Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Search Results for: Making it Meaningful

Extreme Times

by 2 Comments

This was originally intended to be one of my Learning Solutions Mag columns (Quinnsights). Sadly, that platform is no longer an option. Guess this  is part of the extreme times! It’s a bit long for my usual posts, but I didn’t want it to go to waste.  

In 2004, I co-wrote a chapter with Eileen Clegg for Marcia Conner & James G. Clawson‘s Creating a Learning Culture book to accompany the event they held on the topic. Eileen‘s husband was doing research on ‘extremophiles‘, organisms that survive in extreme conditions, and we were looking at biomimetic inspiration from those mechanisms. Titled The Agility Factor, I think the lessons we wrote about are all the more important now in these extreme times.

Sure, at this point everyone is touting solutions for working and learning at home. With most of the population under some form of lockdown, there are a lot of prescriptions, to the extent there’s already a backlash! Even I‘ve been guilty. But here I want to talk a bigger scope than just learning. People are worried. Organizations are struggling.

At the time, our commentary was largely reacting to the crash of the internet bubble circa 2001. Times were tough, and organizations were wondering how to cope. Fast forward to 2020, and we‘re in even more dire circumstances. While then we had economic turmoil, now we‘re adding in a lethal disease. Uncertainly abounds. Our employees, our managers, our executives are all scrambling to make sense. And so, I thought it appropriate to revisit those lessons in this new era, and consider the technology/human intersection in these times.

Coping with Extreme Times

One of the main issues that contextualizes this conversation is that different organizations are at different places in their digital transformation. And, as I opined recently, it‘s about getting the culture right first.

It‘s easy to think of organizations that just haven‘t yet started using digital, and are faced with the need to change. They‘re going to struggle. There is a lot of guidance out there, but if you haven‘t got your mind around the technology, or what communication, collaboration, and learning are all about, there‘s more to it.

If you‘ve started with some experimentation, it should be easier. You‘ve tried out some things, and so you‘ve had some technology experience. You may well have tried and failed, but the knowledge from losses should be useful too! That‘s what a learning organization is all about.

Which means that another organization type that will struggle is the one that‘s rigidly hierarchical. One that‘s had all the thinking done up top, and filtered down. They may well have dictated technology practices, but they‘re likely more about making things more efficient. And so, trying to be effective at scale at distance is a different issue.

Instead, the organizations that thrive are those that are continually experimenting, learning, and moving forward. I reckon many folks are wishing they‘d tried out some things already, rather than scrambling. Of course, this is different not just quantitatively, but qualitatively, and that means we‘re going beyond just adaptation. We need to go big in extreme times!

Extremophiles

Across the globe, and presumably the universe, conditions vary from desiccating heat to crippling cold. Environments may have high toxicity owing to chemicals, salt, and more. And, as circumstances change, organisms need to adapt. And yet, life somehow exists in many of these circumstances. How? Through a variety of mechanisms. Not all are unique to extremophiles, but each is used and provides some insight. Here are the suite we talked about:

  • Ionic bonds: while all organisms have proteins connected by ionic bonds, extremophile organisms have more and stronger bonds.
  • Environmental monitoring: here, the organism is in tight coupling with the environment, the better to respond, though sometime the responses are unusual.
  • Heat-shock proteins: special proteins are released under threat to help protect other proteins.
  • Equilibrium: extremophiles can not only attempt to expel any toxicity, certain extremophiles work to neutralize the toxic element internally.
  • Symbiosis: certain organisms create unique relationships that allow them to mutually coexist in extreme conditions.

For each of these there are organizational corollaries that we can consider, and then we can look at how technology and learning & development can help. We need to go beyond the usual and think about how to do these in a big way.

Organizational Equivalents

How do translate these? There are not direct transfers, but inferences we can make. Just as organizations been using inspirations from animals to guide new thinking in products, here we‘re looking at inspirations for how to work together better. What do organisms that adapt to environmental extremes mean for organizations coping in extreme times?

First, strengthening the bonds is about building trust in the organization and believing in the organizational mission. First, of course, it‘s about connecting people, so that they care about one another. And having managers work as coaches, using data to improve folks, not censure them. Then, as Dan Pink, in Drive, helped us know, it‘s about connecting people to purpose. That means an organization has to have a meaningful purpose, one that people feel proud to align with. And everyone in the org needs to understand how their role contributes. Yes, this is all work, but the point is that these organisms invest extra effort to be able to withstand extraordinary conditions.

Environmental monitoring isn‘t new, as most organizations track market trends, competitive analysis, customer sentiment, and more. Here it means going further, with everyone being active in their community of practice and actively monitoring trends in related fields for implications to improve practice. The organization needs to be sensitive to what‘s happening in rich and deep ways. This has to not be done as a special operation, but permeate the organization.

Heat shock proteins suggest a proactive approach to trouble. One form is internal monitoring for problems. Health initiatives in the organization are not just promoting healthy behaviors, but also actively developing the skills to notice and watch out for your fellow employee. It‘s about caring enough to look for signs of struggle and reach out and try to help. In times like this, it‘s more, ensuring that as people face changes, they have support to understand, act differently, and persist until it becomes a new way of doing things.

Equilibrium is an interesting one that suggests taking in new ideas, trying them out, and seeing what they imply. Think “let‘s try it out and see how it‘s re-contextualized here and then what it might mean that we can do better”, not “that‘s not how we do it here”. It‘s about experimentation, and internalizing new ideas. It‘s got to be more than just copying (e.g. best practices), and going beyond to understand the underlying ideas and modifying them to work in this context (e.g. best principles).

Finally, symbiosis implies working with other organizations in a radically more integrated manner. Instead of just consuming things, you look at the practices that were instituted by Toyota. They looked at their supply chain partners and assisted them in becoming more effective and efficient. It‘s about radical cooperation.

L&D Technology Role

So, given that we‘re about eLearning, what‘s the role of technology here? At core, it‘s about communication. It‘s about moving to showing your work, including mistakes and lessons learned (always together).   And there are lots of ways to do this.

One of the most important steps is to have bosses, managers and executives, share their thinking. I know, it seems risky, but it builds trust. If ‘the boss‘ is willing to admit mistakes, it makes the environment feel safe. And that builds those bonds that will help an organization weather tough times.

It also means helping individuals develop active monitoring skills. There are tools that track outside news and filter it for particular interests. Everyone can tailor their own feed. And this is part of building your personal knowledge mastery. Everyone should be looking for new ideas to improve.

The new ideas need, of course, to be coupled with experimentation, such as equilibrium suggests. And this may involve collaboration to make it work. So collaborative tools are important to develop testing plans and evaluate outcomes. Building in an expectation of lessons learned, and having scheduled sharing events for these lessons, is a complement. And, if not digitally moderated, at least capturing and sharing the outcomes for others to learn from.

It‘s important also to support people in these new ways of working. Don‘t just expect them to get it, but build support into and/or around the tools. Don’t just train, but anticipate struggles and build support. And have support for unanticipated struggles! This also includes quick references about what to do when you‘re worried about someone or even yourself. This is the heat-shock approach of preventing breakdowns during the transitions.

And, of course, building a network that includes your partners along the supply chain is the symbiotic approach. It‘s about building a sharing community that can help them be better, and they can do the same for you. It‘s also about collaboration, working together on problems rather than casting blame. This builds bonds with them too!

The L&D role is to facilitate all this communication and collaboration. In extreme times, L&D is part of the solution. Continual learning is required, and building a strong framework for keeping people together to work and learn is critical. We’re increasingly learning that working together is better; bake that into your own operations!

Shallow or Deep

by 1 Comment

I wrote about how I was frustrated with the lack of any decent learning expertise in too many vendors. And, lately I’ve been seeing more orgs making learning claims. Unrelated, of course, because it’s too soon. Still, are things improving? My experience suggests that it’s not yet quite the case. The problem is whether their learning expertise is shallow or deep. And, you can guess where this is going ;).

For one, a number of times I’ve taken down some silly myths based marketing. And, if people are putting out such snake oil, you really shouldn’t be trusting them. If they’re going on about how people are learning differently these days, you should be on notice. Or, rather, they should!

It goes further, however. If a company is posing as learning science informed, and then propagating myths stuff, you should be worried. Yet it seems all too common. After that myths piece, and the post by an ‘authority’ in the field, I came across another. This site talked about brain science, and says they know about ed psych, cognitive research, but also neuroscience. Going deeper, they’re talking Bloom’s Taxonomy, and dopamine.  And that’s not promising.

And the reason this worries me is not propagating myths, but instead it may be misleading about how capable an org really is. Lots of people can talk glibly, tossing around terms like cognitive, and psychology. And some actually do know their stuff. BUT, it takes more than a polished site and shiny patter to mean they really do know their stuff. And if you need real change (and otherwise why spend?), you need real expertise.

So, fair warning. Because they  say they get it, they may not really. Look, the human brain is the most complex thing in the known universe, so whether an org is shallow or deep really matters in delivering meaningful outcomes. If it matters (and it should).

Tools for LXD?

by Leave a Comment

I’ve been thinking on LXD for a while now, not least because I’ve an upcoming workshop at DevLearn in Lost Wages in October. And one of the things I’ve been thinking about are the tools we use for LXD. I’ve created diagrams (such as the Education Engagement Alignment), and quips, but here I’m thinking something else. We know that job aids are helpful; things like checklists, and decision trees, and lookup tables. And I’ve created some aids for the Udemy course on deeper elearning I developed. But here I want to know what  you are using as tools for LXD? How do you use external resources to keep your design on track?

The simple rationale, of course, is that there are things our brains are good at, and things they’re not. We are pattern-matchers and meaning-makers, naturally making up explanations for things that happen. We’re also creative, finding solutions under constraints. Our cognitive architecture is designed to do this; to help us adapt to the first-level world we evolved in.

However, our brains aren’t particularly good at the second-level world we have created. Complex ideas require external representation. We’re bad at remembering rote and arbitrary steps and details. We’re also bad at complex calculations.  This makes the case for tools that help scaffold these gaps in our cognition.

And, in particular, for design. Design tends to involve complex responses, in this case in terms of an experience design. That maps out over content, time, and tools. Consequently, there are opportunities to go awry. Therefore, tools are a plausible adjunct.

You might be using templates for good design. Here, you’d have a draft storyboard, for instance, that insures you’re including a meaningful introduction, causal conceptual model, examples, etc. Or you might have a checklist that details the elements you should be including. You could have a model course that you use as a reference.

My question, to you, is what tools are you using to increase the likelihood of a quality design, and how are they working for you?  I’d like to know what you’ve found helpful as tools for LXD, as I look to create the best support I can. Please share!

Engaging Learning and the Serious eLearning Manifesto

by Leave a Comment

Way back in ’05, my book on games for learning was published. At its core was an alignment between what made an effective education practice and what makes engaging experiences. There were nine elements that characterized why learning should be ‘hard fun’.  More recently, we released the Serious eLearning Manifesto. Here we had eight values that differentiated between ordinary elearning and  serious elearning. So, the open question is how do these two lists match up? What is the alignment between Engaging Learning and the Serious eLearning manifesto?

The elements of the Serious eLearning Manifesto (SeM) are pretty straightforward. They’re listed as:

  • performance focused
  • meaningful to learners
  • engagement driven
  • authentic contexts
  • realistic decisions
  • real-world consequences
  • spaced practice
  • individualized challenges

The alignment (EEA: Effectiveness-Engagement Alignment) I found in Engaging Learning was based upon research I did on designing games for learning. I found elements that were repeated across proposals for effective education practice, and ones that were stipulated for engaging experiences. And I found a perfect overlap. Looking for a resolution between the two lists of elements looks something like:

  • clear goals
  • balanced challenge
  • context for the action
  • meaningful to domain
  • meaningful to learner
  • choice
  • active
  • consequences
  • novelty

And, with a little wordsmithing, I think we find a pretty good overlap!  Obviously, not perfect, because they have different goals, but the important elements of a compelling learning experience emerge.

I could fiddle and suggest that clear goals are aligned to a performance focus, but instead that’s coming from making their learning be meaningful to the domain. I suggest that what really matters to organizations will be the ability to  do, not know.  So, really, the goals are implicit in the SeM; you shouldn’t be designing learning  unless you have some learning goals!

Then, the balanced challenge is similar to the individualized challenge from the SeM. And context maps directly as well. As do consequences. And meaningfulness to learners. All these directly correspond.

Going a little further, I suggest that having choice (or appearance thereof) is important for realistic decisions. There should be alternatives that represent misconceptions about how to act. And, I suggest that the active focus is part of being engaging. Though, so too could novelty be. I’m not looking at multiple mappings but they would make sense as several things would combine to make a performance focus, as well as realistic decisions.

Other than that, on the EEA side the notion of novelty is more for engaging experiences than necessarily specific to serious elearning.  On the SeM side, spaced practice is unique to learning. The notion of a game implies the ability for successful practice, so it’s implicit.

My short take, through this exercise, is to feel confident in both recommendations. We’re talking learning experience design here, and having the learning combine engagement as well is a nice outcome. I note that I’ll be running a Learning Experience Design workshop at DevLearn in October in Las Vegas, where’ll we’ll put these ideas to work. Hope to see you there!

Skating to where L&D needs to be

by 3 Comments

“I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.” – Wayne Gretsky

This quote, over-used to the point of being a cliché, is still relevant. I was just reading Simon Terry’s amusing and insightful  post on ‘best practices’ (against them, of course), and it reminded me of this phrase. He said “Best practices are often racing to where someone used to be”, and that’s critical. And I’ve argued against best practices, and I want to go further.

So he’s right that when we’re invoking best practices, we’re taking what someone’s already done, and trying to emulate it. He argues that they’ve already probably iterated in making it work,  in their org. Also, that by the time you do, they’ve moved on. They may even have abandoned it!  Which isn’t, directly, my complaint.

My argument against best practices is that they worked for them, but their situation’s different. The practice may be antithetical to your culture. And thinking that you can just graft it on is broken. Which is kind of Simon’s point to.    And he’s right that if you do get it working, you find that the time it hass taken means it’s already out of date.

So my suggestion has been to look to best principles:  why  did it work?  Abstract out the underlying principle, and figure out how (or even whether) to instantiate that in your own organization.  You’d want to identify a gap in your way of working, search through possible principles, identify one that matches, and work to implement it.  That makes more sense.  And, of course, it should be a fix that even if it takes time, will be meaningful.

But now I want to go further. I argue for comprehending the affordances of new technology to leapfrog the stage of replicating what was done in the old. Here I’m making a similar sort of argument. What I want orgs to do is to define an optimal situation, and then work to that! Yes, I know it sounds like a fairytale, but I think it’s a defensible approach. Of course, your path there will differ from another’s (there’s no free lunch :), but if you can identify what a good state for your org would be, you can move to it. It involves incorporating many relevant principles in a coherent whole. Then you can strategize the path there from your current content.

The point is to figure out what the  right future is, and skate there, not back-filling the problems you currently have. Beyond individual principles to a coherent whole. Proactive instead of reactive. That seems to make sense to me. Of course, I realize the other old cliché, “when. you’re up to your ass in alligators”, but maybe it’s time to change the game a bit more fundamentally. Maybe you shouldn’t be in the swamp anyway?  I welcome your thoughts!

 

The wisdom of instruction

by Leave a Comment

I was listening in to a webinar on trends in higher education. The speakers had been looking at different higher ed pedagogy models, within and external to institutions. It became clear that there was a significant gap between a focus on meeting corporate needs and the original goals of education. Naturally, it got me to think, and one link was, not surprisingly, wisdom. So what does that mean?

In the ‘code academy’ models that are currently challenging to higher education, there’s very much a ‘career’ focus. That is, they’re equipping students to be ready to take jobs.  Which is understandable, but there’s a gap. A not-for-profit initiative I was involved with wanted to get folks a meaningful job. My point was that I didn’t want them to get a job, I wanted them to  keep a job!  And that means also learning about learning to learn skills, and more. That more is where we make a substantial shift.

The shift I want to think about is not just what corporations need, but what  society needs. The original role of institutions like Oxford and Harvard was to create the next generation leaders of society. That is, to give the philosophical (in the broad sense) and historical perspective to let them do thinking like what delivered the US Constitution (as an example). And there’s plenty of lip service to this, but little impact. For example, look at the success of teaching ethics separately from other business classes…let’s move on.

It seems like there’s several things we need to integrate. As pointed out, treating them separately doesn’t work. So how do we integrate them and make them relevant.  Let’s take Sternberg’s model of Wisdom, where you think about decisions:

  • for the short term  and long term
  • for you, yours,  and society as a whole
  • and also explicitly discuss the value assumptions underpinning the decision.

This gives us a handle. We need to find ways to naturally embed these elements into our tasks. Our tasks need to require 21C skills and understanding the societal context as well.

In my ‘application-based instruction’ model, I talk about giving learners challenges that do require 21 C skills in natural ways. In this model, tasks mimic world tasks, asking for things like presentations, RFPs, problem recommendations, and more.  Then, how do we also include the societal aspects?  I suppose by putting those decisions in situations where there are implications not just for the business but for society.

Ok, it may be too much to layer this on every assignment (major assignment, not the accompanying knowledge check), but it should be covered in every subject (yes, even introductory) in some way. This thinking has already led me to create a question on evaluating policy tradeoffs for the mobile course I’m developing.

We need to keep the societal implications involved. Ensuring that at least a subset of the assignments do that is one approach. Doing so in a natural way requires some extra thinking, but the consequences are better. Particularly if the instructor actually makes a point of it (making a note to myself…).  A separate course doesn’t do it. So let’s get wise, and develop in deeper ways that will deliver better outcomes  in the domain, and for the greater good. Shall we?

Redesigning Learning Design

by 2 Comments

Of late, a lot of my work has been designing learning design. Helping orgs transition their existing design processes to ones that will actually have an impact. That is, someone’s got a learning design process, but they want to improve it. One idea, of course, is to replace it with some validated design process. Another approach, much less disruptive, is to find opportunities to fine tune the design. The idea is to find the minimal set of changes that will yield the maximal benefit. So what are the likely inflection points?  Where am I finding those spots for redesigning?  It’s about good learning.

Starting at the top, one place where organizations go wrong right off the bat is the initial analysis for a course. There’s the ‘give us a course on this’, but even if there’s a decent analysis the process can go awry. Side-stepping the big issue of performance consulting (do a reality check: is this truly a case for a course), we get into working to create the objectives. It’s about how you work with SMEs. Understanding what they can,  and can’t, do well means you have the opportunity to ensure that you get the right objectives to design to.

From there, the most meaningful and valuable step is to focus on the practice. What are you having learners  do, and how can you change that?  Helping your designers switch to good  assessment writing is going to be useful. It’s nuanced, so the questions don’t  seem that different from typical ones, but they’re much more focused for success.

Of course, to support good application of the content to develop abilities, you need the right content!  Again, getting designers to understand what the nuances of useful examples from just stories isn’t hard but rarely done. Similarly knowing why you want  models and not just presentations about the concept isn’t fully realized.

Of course, making it an emotionally compelling experience has learning impact as well. Yet too often we see the elements just juxtaposed instead of integrated. There  are systematic ways to align the engagement and the learning, but they’re not understood.

A final note is knowing when to have someone work alone, and when some collaboration will help.  It’s not a lot, but unless it happens at the right time (or happens at all) can have a valuable contribution to the quality of the outcome.

I’ve provided many resources about better learning design, from my 7 step program white paper  to  my deeper elearning series for Learnnovators.  And I’ve a white paper about redesigning as well. And, of course, if you’re interested in doing this organizationally, I’d welcome hearing from you!

One other resource will be my upcoming workshop at the Learning Solutions conference on March 25 in Orlando, where we’ll spend a day working on learning experience design, integrating engagement and learning science.  Of course, you’ll be responsible for taking the learnings back to your learning process, but you’ll have the ammunition for redesigning.  I’d welcome seeing you there!

Bringing Transformation to Life

by 1 Comment

I’m going to be delivering a mobile learning course for a university this spring. Consequently, I’m currently beginning the design. I need to practice what I preach in the sense of good learning design, so I’m working through the usual decisions. The real question I have is whether I can make it transformative. There are limitations, but one of my mantras is about design having many possible development forms. So…I’ve got to make a good stab at it. Here’s my preliminary thinking on bringing the course to life.

I’ve actually been working a lot on the design of university learning experiences. There have been several instances in the past year or two that have really pushed my thinking in this space. This naturally includes  application-based instruction, as well as meaningful (and minimal)  content, and good assessment design. It’s been handy for this!

Naturally,  Designing mLearning  will be the text (The Mobile Academy is focused on formal education, and these students are focused on the workplace).  As it turns out, the book isn’t written in the order I want to deliver the course. So while I’ll have specific readings each week, I’ll instead recommend that the students read it in one go (it’s not a  long book), and that two different cuts through the material will be a better learning experience.

I’m also thinking about the assignments: having them do meaningful things. E.g. designing solutions. Also, in the right order, to facilitate useful processing. I suppose I should worry about whether the workload will be too much However, as it’s a compressed course the expectations per week are higher. And I will argue that I’m having them  do more than  consume, so the workload’s ok.

The important thing, to me, is getting the emotional trajectory right. I reckon I need an aspirational goal up front, and then ensure I deliver.  It needs to work on a week-by-week basis  and overall.  I’m making sure they’re doing the right things, and then I’ll fine-tune. I like the chance to integrate my thinking and put a stake in the ground. It’ll be interesting to see how it goes.

As a side note, mobile seems (to me) to be resurrecting. I would think it’s now mainstream, but some folks are still getting started. Hey, it makes sense, so better late than never! Where are you in mobile?

Application-based Instruction

by 2 Comments

A number of years ago, I wrote about activity-based learning.  And I firmly stand behind the model there. It’s not a major campaign, but quietly permeates the things that I do. However, I realize that there’re two misnomers in the label, and it’s time to rectify that. It’s about instruction, and it’s about application. I need to make those distinctions clear.

The original point was to find a way to make it hard for content  (read: info dump and knowledge test) to be the basis of curricula. So, instead of a series of content, or knowledge, to be a curriculum,    a curriculum is a series of activities.

There are, of course, specific constraints around the activities, and I realize it’s about knowledge  application. There are lots of activities that  aren’t going to lead to meaningful learning. The key is retrieval, but I think what’s important is retrieval  to do something. Hence application, applying knowledge to make decisions. It can be behavioral decisions or the decisions inherent in creating meaningful work product, but it’s about cognitive skills in context.

The focus on decisions is because I believe what will make the difference to organizations is making right, or better, decisions. Not, for instance, just knowing things. And part of the application core is about doing things.

I argue that learning is acton and reflection. And, consequently, instruction is designed action and guided reflection. Similarly, application is designed actions to require decisions. And this  is about instruction. It’s not learning, though that’s the goal. But instruction is a probabilistic game; as I’ve paraphrased Dorothy Parker, you can lead learners to learning, but you can’t make them think.

‘Application-based instruction’ it is. It’s like problem-based learning, or case-based, but it’s instruction not learning, and it’s an umbrella for those and other such initiatives. The real question is whether this labeling makes important distinctions. I think it does, but I’m biased. What do  you say?

Constraints on activities

by 2 Comments

When we design learning activities (per the activity-based learning model), ideally we’re looking to create an integration of a number of constraints around that assignment. I was looking to enumerate them, and (of course) I tried diagramming it.  Thought I’d share the first draft, and I welcome feedback!

Multiple constraints on assignmentsThe goal is an assignment that includes the right type of processing. This must align with what they need to be able to do after the learning experience. Whether at work or in a subsequent class. Of course, that’s factored into the objective for this learning activity (which is part of an overall sequence of learning).

Another constraint is making sure the setting is a context that helps establish the breadth of transfer. The choice should be sufficiently different from contexts seen in examples and other practices to facilitate abstracting the essential elements. And, of course, it’s ideally in the form of a story that the learner’s actions are contributing to (read: resolve). The right level of exaggeration could play an (unrepresented) role in that story.

We also need the challenge in the activity to be in the right range of difficulty for the learner. This is the integration of flow and learning to create meaningful engagement.  And we want to include ways in which learners typically go wrong (read: misconceptions). Learners need to be able to make the mistakes here so we’re trapping and addressing them in the learning situation, not when it could matter.

Finally, we want to make sure there’s enough variation across tasks. While some similarities benefit for both consistency and addressing the objective, variety can maintain interest. We need to strike that balance. Similarly, look at the overall workload: how much are we expecting, and is that appropriate given the other constraints outside this learning goal.

I think you can see that successfully integrating these is non-trivial, and I haven’t even gotten into how to evaluate this, particularly to make it a part of an overall assessment. Yet, we know that multiple constraints help make the design easier (at least until you constrain yourself to an empty solution set ;).  This is probably still a mix of art and science, but by being explicit you’re less likely to miss an element.

We want to align activities with the desired outcome, in the full context.  So, what am I missing?  Does this make sense?