Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Search Results for: engag

Pre-order for Make It Meaningful now available

by 3 Comments

I’m happy to report that the ebook version of my next tome, Make It Meaningful: Taking Learning Design From Instructional to Transformational, is now available for pre-order! Why should you care?  Here’s a pass at explaining, and you can decide whether a pre-order for Make It Meaningful  makes sense for you.

Why this book?

Here’s the marketing blurb:

Learning Experience Design is, as author Clark Quinn puts it, about “the elegant integration of learning science with engagement”. While there are increasing resources available on the learning science side, the other side is somewhat neglected. Having written one of the books on the learning science side, Clark has undertaken to write the other half. The book is grounded in his early experience writing learning games, then researching cognition and engagement, and ongoing exploration and application of learning, technology, and design to creating solutions and strategies. It covers the underlying principles including surprise, story, and emotion and pulls them together to create a coherent approach. The book also covers not just the principles, but the implications for both learning elements and a design process. With concise prose and concrete examples, this book provides the framework to take your learning experience designs from instructional to transformational!

I hope that suggests why I think it’s important. Further, here are the short versions of what some early readers had to say:

“…the right emotional engagement tactics can be effective, desirable difficulties. The book explains why and how, with good examples.”
Patti Shank, PhD Author of Write Better Multiple-Choice Questions to Assess Learning

“… the notion of engagement, and its true meaning, is like the mysterious fifth element waiting to be discovered and summoned through three words in this book: Make. It. Meaningful.”
Zsolt Olah, Senior Learning Technologist, Amazon

“…systematically reveals the secret sauce for creating impactful learning experiences…brings to light the missing emotional design dimension that separates instructional design from LXD. Highly recommended..!”
Les Howles, Co-Author, Designing the Online Learning Experience

“As a fan of Clark Quinn‘s books, I‘m happy to announce this is another winner. Make It Meaningful closes a gaping hole in instructional design models by showing how to address the emotions in learning design.”
Connie Malamed, Publisher of theelearningcoach.com

Going a wee bit further…

What’s included

There are two sections, the first on principles, the second on practice. Initially I cover a bit of basics about learning, how to ‘hook’ people, then how to extend the experience, and some tips and tricks. In the subsequent section I consider the implications for the different elements of learning design: introduction, concepts, examples, practice, and closing, and then the amendments to your design process to incorporate the necessary elements. Thus, I’m trying to be thorough.

Who this is for

This is a book for those who already know the basics of science-grounded design, and are looking to take their learning experience design to the next level. It’s about addressing the emotional side. To be sure, it  also  makes mention of the cognitive essentials, but it is first and foremost focused on the emotional side.

What else should you know?

This is the first offering from the Learning Development Accelerator (LDA)  offshoot, LDA Press. (Note: as Editor-In-Chief, I’m biased.) In my own words:

LDA Press, an imprint of the Learning & Development Accelerator, is a boutique publisher focusing on evidence-informed titles that fill needed gaps in the literature while offering authors the relationship they deserve.

Hopefully, my experience with publishers (as author and consultant), is a good start. Then, the rigor of academic training in writing and reading should provide a reasonable expectation of quality. Additionally, I’m also looking to make the prose comprehensible. Finally, we’ve engaged professional copy-editing. We’ll see how that plays out, but so far it’s seems like we’re on track. Also, we’re actively soliciting additional needed works.

A further point: we’re keeping costs low. Thus, print copies of Meaningful  will be 22.99 (discount for LDA members), and the ebook is only $10.99 (also a discount for LDA members), plus there’s a special discount for pre-orders! The book releases 16 May, both ebook and print, but the latter may take awhile since orders will only be available on that date.

I think this book is needed, and immodestly believe it’s one that I am capable to write. At any rate, now you know you can make a pre-order for Make It Meaningful. Whether that makes sense for you is something only you can determine.  We now return you to your regularly scheduled blog…

 

Sensitivities and Sensibilities

by 2 Comments

We are currently experiencing a crisis of communication. While this is true of our nation and arguably the world, it‘s also true in our little world of L&D. Recently, there have been at least four different ‘spats‘ about things. While I don‘t want to address the specifics of any of them, what I do want to do is talk about how we engage. So here‘s a post on sensitivities and sensibilities.

First, let me be clear, I‘ve some social issues. I‘m an introvert, and also miss social cues. I also have a bad habit of speaking before I‘ve done the knowledge-check: is this true, kind, and necessary? Subtlety and diplomacies aren‘t my strong suit. I continue to be a work in progress. Still, I never intentionally hurt anyone, at least not anyone who hasn‘t demonstrated a reliable propensity to violate norms that I feel are minimum. I continue to try to refine my responses.

There are two issues, to me: what we should say, and how we should say it. For instance, I think when someone says something wrong, we need to educate. Initially, we need to evaluate the reason. It could be that they don‘t know any better. Or it could be that they‘re deliberately trying to mislead.  

Let‘s also realize we‘re emotional animals. If I‘m attacked, for instance, I’m likely to blame myself, even when it’s wrongly. Others are highly unlikely to wear blame, and lash out. We are affected by our current context; we are more critical if we‘re tired or otherwise upset, and on the reverse are more tolerant if rested and content.  

I‘m also aware that we have no insight into where someone‘s coming from. We can guess, but we really don‘t know. I really learned this when I was suffering from a pinched nerve in my back; I have more sympathy now since I‘ve come to recognize I don‘t know what anyone else is living with.

So, I‘m trying to come up with some principles about how to respond. For instance, when I write posts about things I think are misguided or misleading, I call out the problems, but not the person, e.g. I don‘t link to the post. I‘m not trying to shame anyone, and instead want to educate the market. I think this is a general principle of feedback: don‘t attack the person, attack the behavior.  

Also, if you‘re concerned about something, ask first. Assume good intentions. How you ask matters as well. The same principle above applies: ask about the behavior. I’m  impressed with those who worry about the asker. If the ask seems a bit harsh, they wonder whether the asker might be struggling. That‘s a very thoughtful response.  

There‘s a caveat on all this: if folks continue to promote something that‘s demonstrably wrong, after notification, they should get called out. Here in the US, the first amendment says we can say whatever, but it doesn‘t say we don‘t have any consequences from what we say. (You can‘t yell ‘fire‘ in a crowded theatre if there isn‘t one!) Similarly, if you continue to promote, say, a debunked personality test, you can be called out. ;)

So this is my first draft on sensitivities and sensibilities. Assume good intent. Ask first. Educate the individual and the market. Don‘t attack the person, but the behavior. I‘m sure I‘m missing situations, conditions, additional constraints, etc. Let me know.  

Learning or Performance Strategy

by 1 Comment

Of late, I’m working in a couple of engagements where the issue of learning and performance strategy have come up. It has prompted some thoughts both on my part and the part of my clients. I think it’s worth laying out some of the issues and thinking, and of course I welcome your thoughts. So here are some reflections on whether to use learning or performance strategy as an organizing concept.

In one case, an organization decreed that they needed a learning strategy. Taken with my backwards design diagram  from the learning science book, I was tasked with determining what that means. In this case, the audience can’t be mandated with classes or tutorials. So really, the only options are to support performance in the moment and develop them over time. Thus we focus on job aids and examples. I think of it as a ‘performance strategy’, not a learning one.

In the other case, an organization is executing on a shift from a training philosophy to a performance focus. Which of course I laud, but the powers-that-be expect it to yield less training without much other change. Here I’m pushing for performance support, and the thinking is largely welcome. However, it’s a mindset shift for a group that previous was developing training.

I general, I support thinking that goes beyond the course, and for the optimal execution side of a full ecosystem, you want to look at outcomes and let that drive you. It includes performance consulting, so you’re applying the  right solution to performance gaps, not the convenient one (read: ‘courses’ ;). Thus, I think it makes more sense to talk performance strategy than learning one.

Even then, the question becomes what does such a strategy really entail, whether learning  or performance. Really, it’s about having a plan in place to systematically prioritize needs and address them in effective ways. It’s not  just design processes that reflect evidence-informed principles, though it includes that. It’s also, however, ways to identify and track problems, attach organizational costs and solution costs, and choose where to invest resources. It includes front-end analysis, but also ongoing-monitoring.

It also involves other elements. For one, the technology to hand; what solutions are in use and ensuring a process of ongoing reviews. This includes both formal learning tools including the LMS and LXP, but also informal learning tools such as social media platforms and collaborative documents. Another issue is management: lifecycle monitoring, ownership, and costs.

There’s a lot that goes into it, but being strategic about your approach keeps you from just being tactical and missing the forest for the trees. A lot of L&D is reactive, and I am suggesting that L&D needs to be come proactive. This includes going from courses to performance, as a first step. The next step is to facilitating informal learning and driving innovation in the organization. Associated elements include meaningful measurement  and truly understanding how we learn for a firm basis upon which to ground both formal  and informal learning. Those are my thoughts a learning or performance strategy, what am I missing?

Reflecting (on 2021)

by Leave a Comment

I don’t think I’ve made a habit of it, but it occurs to me that it might be good to reflect a little on this past year. In particular, I want to revisit the areas I’ve been focusing on. There’ve been some emergent themes, and it’s worth it (to me, at least ;) to think a bit more about them. So here’s what I’m thinking about while reflecting on 2021.

Obviously, the cognitive and learning sciences have been a theme. The publication of my book on  learning science this year was a catalyst, as you might expect. In it, I covered not only the basics, but some of the extended areas. These extended areas include thinking about situated learning and the importance of context, distributed cognition and the use of external representations, and an area new for me, embodied cognition including gesture and motion. Annie Murphy Paul’s  The  Extended Mind covers these nicely.

Another topic is talking about engagement (including four posts on the topic, starting here). Which I view as the complement to the learning science side. I think of learning experience design as the elegant integration of learning science and engagement, and am continually working to create a definitive approach to the latter as I’ve done with the former. (Stay tuned.)

Coping with change is another recurrent theme. As we are facing increasing chaos, the ability of organizations to adapt requires innovation. Which, really, is a form of learning. I argue further that it’s an area L&D  should be engaged in. Agility will be a critical differentiator for organizations, and it’s an opportunity to be more central to organizational success.

I’ve also been on about how the transformation organizations need shouldn’t start with digital. I think this is an increasingly important realization in this era of change. To be successful, organizations need to work in coherence with how their people think, work, and learn. If you get that right, digitization can facilitate outcomes. However, if you digitize some of the old approaches that are holdovers from prior eras, you can limit the effectiveness of the investments.

Reviewing my past year’s posts, there’s a mix of other topics. I’ve continued my usual ‘takedowns’ of myths, shared thoughts on education, and unpacking nuances of learning design. A mixed bag, but then this blog is about my various ideas. So that’s my current reflections.

Take note, there will be some changes to announce come the new year. Until then, please have a safe and happy holiday season, and best wishes for the new year.

 

Relevant and anchored

by 3 Comments

In reviewing my forthcoming book on Make It Meaningful, I’m poring over my Education -Engagment Alignment (EEA). I’m rewriting part to revisit it. Which I’ve done, but in doing so I had a revelation. I’ve maintained that they’re independent elements. However, I now see Relevant and Anchored as complementary components.

‘Anchored’, in my terminology, is ensuring the learning outcome meets a real need. It’s about the relationship between the learning objective and the performance gap. If you’re trying to get better at something, for instance, the objective is specifically related. If you’re learning about dealing with customer objections, you’ve got a specific objective to use a particular approach. It is not  ‘understand’ but ‘do’. You’re not anchoring if your root cause of the performance gap isn’t a lack of skill. If the learning covers information that’s ‘nice to know’, you’re not anchored. This is determined, by the way, by a performance consulting process.

‘Relevant’, again the way I term it, is about whether the learner  cares about that learning objective. If learners don’t care about being a repair tech, having an objective about the problem-solving process can’t matter. This is something we should design into the experience. That is, we should be helping learners ‘get’ that the consequences of acquiring this skill matter to them. We can use curiosity, or consequences, or…but we should  not leave it to chance!

Using the usual present/absent two-factor diagram, it looks like this:

That is, if you have neither the effort is worthless. Which is like a lot of what we see! When you’re anchoring, but not being relevant, the solution is likely to be moderately effective (tho’ not as much as it could be). People stay away if possible! If it’s relevant but not anchored, it’ll be engaging, but not effective and not meaningful. This is the typical tarted up stuff, aka well-produced but not well-designed and produced. However, if you get both in there, you’ve truly made it meaningful.

I suggest you want relevant  and anchored. If we’re putting in the effort, we should be aligning both. I suggest LXD means the elegant integration of learning science with engagement. It sticks better!  We know how to do this, reliably and repeatedly. Our learning doesn’t have to be dull nor ineffective, and we owe our learners this.

Quip: Systematic Creativity

by Leave a Comment

I’ve documented some  quips in the past, but apparently not this one yet. Prompted by a nice article by Connie Malamed on creativity, I’m reminded of a saying, and the underlying thinking. Here’s both the quip and some more on systematic creativity. First, the quip:

Systematic creativity is  not an oxymoron!

In her article, Connie talks about what creativity is, why it’s important, and then about steps you can take to increase it. I want to dig a wee bit further into the cognitive and formal aspects of this to backstop her points. (Also, of course, to make the point that a cognitive perspective provides important insight.)

As background, I’ve been focused on creating learning experiences. This naturally includes cognition as the basis for learning, experiences,  and design. So I’ve taken eclectic investigations on all three. For instruction, I continue to track for insights from behavioral, social, cognitive, post-cognitive, even  machine learning. On the engagement side, I continue to explore games, drama, fiction, UI/UX, roleplay, ‘flow’, and more. Similarly, for design my explorations include architecture, software engineering, graphic, product, information, and more.

One of the interesting areas comes from computer science, searching through problem-spaces for solutions. If we think of the solution set as a space, some solutions are better than others. It may not be a smooth continuum, but instead we might have local maxima that are ‘ok’, but there’s another elsewhere that’s better. If we are too lax in our search, we might only find the local maxima. However, there are ways to increase the chances of exploring a broader space, making a more global search. (Of course, this can be multidimensional.)

Practically, this includes several possibilities. For one, having a diverse team increases the likelihood that we’ll be exploring more broadly. (On the flip side, having folks who all think alike mean all but one are redundant. ;). For another, brainstorming properly keeps the group from prematurely converging. We can use lateral random prompts to push us to other areas. And so on. I wrote a series of four posts about design that included a suite of heuristics to increase the likelihood of finding a good solution. Connie’s suggestions do likewise.

I also suppose this is a mental model that we can use to help think about designing. Mental models are bases for predictions and decisions. In this case, having the mental model can assist in thinking through practices that are liable to generate better design practices. How do we keep from staying localized? How do we explore the solution space in a manner that goes broad, but not exhaustively (in general, we’re designing under time and cost constraints).

Creativity is the flip side of innovation. It takes the former to successfully execute on the latter. It’s a probabilistic game, but we can increase our odds by certain practices that emerge from research, theory, and practice. We also want to include emotion in the picture as well, in our design practices as well as in our solutions. When we do, we’re more likely to explore the space effectively, and increase our chances for the best solution. That’s a worthwhile endeavor, I’ll suggest. What are your systematic creativity approaches?

 

 

 

Where’s Clark This Time?

by Leave a Comment

Already this year I’ve done, in addition to podcasts and webinars, The L&D Conference, ATD ICE, and DevLearn. What else? Coming up before the end of the year are a couple more things. So here’s “where’s Clark this time?”.

  • First up is the ATD Core 4 conference in Nashville Nov 15 & 16. There’s a real all star lineup in the concurrent sessions. I’ll be speaking on learning science, of course. This event is in person (with masks).
  • I’m also part of the Symposium on the Economics of Ignorance on 30 November. I’ll be talking about myths here with Matt Richter, but the overall premise is interesting in several ways. One is considering what ignorance costs us!  The other is the approach of interviewing experts to to generate actionable ideas. Virtual.
  • Then, on 1 Dec, I’ll be starting my ‘Make It Meaningful’ workshop with the Learning Development Accelerator. I think this is the missing element in our design, and I’ve spent the past 1.5 year getting it designed. (Or the past 40, if you consider my work understanding engagement from when my career got started by designing learning games!). Emotions matter in learning, and we can systematically take our learning from didactic to transformational. Online.
  • Finally, I’ll be the opening keynote for ATD’s Japan Summit  Dec 6-10, talking about new cognition and organizational implications. Virtual, at least for me!

Those are the biggies, there’s at least one more webinar on the calendar this year too. All but Core 4 are virtual, so it’s easy to attend (though the timing of the Japan Summit will be awkward!). If you’ll be at any of these, say ‘hi’! (I’m an introvert and a ham; I may appear social when presenting, but normally I’m not aloof, just shy. At least until I get to know you. ;) So the answer to “Where’s Clark this time” is online and in person.

Levels of Organizational Alignment

by Leave a Comment

Several years ago, I was pushing the notion of the Coherent Organization. While I still feel it’s relevant, perhaps the time wasn’t right or I wasn’t convincing enough. However, as I continue to consider the issue of alignment of what we do in L&D (and organizational) practices, I realize there’s more. One way, then, to think about the coherent organization is as achieving levels of organizational alignment.

Starting from the top, I think of the alignment with the organization and society. Normally, and probably most importantly for survival, organizations need to think about alignment with their market. (In appropriate ways; I’m reminded how the freight business got upended when companies thought they were in the train business and not the transportation business.) However, there  is a level above the market, and that is whether the org is serving the market in a society-appropriate way. For instance, if you’re helping your customers rip off their clients, it may be lucrative but it’s not a scrutable way to do business. I like the notion of benefit corporations  (though they may not go far enough). Don’t do well by doing ill.

Which is the next level of alignment, of employees with the organization’s mission. They’ll be more engaged if that mission is appropriate!  Further, I like the notion of ’employee experience’. I’ve heard it said that you can’t have a good customer experience if you don’t have a good employee experience. That’s plausible. I think Dan Pink’s  Drive says it well, you want your employees to have Mastery, Autonomy, and Purpose. Which means having a clear raison d’être, goals and the freedom to pursue them, and support to succeed.

Accompanying that is a workplace culture that’s supportive of success. I like Jerry Michalski’s focus on trust; start from there. Then have transparency, e.g. ‘show your work’ and ‘learn out loud‘. I’m also a fan of the Learning Organization Dimensions of Garvin, Edmondson, & Gino. I like how Amy Edmondson has gone on to advocate for including both safety and accountability as complementary components of success.

Of course, this carries down to the individual level. For instance, including a focus on having performers prepared up front and developed over time. This includes a shift to coaching and mentoring, as well as learning experience design grounded in the sciences of learning and engagement.  Going further, we should havie people not just knowing their purpose but getting feedback on how they‘re doing to achieve it. Recognition matters, with positive recognition of accomplishment or support to improve. Against an objective metric, of course, not comparative to others.

There’s more, but most importantly, it’s aligning all these from bottom to top. For instance, you could be creating a great culture to serve a bad purpose. Alternatively, you could have a great purpose but use industrial era methods to get there. I have to admit that, having served in orgs of various sizes, and seen the pockets of inefficiency that can emerge, I wonder how any business makes any money! Still, there’s evidence that the better you’re aligned, the better you do. (See the Toward Maturity Top Deck results or Laurie Bassi’s work on the link between people approaches and org success.

Achieving success at all  levels of organizational alignment is a path to success. No one’s saying it’s easy, but it  is doable. Further, it’s your best investment in the future. Just as with designing learning, get the core right before you add shiny objects, the same is true for organizations. There’s a transformation in practices to be done before you then apply the digital transformation. However, once you align these, as well, you’re on an upward path. Shall we?

By the way, this is aligned :) with the theme of what I’ll be  talking about in my opening keynote for the ATD Japan Summit.  

The (Post) Cognitive Perspective

by 5 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Complexity in Learning Design

by Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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