Learning Styles

For several years learning professionals were writing and reading about different learning styles. The talk was about how different people learn more effectively from different styles of content presentation. In more recent years some educators are saying that learning styles are not a factor. They are saying that all learners can learn from good presentations regardless of the modality.

In a January 9, 2019 Inside Higher Ed article Greg Toppo, a senior editor at Inside Higher Ed., discusses the topic of learning styles.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/01/09/learning-styles-debate-its-instructors-vs-psychologists

“But Daniel Willingham, a cognitive psychologist and professor at the University of Virginia, said the categories themselves ‘haven’t been shown to mean anything.’ Nonetheless, recent surveys have found that about 90 percent of Virginia students believe in them.”

In this article Toppo also says there are learning professionals who very much support the concept of different learning styles.

“Richard Felder, a professor emeritus of chemical engineering at North Carolina State University who has written in support of learning styles, said psychologists have spent decades working to debunk the theory. ‘On the other side are literally millions of people who have used learning styles to design instruction’ and to help students become better learners, he said.”

A quick search of scholarly articles about learning styles produces a host of articles. In recent years there have been many learning professionals who have written to deride the concept of learning styles. At the same time there are many others who have written scholarly articles based on the theory that different people learn differently.

A good number of learning professionals continue to develop and deliver learning products designed to deliver instruction geared to different learning styles. I am not sure there is any harm in doing so, even if it is true that the learning styles theory is invalid. I also believe that the learning style theory is a comfortable concept. We believe we understand what needs to go into content for each type of learner. We can include graphics and pictures and so forth for the visual learner, audio for the auditory learner, and materials that can be handled for the kinesthetic learner.

However, I believe that a good learning professional, using whatever methodology works for them, will provide what is needed for learning to occur. It is the design of the learning product as well as the instructor’s delivery of the content that will provide the learner with what they need to grasp the content not the learner’s perceived learning modality.

I am perplexed at how much time and effort is being put into arguments for and against the concept of learning styles. I understand that the research that has been reported is that learning styles do not have merit. I think it is time for researchers to design some new studies. Learning events that make use of different modalities to deliver the same instruction should be developed. In addition instruction covering the same content using various modalities should also use different instructors’ preferred delivery styles.

Each of these instructional units should administer the same evaluation instruments to each group of learners. Comparisons of the outcomes should be informative and might help us to understand if there are indeed differences, or if all well designed and well delivered modalities lead to effective learning outcomes.

Different Methods for Different Learners

People are different; at every age they have different responsibilities, goals, knowledge and skills, financial resources, and families. And that is to say nothing of all the other aspects of the human race that are different. I believe we are definitely heading in the right direction as we customize learning opportunities for the populations we serve. However, in some cases we are hampering learning. Some organizations want people to learn on their own time at home. Homes and home responsibilities are not the same and handicap some learners.

Public Schools in Massachusetts, where I live, are following the “common core” concept.

http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/

“The Common Core is a set of high-quality academic standards in mathematics and English language arts/literacy (ELA). These learning goals outline what a student should know and be able to do at the end of each grade.”

This makes me worry. While there are good aspects to this practice there are likely as many bad results that will impact students both now, while they are in school and later, as they enter a world that doesn’t have a common training algorithm. I also know of many smart students who are getting bored and tuning out.

However, I’m hopeful that people who do the planning for students will recognize that different people learn differently. For example this Forbes post talks to the importance of focusing on the individual rather than the one-size concept.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2018/09/24/seven-learning-and-development-trends-to-adopt-in-2019/#547d336e104b

“Training in the past that focused solely on content was “one size fits all,” which made it difficult to engage with the learner. Today, we must zero in on the learner, including his or her experience, work environment, performance and technological fluency, to create a training program. Any effective training program is one developed for the individual and offers social activities to share their experiences.”

I think the key concept that will bring new and interesting results is the importance of meeting the needs of each individual. However, we need to be careful in how we implement our programs. If we aren’t careful, we could find that although we are getting good results, the financial impact could derail the good work.

Like with any other learning event, it is important to begin by identifying all the end results. End results are all of the things that any individual will need to be able to do on the job related to the training needed. Once you have listed all of the activities needed then, as with any other learning event, identify all the things they will need to know. It is very important to identify what they will need to do before you identify what they will need to know. The “doing” informs the knowing.

When customizing training for specific individuals, I recommend that you develop all the instruction in mini modules. All of the good practices that you have used to develop learning events apply here. The only difference is that you will be developing multiple mini (and perhaps micro) modules that are complete onto themselves so that they can be pulled together in a learning event customized for an individual.

Everything that has worked in full learning events applies here. Use whatever methodology you believe will be appropriate to deliver the learning experience to the individual. It may be that you want to use Gamification for some lessons and some learners. You may find that other techniques will work for other learners. The important concept is that one size does not fit all and you must customize to meet each learners needs. But, stay focused on the end results needed and what needs to be known to achieve those end results.

So yes, different people learn differently and if we want everyone to get as much out of our events as possible, we owe it to them to customize our output. While it can be challenging to constantly adapt and change a learning event to meet individual needs, I believe the resulting learning is well worth it.

Evaluating and Tailoring Training to Employee Needs

For the most part, technical training offerings are developed by people with a technical background. They usually interact with product development groups to learn about the product. They also often interact with marketing teams and sometimes field folks in the roles for whom the products and services are being developed. All of this is very good and usually results in a quality learning product.

One area that I think needs to be employed more frequently is the use of evaluation techniques. While there is quite a bit of literature and research which addresses the different types of learning delivery, I think more research is needed about how different types of learning products work within your organization and within each function within your organization.

https://trainingindustry.com/articles/measurement-and-analytics/evaluating-the-effectiveness-of-training-a-learning-leader-challenge/?utm_content=cpdc

“People often focus on how to design a training program and how to deliver it ’but spend comparatively little effort on how to know that it had all the intended impacts,’ says Tom Whelan, Ph.D., director of corporate research at Training Industry, Inc. Regardless of how challenging proving the business impact of training may be, it is critical for the future of learning and work.”

There are now many different types of learning products in use. I think it would be worthwhile to find out how each type of learning product in use in your organization contributes to learning.

Adult Learning Principles: Increasing Employee Training Effectiveness

“If you want employees to learn and retain information in workplace trainings, focus less on the training itself and more on the needs of the employee.”

It may even be worthwhile to try out two or more types of learning products that address the same learning needs. Results for your organization may vary from other organizations within your company. It may even be that the type of delivery systems you use for one function within your organization may not be as effective for another. You may want to take a look at the demographics of each group. It may be that the make up of different groups might impact the type of learning products that they find most useful.

While rigorous research might provide ideal data about the effectiveness of different types of learning products it often isn’t likely to get funded. That does not mean that useful data can’t be collected. A short ten 10-question survey that gathers demographic information and reactions to different types of learning products can provide useful information to inform new development. However, it would likely be a good idea to exclude classroom training. For the most part unless your organization can and will offer classroom training, including it as an option in the survey won’t provide data that can be actionable.

As always I welcome your thoughts and comments.

How We Learn: Applying Methods for Learning Complex Games to Other Learning

Throughout our lives we learn many different things in many different ways. We may learn to choose a pair of shoes because they fit without hurting, or we may chose a pair based on how they look or based on where we will wear them. Most people won’t wear tennis shoes to a wedding and won’t wear dress shoes to a tennis court. People learn which foods they like through trial and error, or perhaps they try it based on a recommendation from a friend, or because it is being promoted as a new taste treat, or as something that is not only healthy but also tastes good.

All these learnings are usually much easier for us then learning an academic topic or a work related activity. We have looked for, and continue to look for, new and better ways of imparting knowledge and skills to learners. I wonder what the difference is in how we learn work or academic topics versus topics related to our avocations.

Over the years I have observed many different people learn how to play complicated board games. These games have many strategies and rules that need to be learned in order to play effectively. In thinking about how some successful gamers learn new games, I began to wonder if the methods they use might not be similar to effective learning strategies. In particular, they use iterative processes while learning and playing that also work in learning technical topics. I wonder why the game learning is usually successful but we are still looking for better ways to impart better learning outcomes in other learning environments. What am I missing?

Gamers read, listen to, or watch a presentation of a chunk of the rules. They then begin to play the game according to a portion of the rules they have just studied. They discuss what they have learned and how they applied their learning. They work to play the game as effectively as possible. They discuss all the nuances of the game, all of the complex rules, and all of the gotchas.

Looking at complex games, there are many options for how a player can interact with the situation and with other players. The game usually includes multiple rules, different outcomes; different paths to the end of the game, and of course multiple problems that can be encountered. It is very much like learning how to perform a new process or other aspect of a job role.

Most often new game learners will rely on the multi-chapter, multi-page, or audio or video guide or rulebook that comes with most of the more complicated board games. In other cases a well-versed player will teach the rules to inexperienced participants. Players often spend several hours-long sessions studying the game rules and testing parts of the game. They begin to play while often consulting the rules or notes they have taken while learning the directions. There is usually a great deal of discussion as they work their way through the game.

Even when one or more players have previously played the game, there are questions and discussions and reference to the game rules. Because this type of game is complicated, consulting the rules often results in all the players gaining more understanding and being better able to effectively play the game – even those who have previously played the game.

The game master or game instructions present the opening situation. Players are given the information about the game objectives and any other information needed to begin playing. As they begin to play, the players identify points of confusion and questions they have about the game rules and they frequently reference the rules. They continue this process until the game is completed. They then review all steps and assess changes needed for next game play session. They modify play as needed to better meet the rules. In some cases they modify the rules to meet the groups preference. They know there are no game police but rather rules that can be modified to meet their preferences.

Comparing this process to learning situations, I believe one key difference is that they use a process similar to formative evaluation of instruction to ensure the game materials meet their needs. Yes, their needs are fun where the needs of learners in business environments are to be better able to perform their job roles. I think we might try to use this game learning process in our evaluation of learning materials.

Formative evaluation techniques are rarely used in business environments for many valid reasons. The foremost is that learning products change frequently. Because the products and services being offered change constantly the training needs to also change at the same time.

I propose that if a modified formative evaluation process was used when the training is piloted, that we could produce better instructional materials. I suggest that, just like sitting down to learn a game, a team of evaluators should sit down with the training materials and follow the steps that gamers use. These techniques might produce better training events right out of the gate. I think it would mean adding a day or two to the pilot but in doing so we could end up with much better products. Let me know what you think.

Successful Learning: What Does It Take?

As we move forward into 2018 many articles are available on how to change, improve, or modify learning products. There are articles on informal learning, micro learning, customized individualized learning, and many more methods for enhancing instructional products. All of these new processes and techniques are worth considering. They are all ways to improve content delivery..

There are some aspects that every successful learning event needs to contain, just like a car. No matter how many new bells and whistles are added, a car driven by a person needs a way to steer (wheel), a way to stop (brake) and a power source (gas).

The core components of every successful learning event are:

Presentation
Processes, concepts, steps, basically whatever explains what needs to be learned

Examples
Small chunks of instruction interspersed with exercises

Active learner participation
Practice

Feedback

However, the core components alone do not necessarily lead to learner interest and attention. Any more than a meal of unseasoned potatoes, vegetables and meat will encourage a well-fed person to eat. The core learning components are enhanced and improved with augmentation. The important message that I want to impart as we read and learn about all the new techniques for developing learning products is that the basics need to always be there. The event can – and should! – be completed by adding aspects that improve learner attention and interest.

While the areas that comprise the core components of any learning event are always the same, there are different methods for enhancing the learning product. The target audience needs to be taken into consideration when adding enhancements. Are school children the target audience, or is a technical business audience? It could be any of a multitude of other audiences as well. It is important to add content that is appropriate for the specific audience.

Like the need to add active components to the core learning activities, it is also a good idea to include material that allows the learners to be actively involved in the techniques that foster learning. For example a competition where leaners read a story and then compete against each other or even compete against the computer to respond to questions about the story. For adult learners activities can include matching solutions to problems or selecting new components to upgrade a computer. Maybe have participants work in teams to compete against each other to complete an assignment. If the activity is being done remotely teams can “punch a clock” when they complete the activity. All the teams could then review the correct solution(s) to find the winner(s). These are just a few ideas. I am sure you can come up with many other ideas to add engaging activities to the learning event. There are now many recommendations on-line for these types of activities. For example see:

https://www.edutopia.org/blog/golden-rules-for-engaging-students-nicolas-pino-james

Pino-James, Nicolás PhD. December 8, 2014, Updated December 11, 2015. Retrieved from Education Technology. Golden Rules for Engaging Students in Learning Activities.

https://robinson.gsu.edu/2016/05/teaching-and-engaging-a-new-generation-of-learners/

Turner, Patrick. May 9,2016, Retrieved from Georgia State University. Teaching and engaging a new generation of learners.

https://www.lifehack.org/396355/how-to-make-learning-fun-for-adults.

Summers, Joseph. Lifehack. Retrieved from Touro College. Online Education for Higher Ed. 49 Ideas for Online Learning Activities.

All Together Now

As learning professionals, it is important to constantly monitor what your organization is doing and what type of learning events they will need to be successful. While you may not consider yourself to be in a sales role, you still need to be tuned into what your business organizations are doing and what they are planning to do. It is important for you and your colleagues to figure out the type of learning events the organization will need to be successful. If you only function as an order taker and wait for your client organizations to tell you what they need, it is likely that you will not be giving them what they actually need.

You need to be plugged into each organization that you serve. You need to get copies of their plans, marketing materials and hiring needs, as well as anything else that will inform you of where the organizations will be going.

In years past, once the business directions were identified, the training team could work with key individuals to develop training and development products that met the organizational needs. Today things are different. Instructor-led training events with learners all in the same place is rarely an option. Learners are frequently scattered all over the world. In addition, each learner is likely to need to develop a different set of competencies, knowledge and skills. Learners will also likely want or need to consume their learning at different times and in different ways.

While training events need to meet individual employee’s learning needs, events also need to ensure that the employees learn how to apply learnings as a team. Very often, a product or service offering requires the involvement of different corporate organizations. Sales needs to sell the product; support needs to service the product; marketing needs to make customers aware of new offerings and how they will meet their needs. Most successful organizations have representatives from all these internal organizations working together to meet customer needs and business objectives.

I recommend that as you move forward into 2018, your training organizations develop connections to members from each business function to develop mini-modules that together meet customer wants and needs for your product and service offerings. I believe it would be a good idea to have a training team with members from all organizations – for example, sales, services, marketing, finance and so on – that meets regularly, just like product and service teams. This training team should discuss the learning needs both for internal folks and customers regarding new and existing product and service offerings. This will allow for the development of mini-modules of training. These modules should include information from all organizations whose work relates to the product. It should also include service offerings that the organization wants customers to be informed of, and of course to purchase them as well.

While corporations that develop and sell services and products may have different internal groups working on their offerings, the customer likely has multiple organizations using the vendor’s offerings in different ways in different places. Developing mini-modules of instruction that can be consumed by different people and in different ways for different purposes will go a long way towards helping us improve the effectiveness of our learning offerings.

New Year, New Blog

Happy New Year Everyone!

A while ago I was speaking to a women who taught English to recent arrivals from Spanish-speaking countries. She told me that one of the most important things for teaching them how to pronounce English words was to not show them the written word. She said she has had much more success by keeping them from pronouncing words as they would in Spanish when they encountered a new written word.

Remembering this conversation got me to thinking about how we train people. Would we get better results if we presented information in the abstract? Would we get better results without telling them where the new content connected to what they already know?

Yikes, I can’t believe I even wrote that paragraph. I have always been a big believer in telling the learner where things fit into what they already know. But, I have also been thinking about flipped learning and the Khan Academy practices. While this blog isn’t about applying these concepts, it is about looking for opportunities to think outside the box, which is what both the flipped learning and Khan concepts do. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking_outside_the_box)

My thought is that, while we have had some good successes in improving learning, we are still looking for additional ways to improve how learning happens. In particular, I want to address learning in business environments.

Perhaps we can apply some strategies that wouldn’t be applicable to university settings. Perhaps in some business cases, it might be that people need to learn how to do specific things in a specific way. Given that we are starting with this premise then people only need to learn how to do the specific activities and how to correct any missteps. In this situation, you wouldn’t need to teach the context, the history, or any of the whys or wherefores. Yes, I’m out on a limb here, but please stay with me.

So for these specific situations, we could begin by creating a list of what learners need to be able to do. Then we could break each topic into all the steps that need to be taken. Next we divide each topic into what the learner needs to do step-by-step, and also what the learner needs to know to take the step. Then we identify where things could go wrong and how to apply fixes. Next, list just the minimum actions that the learner needs to take. Finally we can create an exercise that the learner will need to be able to do in order to demonstrate that they know how to do the activities.

One of the best ways to identify the steps that need to be taken is to have someone perform the steps while someone else takes notes. After each step, discuss what could go wrong and document it. Then integrate how to recover from the missteps as part of the instruction.

Once you are satisfied with the process, review the write-up and remove extraneous content. Does a new learner need to learn everything that has been documented? Also is there anything else that needs to be added to the steps?

Document the steps but don’t add any instruction. Next have someone who has the prerequisite background but doesn’t know the new activities test out the instruction. Sit with them and ask them to “think out loud” about what they understand about what needs to be done, as well as anything that they don’t understand or anything that confuses them.

I realize what I’m suggesting requires a bit of up front work but I hope that the results will provide better learning and performance. It is, at the very least, an experiment worth trying, I think.

Are We There Yet?

Many years ago, I left the university doctorate in hand, and went down the road to a corporate role. Almost all of my fellow students in the field of learning remained in academic settings. While there were very few of us working in corporate educational settings, we all attempted in one way or another to help learning occur.

When I first began to work with corporate course developers they were, for the most part, people with technical backgrounds who relied on their own educational experiences to develop their training courses. They needed to develop training for new or updated products and services. They developed instructional materials that provided information but didn’t write objectives, practice exercises, feedback or test items. My thinking at that time was that I would likely work myself out of a job. All I had to do was to explain the value and show the technical folks how to develop the missing components. Well, I wish I could report it was that easy and that it worked.

However, fast-forward to today, and here I am many years later seeing the concepts that I learned in school being applied to business learning environments. I think this is an exciting time for those of us working to make learning happen.

The Disruption of Digital Learning: Ten Things We Have Learned

“Neurological research has proved that we don’t learn well through “binge education” like a course. We learn by being exposed to new skills and ideas over time, with spacing and questioning in between.”

Today, we are doing so many things right, yet there are still areas that need to be addressed. Yes, I’ve learned a lot since I first thought all I’d have to do is teach people a few basic concepts and that they’d have the tools they would need to develop quality-training materials.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2017/03/28/watch-out-corporate-learning-here-comes-disruption/#528789f5dc59

“Employees are pretty overwhelmed at work, and typically only have 20 minutes a week to set aside for learning. So rather than produce two to three hour “courses” that require page-turning and slow video or animation, we need to offer “learning on-demand” and recommended content just as needed.”

Right now there are many different processes and techniques being developed and offered. For me this is very exciting and I think it will lead to better learning and perhaps better performance. I say perhaps as I am still concerned about the basics. By the basics I mean the end results the learners need to achieve.

I think we still need to do some more research and testing on identifying the key components to any learning event. We are doing very well on the methods and tools for delivery, but I believe we still need to do some more to find out what the content needs to be to ensure effective application of learning.

What changes in learning design will actually deliver the needed results? How do we figure out what will work and what won’t?

https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/aligning-corporate-learning-with-strategy/

In their publication “Leadership, Talent Management, Leading Change, Executing Strategy” Shlomo Ben-Hur, Bernard Jaworski, and David Gray say that “The fact is that much of the investment and effort that organizations spend on learning is focused on the wrong things. … research in neuroscience and the science of learning is revealing more every day about how effective learning experiences engage the cognitive and emotional centers of our brains. But breakthrough advances will only be possible when learning is linked to business goals. In our opinion, the emphasis should be on strategic alignment of learning rather than on how learning is delivered.”

I agree that we need to put more emphasis on aligning business goals and the learning materials. But, I also think that there is value in looking at how learning is delivered. I believe both are important. However, I do agree that greater emphasis should be on the content rather than the delivery method.

Overall, I am pleased with how far our field has come but I do agree there is more learning and work that needs to be done. I am looking forward to learning more about how we can improve learning and by extension performance.

2017 Advances in Learning Development and Delivery

As usual when I began to think about this blog I researched what was published on the topic. I looked at 2016 predictions for 2017. I looked at articles written during 2017. But, then I decided that the best way to determine what is changing was to do a review of recent job postings. What are the current requirements being listed for roles in corporate development and delivery of learning?

What I found was very encouraging. Learning organizations are planning to develop and deliver learning events using multiple techniques and methodologies. They are not looking to stop using traditional techniques and methodologies but rather they are looking for employees that can use what has been proven to works but can also implement new techniques and processes. Instructor-led training is still a requirement for some roles. However, that does not mean that organizations are not looking at other ways of delivering learning.

I believe that well-developed instruction with objectives, examples, opportunities for practice, and feedback works, regardless of the delivery method. Costs and learner preferences are factors that also need to be considered. So as we move forward, I am very encouraged that learning organizations appear to be exploring many options for developing learning solutions.

Here are five areas where organizations are improving how they develop and deliver products. They are venturing forward in providing learning experiences that greatly expand on the traditional instructor-led slide presentations.

Objectives

• In the past, developers would often label topic areas as objectives. We are now seeing objective statements that talk to the end results that will be achieved by the learner at the conclusion of the learning event. In addition, the learning objectives are mapped to the Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSA) needed to perform job roles

Collaboration

• Traditionally course developers worked alone or with other course developers. Now it is expected that they will work with others, both within the learning organization, as well as elsewhere within the corporation
• They are expected to be able to confer with internal organizations, partners and others to identify training opportunities based on projected needs, changes, and new products and services
• For example they may need to confer and work with: Instructors, facilitators, instructional designers, multimedia designers, testing specialists, programmers, support organizations, legal, and other team members as applicable to develop learning materials
• Developers will need to be able to collaborate with the training team and cross-functional organizations to build courses, develop practice exercises, write and review e-learning, games, videos and develop certification, end of course and practice exams

Practice

• Traditional instructor-led slide presentation did not usually include practice. Current job descriptions specify the need to be able to create scenarios and practice exercises that provide real-world experiences and provide learners an opportunity to demonstrate concepts presented in the course
• New learning events likely will provide the learner with feedback on performance as well as references for additional learning, practice and more in-depth content as needed

Multiple Delivery Methods

• Corporate learning and development organizations are seeking people who can develop all types of learning events: instructor led, print, computer-based, simulations, and interactive, and non-interactive, workshops
• Developers are being asked to develop slides plus: audio/video presentations, documents, participant materials, games, presentations, instructor guides, job aids, lab instructions and workbooks, assessments and certification questions

Tools

• Reference lists, glossaries, supplemental reading materials, enrichment materials and “Help” topics are being added to learning events

I am very much looking forward to seeing how things progress and change in our field as we move forward into the new year.

A To Do List for 2018

As we begin to look toward 2018, I recommend we look at both our successes and the areas that still need work. We need to look at how our learning products and processes have evolved and where we still need to improve in 2018.

Here are the areas I think we need to look at. Please respond to this blog with additional areas to add. We’ll take a closer look at successes next week and I will be blogging about these topics (and more!) as we venture into 2018.

What I Intend to Write About in 2018:

1. Explain new concepts, techniques, processes, or other new content
a. Why is it needed?
b. How does it integrate?
c. How does it do what it does?

2. Practice
a. Identifying effective exercises
b. Developing learn-by-doing practice items
c. Develop practice items that require learner interaction

3. Feedback
a. How to develop feedback that works
b. What type of feedback doesn’t work and why
c. Where and when to use feedback in different types of learning events

4. Examples
a. Real world applications of what has been taught
b. Use stories to help learning occur
c. Use the right example at the right time

5. Integrating new tools into learning events
a. How tools support learning
b. Why new or fun doesn’t necessarily mean effective
c. Learning which tools will work for an audience

6. Using new techniques to develop learning events
a. How to evaluate what is new for different learning needs
b. How to validate what is new for different learning needs
c. Using formative evaluation techniques

7. Team Learning
a. What is Team Learning?
b. When is Team Learning applicable?
c. When does Team Learning work?

8. Integrate vs. References
a. Learning for memorization
b. Learning to apply to new situations
c. Using references

9. Keeping it simple and short
a. Mini modules
b. Just the facts
c. Test, test, test to find what is missing

10. Switch It Up
a. Keeping the learners engaged
b. Learner participation
c. Get learner feedback