Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Search Results for: mindmap

Vale Roger Schank

by 4 Comments

I’d first heard of Roger Schank’s work as an AI ‘groupie’ during my college years. His contributions to cognitive science have been immense. He was a challenging personality and intellect, and yet he fought for the right things. He passed away yesterday, and he will be missed.

Roger’s work connected story to cognition. He first saw how we had expectations about events owing to his experience at a restaurant with an unusual approach. At Legal Seafoods (at the time) you paid before being served (more like fast food than a sit-down venue). Surprised, Roger realized that there must be cognitive structures for events that were similar to the proposed schemas for things. He investigated the phenomena computationally, advancing artificial intelligence and cognitive science. Roger subsequently applied his thinking to education, writing Engines for Education (amongst other works), while leading a variety of efforts in using technology to support learning. He also railed against AI hype, accurately of course. I was a fan.

I heard Roger speak at a Cog Sci conference I attended to present part of my dissertation research. The controversy around his presentation caused the guest speaker, Stephen Jay Gould, to comment “you guys are weird”! His reputation preceded him; I had one of his PhD graduates on a team and he told me Roger was deliberately tough on them, saying “if you can survive me, you can survive anyone”.

I subsequently met up with Roger at several EdTech events hither and yon. In each he was his fiery, uncompromising self. Yet, he was also right. He was a bit of a contradiction: opinionated and unabashed, but also generous and committed to meaningful change. He also was a prodigious intellect; if you were as smart as him, I guess you had a reason to be self-confident. I got to know him a bit personally at those events, and then when he engaged me for advice to his company. He occasionally would reach out for advice, and always offer the same.

He could be irritating in his deliberate lack of social graces, but he was willing to learn, and had a good heart. In return, I learned a lot from him, and use some of his examples in my presentations. It was an honor to have known him, and the world will be a little duller, and probably a little dumber, without him. Rest in peace.

Concept Maps and Learning

by 1 Comment

Once again, someone notified me of something they wanted me to look at. In this case, a suite of concept maps, with a claim that this could be the future of education. And while I’m a fan of concept maps, I was suspicious of the claim, So, while I’ve written on mindmaps before, it’s time to dig into concept maps and learning.

To start, the main separation between mindmaps and concept maps is labels. Specifically, concept maps have labels that indicate the meaning of  connections between concepts. At least, that’s my distinction. So while I’ve done (a lot of) mindmaps of keynotes, they’re mostly of use to those who also saw the same presentation. Otherwise, the terms and connections don’t necessarily make sense. (Which doesn’t mean a suite of connections can’t be valuable, c.f. Jerry’s Brain, where Jerry Michalski has been tracking his explorations for over two decades!) However, a concept map does a better job of indicating the total knowledge representation.

I know a wee bit about this, because while writing up my dissertation, I had a part-time job working with Professor  Kathy Fisher and SemNet. Kathy Fisher is a biologist and teacher who worked with Joe Novak (who can be considered the originator of concept mapping). SemNet is a Macintosh concept mapping tool (Semantic Network) that Kathy created and used in teaching biology. It allows students to represent their understanding, which instructors can use to diagnose misconceptions.

I also later volunteered for a while with the K-Web project. This was a project with James Burke (of Connections fame) creating maps of the interesting historical linkages his show and books documented. Here again, navigating linkages can be used for educational purposes.

With this background, I looked at this project. The underlying notion is to create a comprehensive suite of multimedia mindmaps of history and the humanities. This, to me, isn’t a bad thing! It provides a navigable knowledge resource that could be a valuable adjunct to teaching. Students can be given tasks to find the relationships between two things, or asked to extend the concept maps, or… Several things, however, are curious at least.

The project claims to be a key to the future of global education. However, as an educational innovation, the intended pedagogical design is worrisome. The approach claims that “They have complete freedom to focus on and develop whichever interests capture their fancy.” and “…the class is exposed to a large range of topics that together provide a comprehensive and lively view of the subject…”  This is problematic for two reasons. First, there appears to be no guarantee that this indeed will provide comprehensive coverage. It’s possible, but not likely.

As a personal example, when I was in high school, our school district decided that the American Civil War would be taught as modules. Teachers chose to offer whatever facets they wanted, and students could take any two modules they wanted. Let me assure you that my knowledge of the Civil War did not include a systematic view of the causes, occurrences, and outcomes, even in ideologically distorted versions. Anything I now know about the Civil War comes from my own curiosity.

Even with the social sharing, a valuable component, there appears to be no guidance to ensure that all topics are covered. Fun, yes. Curricularly thorough, no.

Second, presenting on content doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve truly comprehended it. As my late friend, historian Joseph Cotter, once told me, history isn’t about learning facts, it’s about learning to think like a historian. You may need the cultural literacy first, but then you need to be able to use those elements to make comparisons, criticisms, and more.  Students should be able to  think with these facts.

Another concerning issue in the presentation about this initiative is this claim: “reading long passages of text no longer works very well for the present generation of learners. More than ever, learners are visual learner [sic].” This confounds two myths, the digital native myth with the learning styles myth. Both have been investigated and found to be lacking in empirical support. No one likes to read long passages of text without some intrinsic interest (but we can do that).

In short, while I laud the collection, the surrounding discussion is flawed. Once again, there’s a lack of awareness of learning science being applied. While that’s understandable, it’s not sufficient.  My $0.05.

New recommended readings

by Leave a Comment

My Near Book ShelfOf late, I‘ve been reading quite a lot, and I‘m finding some very interesting books. Not all have immediate take homes, but I want to introduce a few to you with some notes. Not all will be relevant, but all are interesting and even important. I‘ll also update my list of recommended readings. So here are my new recommended readings. (With Amazon Associates links: support your friendly neighborhood consultants.)

First, of course, I have to point out my own Learning Science for Instructional Designers. A self-serving pitch confounded with an overload of self-importance? Let me explain. I am perhaps overly confident that it does what it says, but others have said nice things. I really did design it to be the absolute minimum reading that you need to have a scrutable foundation for your choices. Whether it succeeds is an open question, so check out some of what others are saying. As to self-serving, unless you write an absolute mass best-seller, the money you make off books is trivial. In my experience, you make more money giving it away to potential clients as a better business card than you do on sales. The typically few hundred dollars I get a year for each book aren‘t going to solve my financial woes! Instead, it‘s just part of my campaign to improve our practices.

So, the first book I want to recommend is Annie Murphy Paul‘s The Extended Mind. She writes about new facets of cognition that open up a whole area for our understanding. Written by a journalist, it is compelling reading. Backed in science, it’s valuable as well. In the areas I know and have talked about, e.g. emergent and distributed cognition, she gets it right, which leads me to believe the rest is similarly spot on. (Also her previous track record; I mind-mapped her talk on learning myths at a Learning Solutions conference). Well-illustrated with examples and research, she covers embodied cognition, situated cognition, and socially distributed cognition, all important. Moreover, there‘re solid implications for the redesign of instruction. I‘ll be writing a full review later, but here‘s an initial recommendation on an important and interesting read.  

I‘ll also alert you to Tania Luna‘s and LeeAnn Renninger‘s Surprise. This is an interesting and fun book that instead of focusing on learning effectiveness, looks at the engagement side. As their subtitle suggests, it‘s about how to Embrace the Unpredictable and Engineer the Unexpected. While the first bit of that is useful personally, it‘s the latter that provides lots of guidance about how to take our learning from events to experiences. Using solid research on what makes experiences memorable (hint: surprise!) and illustrative anecdotes, they point out systematic steps that can be used to improve outcomes. It‘s going to affect my Make It Meaningful  work!

Then, without too many direct implications, but intrinsically interesting is Lisa Feldman Barrett‘s How Emotions Are Made. Recommended to me, this book is more for the cog sci groupie, but it does a couple of interesting things. First, it creates a more detailed yet still accessible explanation of the implications of Karl Friston‘s Free Energy Theory. Barrett talks about how those predictions are working constantly and at many levels in a way that provides some insights. Second, she then uses that framework to debunk the existing models of emotions. The experiments with people recognizing facial expressions of emotion get explained in a way that makes clear that emotions are not the fundamental elements we think they are. Instead, emotions social constructs! Which undermines, BTW, all the facial recognition of emotion work.

I also was pointed to Tim Harford‘s The Data Detective, and I do think it‘s a well done work about how to interpret statistical claims. It didn‘t grip me quite as viscerally as the afore-mentioned books, but I think that‘s because I (over-)trust my background in data and statistics. It is a really well done read about some simple but useful rules for how to be a more careful reviewer of statistical claims. While focused on parsing the broader picture of societal claims (and social media hype), it is relevant to evaluating learning science as well.  

I hope you find my new recommended readings of interest and value. Now, what are you recommending to me? (He says, with great trepidation. ;)

Practicing the Preach

by 4 Comments

I’m working on my next plan for global domination. And as I do, I’ve been developing my thinking, and there are some interesting outcomes. Including a realization that I wasn’t doing what I usually recommend. And I also believe that you should ‘show your work‘. So here I’m practicing the preach.

First, I’m developing my understanding, getting concrete about it. I usually use Omnigraffle as a diagramming tool, to represent my conceptual understandings. And I started doing that as part of the ‘developing thinking’ part. But I started with a diagram, and took the elements out and mindmapped them, and threw in other bits. In short, the ‘diagram’ has become a visual place to store bits and pieces of different diagrams, representations, mindmap, prose, or more. As well as outlining elsewhere. But it’s working out for me, so I thought I’d share.

The overall visualization gives me a place, like a business canvas, to drop stuff on and rearrange. It’s a ‘thinking tool’. I’m also copying part of the the activity map and linking things together to capture the actual flow between content and activities. Etc. A virtual whiteboard, I guess.

Second, one of the things to represent was how this would be communicated. Whether a course, or interactive ebook, or whatever, I want to create a flow. And I realized an activity map might make sense. I haven’t done this before (I’ve used storyboards and diagrams), but I find it interesting. Here’s the current status.

Across the top are the various stages (Introduction, the Principles, the resulting learning Elements, the associated Process, and the Closing). Your stages may vary.  Along the side are the different components (the Content topics, the associated practice Activities, the Emotions I to be evoked, the Stories to tell, and the Tools). I think putting in ’emotion’ is an important step! And then I can drop text bits into the intersections.

Finally, as I started developing the associated content, I realized one thing I advocate is backwards design. That is, envision the performance and how it’s distributed across tools and brains. Then, I realized I hadn’t designed the tools first! I’m going back and doing that. So it’s now in the activity map as well ;).

Just thought I’d share this, practicing the preach, and hope that you find it interesting, if not useful. Feedback welcome!

 

An ATD TK2020 retrospective #ATDTK

by Leave a Comment

This past week, I spent two days at ATD’s Techknowledge conference. I gave a talk on ‘transforming learning’, and another (largely) on myths. And I participated in a couple other things, including helping out a colleague for  her session. But I want to reflect on the rest of the event. So here’s an ATD TK2020 retrospective.

First, I should note, I did  not mindmap the keynotes (in case you missed them). I used to do it all the time. However, the app that I used to do it has a new edition out, and it’s pricey.  And, I don’t have enough other use for it. I can sketch out ideas in my note-taking app. So…guess that’s gone by the wayside. We’ll see if I find out an alternative.

I  did try to take notes. And, because I’d read recently that drawing was a better note-taking technique (don’t recall the exact link, but this suggests the benefit), I  tried to draw. Old habits…I mostly wrote. And they weren’t worth publishing.

The conference itself was interesting because they were experimenting. For instance, there was no expo. Vendors had suites, and several tried to get me to meet with them. But didn’t have a viable business case for me to care (I’m not a candidate for your LMS, for instance ;). And they were set up to have several simultaneous speakers at the same time. Even on the same stage!

What I’m talking about here is that there was this little audio device you hung around your neck. It had 6 channels, and a plug for earphones (also provided). So, right after the opening keynote, there was the first of what they called ‘supersessions’. Here, three people were up on different parts of the same stage, and gave three different talks. You set the channel to the one you wanted to hear (or the two you wanted to switch between ;). And, it worked. Largely. One of the presenters for one of the sessions kept running around and interacting (interrupting) the others.

And there were six stages in one room, and you could jump between them, or sit and listen to one. Without, note, being distracted by the others. On the other hand, it was hard to have audience interaction. They couldn’t hear one another, and for instance the one I did I really could’ve benefited from a flip chart (which I asked for but didn’t get).  Still, it largely worked.

There were some more traditional talks in another room (I did one of those, too). And they were, well, familiar. Not that that’s a bad thing.

One other thing that was interesting was a ‘hackathon’. Here, a worthwhile not-for-profit posed a challenge and volunteers were divided up into teams to address it. Unfortunately, it seemed to be more focused on visual design. I tend to think that infusing learning science is more likely to be a problem in their elearning.  (So, of course, I made that my own challenge.) Still, it helped the org, and provided an opportunity to interact.

I ran into my friends and colleagues more, and the discussions were perhaps a little easier to engage in. I liked the more intimate feel. Though I confess to having missed the expo (perhaps because I couldn’t find as much to criticize!). And the food was quite good (the Wed lunch in particular).

I did note that there were still some zombies running around. There was a dialog between two folks who were supposedly talking about the future of work, but played a lot of the ‘millennial’ card. Bad speaker, no Twinkie!

Overall, I laud their willingness to experiment. I know the Guild does a fair bit of it as well, but this was more unusual from a large (and often inflexible) organization. As a fan of ‘learning out loud’, I hope it’s useful to provide an ATD TK2020 retrospective, and if you were there, I welcome your thoughts!

Cognitions By Contexts

by Leave a Comment

I have, in the past, talked about the three cognitions: situated, distributed, and social. Similarly, I talk about aligning with the contexts: how we think, work, and learn. I then wondered about how they interacted. Naturally, I diagrammed it (surprise, right?). I created the 3 x 3 matrix, and then tried to fill the boxes.  So here’s some preliminary thoughts (ok, they’ve already been processed a few times) on considering cognitions by contexts.

The intersections do point to some implications.  Cutting through the contexts by cognitions, we can make some prescriptions. When we think of Situated by Think, I suggested experimentation as a mechanism to help resolve unclear outcomes. Situated by Work suggested the ambiguity inherent in new situations, and suggested supporting addressing that. Finally, Situated for Learning suggests the need for meaningful practice.

Similarly, when we look at Distributed by Thinking, I considered the need to represent understanding concretely. For Work, it’s about using external tools to support effective performance, e.g. performance support. For Learning, it’s about blending learning  across a variety of elements: technologies, interaction methodologies, etc, to support successful outcomes.

Social is a bit of a conflict, because I often mean that as a reflection of ‘work’. Here, however, I’m considering Work as ‘getting stuff done’. (Note to self: reconcile this!). So Social and Think is the notion of sharing the results (hmm, pondering in next paragraph). Social and Work is collaboration & cooperation, working together specifically on projects and also more broadly a willingness to contribute when/where/ever. Finally, Social for learning is social assignments.

Which makes me think that the whole ‘Think’ line could be Harold Jarche’s Seek > Sense > Share model, and then we’re talking about the Situated Thinking would be continually seeking new information to help settle ambiguity. Which is a nice idea I might put in, but then I have to consider where I put experiment. That may have to go in with ‘represent’  in Distributed and Think.

I also, as an experiment, decided to swap the labels (horizontal for vertical), and see if I came up with the same inputs. And, no, I didn’t. That’s my  next  post, the swapped version. It won’t be ’til the beginning of July, because next week I’m speaking at the Realities 360 conference, and will be posting mindmaps of the keynotes, if all things go per usual. And there’ll be a reconciliation after that, as the above paragraph suggests. Stay tuned! But here you see me ‘think out loud’ as I try to consider Cognitions By Contexts. I welcome any thoughts of yours!

#LSCon 19 Reflections

by Leave a Comment

It’s hard to think of now, but last week I was at the Learning Solutions conference. And I had a really great time. I didn’t see as much as I’d like (as you ‘ll see, I was busy), but there were some really worthwhile learnings, and some fun as well. Here are my conference reflections.

For the first time, I rented a scooter. That was a learning all in itself. I’d been having pain, and walking was the  worst. The scooter was a way to address that, and it did. I scooted around and avoided much walking. Not all, but a lot. And it was fun to zoop around, but…it was hard to maneuver in small spaces. Like the necessary elevators. And my room. I tried to slow down and do it carefully, and that worked to an extent, but it wasn’t pretty.

Decorated mobility scooterThe great part was that, having heard of my plight, some friends descended upon my ride and tarted it up with glitter and dangly things. And, best of all, caution tape. Very appropriate. Very much appreciated!  And it wasn’t even too hard to take off at the end.

Thus, I was happy to zoom to my room to run my pre-conference workshop on learning experience design. It was designed as an integration of Engaging Learning and the Serious eLearning Manifesto.    I snuck a bit of ‘transformation‘ in there as well.  The evaluations aren’t back yet, but I think overall it achieved the purpose. One attendee later suggested an improvement that I’d agree on (allowing learners to choose from the topics to workshop on). Always learning!

That evening, we did something I’d never done, Presentation Roulette. The speakers (I agreed to be one, without having seen it before; I do like experimenting [read: living dangerously]) choose a random title out of a sock (well, it was clean) and are then given a deck that Bianca Woods of the Guild had developed for that title, including the silliest pictures she could find on the web. As she describes it, a mashup of presentations and improv comedy.  It was very fun, and in particular extremely funny; the other presenters did great jobs. I’ll attend again even if I don’t present!

Tuesday was a normal day (e.g. I didn’t present). As usual, I mindmapped the keynotes (several posts back), cruised the floor, and attended some sessions. The panels were good. I attended the one on the Future of ID, and the comments were insightful about how the tools and goals were changing. Similarly the one on the Future of Work had a convergent message I resonated with, that we need to focus on using tech to augment us on the stuff we’re good at, not try to fight off automation of rote tasks. I also took some time off for calls and work.

That evening, after dinner, some friends and colleagues (they’re the same folks) came over to my suite. (I have gotten lots of accommodations for my situation; and I’m  very grateful.)  Fueled by libations, we proceeded to gin up an evil plan to control the world (or at least the market).  Politically correct it wasn’t, fun it was.  Too late to bed.

The next day I was part of the Guild Master panel with about 14 participants. Too many!  Great thoughts, and I tried to stifle myself and only make the most cogent points. Apparently I still spoke a little too much. I blame it on this blogging, it gives me lots of thoughts. :) The points I wanted to make were, not surprisingly, about the need for getting back to basics in learning design, and to look beyond optimal execution to continual innovation.

I also sat in an ARK Kit presentation. It made AR seem almost within reach. At this time you still do need some coding, but if it progresses like many tools, much will soon become at a higher level of ability to describe what you want and make it so.

I still wasn’t done, as later that day I also gave my ‘professionalism and myths’ talk. The audience was small but enthusiastic. I do believe we made some converts. I added in not just debunking myths, but how to talk to folks who buy into it. There’s a little learning science in it as well. We really do need to be on a sound basis before we can have credibility.

I have to say, delightedly, that I continue to have folks say that my books have helped them. Different books for different folks, but something I love to hear. As an author, you get some idea of the sales, but none of the impact. Some of these were small effects, and some were “I’ve used this to change my/our practice.”  That’s what it’s about, after all, you write a book to effect change. I’m grateful for those who share this insight!  In particular, I hear lots of folks using the Myths book in their orgs to counter employees/customers’ misguided intentions. The Revolution book still (or, perhaps,  now) has influence. And I still hear about the Games book!

I also slipped away with some more conspirators and experienced  The Void. It  was  hard on my legs (I went with cane, not scooter), mostly because they didn’t have anywhere to sit while you waited!?!?!  (I gave them a serve in the too-long post-experience survey.) However, it’s very cool: a compelling experience and great implications for learning. Embedded performance? That would be ‘yes’.

The keynotes, by the way, were excellent  AND…  I’ve heard over the years that conference organizers say it’s hard to have diversity in speakers. All white males (e.g. me ;), or at least white.  This time, there were two women, and two blacks, out of three people. With good messages.  It was inspiring to hear and to see!  Kudos to David Kelly and the Guild for managing to debunk the barrier.

There was some discussion of whether there was a place for those who proselytize learning science or it was all going commercial and cheap. I feel like there’s a growing interest in the science, but I’m frequently a year or several ahead of the market. In this case, I want to yell “make me right!”  This is a field I care about, and we can be doing so much good. I want us to capitalize on that potential. There were new folks looking for solutions and the opportunity to grow. I hope we can make that happen in a positive direction.

Overall, it was a success. I had time with smart colleagues, saw interesting sessions, and met new folks. I presented and got feedback, which is a great cycle. And it was another chance to immerse myself in the state of the industry. Here’s to continual improvement.

 

 

Editing, process, topics, and other reflections

by Leave a Comment

My lass let me know there was a typo in my recent post on Transformation.  I’m thrilled that she’s reading them (!), but she triggered many thoughts about my writing approach. I thought I’d share how I deal with blogging, articles, and writing in general, as a ‘show your work‘ effort. And, in a sense, solicit your thoughts on approach, editing, and topics (amongst other things).

Process

It starts with my commitment to two blog posts a week. And I’m pretty sure I average that, since while I occasionally only get one, I also occasionally get three (say, during a week at a conference with mindmaps).  That means, however, that sometimes I’m brimming with ideas and have them queued up a week or two in advance, and sometimes I’m writing them at the last minute (*cough* this one *cough*).  When I know I’ll be on the road on a particular week, I definitely try to have them in the hopper in advance.

Regardless, I tend to write each in one fell swoop. Something sparks a thought, and I rush to get it down. Sometimes I’ll have an idea elsewhere, and jot myself a one line reminder, and need to generate the full prose. But my writing’s often like that: once I’m going, I have to let that full idea gestate. Even when writing a full book (as I’ve done a time or two ;), I outline it in a go, and then write sections in a burst.

Now, I write in several channels: my blog, my committed articles, and of course books. And, not surprisingly, I write them differently.  The blog comes out ‘as is’. I do reread it after it’s first done, typically, but as my lass discovered, it can have flaws. I reread my Trends article after posting, for instance, and noticed a couple of flaws. (I’ve fixed them, of course, similarly when folks comment in one way or another about something I’ve left confusing or wrong.)

My articles are different. I write them typically in one go, but I always hang on to them for at least a day, and reread with fresh eyes. I think that’s obligatory for such efforts. In one case, I have an editor who reads them with a careful eye, and always sends back a revised version. I don’t get to  see the revisions (which is frustrating), but the articles are always improved. Editing is valuable!

For books, as I mentioned, I outline it, then write sections. And, depending on the book, the experience changes. With  Engaging Learning, it had been percolating for so long it kind of flew out of my fingers onto the page.  For  Designing mLearning, it was different; I outlined, and wrote, and as I got further in I found myself rearranging the structure and going back to add things.  The Revolutionize L&D book was closer to the Designing mLearning book, with two changes. I didn’t reorganize as much, but I kept going back and adding stuff. It was hard to finish!

With my books, I’ve always had an editor. The ones from the publisher varied in quality (good experiences generally), but I also have m’lady serve as my first (and best) editor. And I’ve learned to truly value an editor. The benefit of a second eye without the assumptions and blinders the writer brings is great!

Topics

The ideas come differently as well. My blog tends to get whatever I’m thinking about (like this). My articles tend to be a deeper dive into whatever I think (or we agree, with my editor) is important. I keep a list of potential topics for each, and take whatever feels ‘right’ for the month.

Books, of course, are a bigger story. For one, you need a publisher’s agreement (unless you self-publish). My first book was based upon my research for years on games and engagement. The mLearning books were publisher requests, and yet I had to believe I could do a proper job. Revolutionize emerged from my work with people and orgs and looking at the industry as a whole, and was something I think needed to be said. My latest, on myths, was also requested, but also something I felt comfortable doing (and needed to be done).

(Interestingly, on the requested books, I first checked to see if someone else might write it instead, but when the obvious candidates declined, I was happy to step up. I got their voices in anyway. ;)

The hard part, sometimes, is coming up with topics. The commitment to two posts a week is a great catalyst for thinking, but sometimes I feel bereft. I welcome suggestions for topics for any of the above as well. Someone asked what my next book would be, and I asked them what they thought it should be.  However, I’m not ready to write a memoir yet; I’m not done!  Thoughts solicited on any or all of the above.

And the myths go on

by Leave a Comment

Yet another silly post I stumbled upon.  And last week at a conf someone said they liked my take-downs. If you disagree, let me know, but otherwise here’s yet another bunch of marketing hype.  Hopefully no one uses this for any real decisions!

This one talks about ‘generation Z’, and implications for L&D. Ok, so we’re off on the wrong foot from the get-go.  These are listed as 1995-2014. (Er, um, as Jessica Kriegel pointed out last week, isn’t the whole point of the millennial label that they’re ‘2000’? )  However, there’s no evidence to point to reliable generational differences. What differences there are can be attributed to age, and it’s still a form of age discrimination, how about treating people by how they individually behave?

So there’s a list of differentiators, sourced from elsewhere. You go to the elsewhere, and it’s preferences, and anecdotal. Neither one are good bases for making broad claims. There are several cites in the list, as well. From marketing sites. So the author clearly doesn’t understand good data.  What are they talking about? Here’s a subset:

  • Digital multitaskers: well, we know that’s inefficient, but haven’t we seen that taken up by device, not age group? It’s certainly true for millennials as well, and seems to be true for everyone who’s gotten on to mobile devices.
  • Secretly social: (wth?) they share, but with control. As do most astute folks beyond high school.
  • Diverse: er, yes, so’s the whole US. And, more and more, the world. How is this definitional? And do you think they really don’t still have biases?
  • Quick Information Processors/Communicators:  dealing with chunks, quickly but not necessarily accurately. Isn’t that, er, just kind of human?

The recommendations list is similarly silly:

  • Update job descriptions: make sure they’re up-to-date.  Really?  This isn’t just good practice?
  • Expunge bias: ditto
  • Go where the talent is: use appropriate social media. C’mon, already; any other statements of the obvious?
  • Benefits: emphasize the WIIFM. Can you imagine?

The overarching theme here is ‘do good things’.  Why isn’t this appropriate for  every job search?  And the same thing continues when recommendations for your courses:

  • Digital and Visual Content: Use media? Really?  Who’d have thought of it?
  • Reassess your Library and Curricula: you don’t need diversity, but you do need soft skills. Here I think there is bad advice, instead of the generally ‘best principles argued for the wrong reasons’.  Just because you hear more messages of tolerance (yay!), doesn’t mean you know how to be inclusive, and are aware of unconscious bias. (That’s why it’s  unconscious!)

And the same overall pattern of good advice pretending to be specific to a generation holds true for the final list.   (I’m paraphrasing the advice here):

  • Embrace diversity
  • Provide social connection tools
  • Give them the ability to contribute
  • Include them
  • Don’t try to ‘own’ their time

Tell me if you think any of these should be not true for other folks than these new folks?  I think this approach is a bad idea, overall. You’re providing decent advice (er,  mostly), but doing so through a myth-perpetuating framing. That’s still myth-perpetuating!

Ok, so this was from a company that’s trying to flog their services. It still seems like it’s written by a person more focused on marketing than matter. And I think we need to unpack these, and push back. Generation Z is just as discriminatory as millennials,  gender, and other differences that are attempts to avoid dealing with people as individuals.  If we don’t kick up our heels, we won’t get better efforts. And we should.

Processing

by Leave a Comment

I’ve been thinking a lot about processing in learning of late; what processing matters, when, and why. I thought I’d share my thinking with you and see what you think.  This is  my processing!  :)

We know processing is useful. You can consider Craik & Lockhart’s Levels of Processing model, or look to the importance of retrieval practice as highlighted in Brown, Roediger, and McDaniel’s Make it Stick. The point is that retrieving information from memory and doing things with it increases the likelihood of learning. One of the questions is  “what sort of retrieval (or processing)?”

I’ve always advocated for  applying the information, doing something with it.  But there are actually a variety of useful things we can do:

  • representing information (a form of reflection) whether rewriting, or mindmapping, or…
  • connecting to other known information, personal or professional
  • considering how it would be applied in practice
  • applying it in practice, real or simulated

Of course, we want there to be scrutiny and feedback for the learning to be optimized, etc.

Now, this is in the individual instance, but I’m also looking at the sequence of processing. What would be a series of activities that would develop understanding. So, for instance, for a problem-solving practice like trouble-shooting a process, what might you do? You might have  (say, after a model of the process, and examples) a sequence of :

  • critique someone else’s performance
  • try a simple example of performing
  • try a more complex example (perhaps in a group)
  • …(more examples of performing)
  • try a very complex (read: typical) example

We could throw in related tasks as well either during or as a summary:

  • create a checklist to follow
  • draw a flow diagram
  • create a representation

On a more categorical task, say determining whether a situation qualifies as this or not (with shades of grey in between), we would have a similar structure, but with different types of tasks (again, after initial content such as definition and examples):

  • review a case where it clearly is (white)
  • review a case where it clearly isn’t (black)
  • group review a case of grey (but not too bad)
  • group review a case of grey (more shady)
  • …

Again, we could have interim or summary tasks:

  • summarize the constraints
  • document a proposed process
  • make a plan for how to do it in the future
  • …

What I’ve explicitly added here is when and why to go ‘social‘.  There are benefits for the same, but should they all be social?  I’ll argue that there’s some initial prep that’s individual, to get everyone on the same page. Since all are different, it helps if this is individual. Then there’s often value in doing it socially, for the reasons in the linked post.  Then, I reckon there’s value in doing  something independently, to consolidate the learning. And, of course, to determine what capability the individual has acquired.

The point I want to make is that the processing  flow, the progression from activity to activity, matters. We want to introduce, diverge, and then converge.  We do need to elaborate across contexts to support transfer, and of course increase complexity until they’ve developed the ability to deal with the typical difficulty of cases.

I’m thinking that, too often, we forget the consolidation phase.  And we’re often doing processing that’s somewhat like what we need them to do, but ultimately tangential. There are multiple constraints here to be acknowledged, cognitive such as depth and breadth as well as pragmatic such as cost and time, but we want to find the right intersection.

And my practical question is: where does this fall apart? Are their situations where this doesn’t make sense?  I realize there are other types of outcomes that I haven’t represented (I’m being indicative, not exhaustive ;), but is this a useful way to think about it?