Comments

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

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

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

Note that they might be two completely different things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

NOT Learning Engineering

by 2 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Experimenting with conference design

by 2 Comments

As part of coping in this time of upheaval, I’m trying different things. Which isn’t new, but there seem to be more innovations to tap into. In addition to teaching a course on mobile learning, I’m one of the speakers at a new online event. And, what’s nice, is that they’re experimenting with conference design, not just moving straight online.

To be fair, the Learning Guild has had a continual practice of trying different things at their conferences, and it’s been good. And, so too, was the most recent TK by ATD.   But this is different. Two of my colleagues organized it as a response to our ‘new normal’, Will Thalheimer and Matt Richter. And their stated goal is changing the way we conference.

The key, of course, is to leverage what’s different, and possible, online. It’s running from June 22 – July 31. That’s not a typo, it’s all of July and the tail end of June. That’s a long time!   They’ve recruited a suite of experts from around the world (they’re really trying to do this across boundaries include time and geography). And, to let you know, I’m one (so take my comments with the appropriate caveats ;).

They’re also tossing out traditional ideas and open to new ones. Speakers are expected to build an experience that’s spread out over the time. Yet also designed so that you can come in late, or early, and drill into what you want when you want. They’re also planing on having synchronous events – debates, panels, socializing – again using technology.

Note that it’s not free. There are some free conferences being put on, mostly webinars. And those are good. This is different. It’s deeper. It’s a stab at looking afresh. And I’m not sure it could even have come from any existing framework.

And, we won’t know if it all will work. We’re designing this in the time between now and launch. There’re bound to be hiccups. Which, of course, means there’re bound to be learnings. I know I want to talk about Learning Science 101. And something else. Lots I could (I welcome suggestions). I’m inclined to think it might be Emotion and Learning. But it could also be LXD. (There are all linked, of course.)

But it’s a high quality group (er, mostly…they did let me in). AND, importantly, it’s focused on evidence-based content. There may be sponsors, or even an exhibit hall, but every presenter is honor-bound not to push anything that’s not legit. Most importantly, there’s enough quality that overall it’s bound to be worth it.

I’m excited, frankly. I have to come up with some different ideas. And I like that. I’m glad that they’re experimenting with conference design. We all win, regardless! It’s part of learning, challenging yourself. So, do yourself a favor. Check it out. It may not be for you, but keep an open mind!

 

 

Will we still need L&D?

by Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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