Telling Stories

Long before recorded history humans were telling stories to pass on important information. Research has consistently shown that presenting information in story format results in effective learning. Story telling can also be used in a business environment to convey different concepts and information.

https://www.nyu.edu/faculty/teaching-and-learning-resources/strategies-for-teaching-with-tech/storytelling-teching-and-learning/when-to-use-stories.html

“Storytelling can provide variety in the learning experience and enhance the ‘chalk and talk’ approach. They can be used in the very beginning of the sequence as a way to gain the attention of the learner. They can be used in the middle of the sequence when introducing a complex concept. They can be used at the end of a sequence as a way to summarize information.”

http://www.harvardbusiness.org/blog/what-makes-storytelling-so-effective-learning

“Good stories do more than create a sense of connection. They build familiarity and trust, and allow the listener to enter the story where they are, making them more open to learning. Good stories can contain multiple meanings so they’re surprisingly economical in conveying complex ideas in graspable ways.”

Telling a story of how to address a business problem is more impactful than listing the steps that need to be taken. By conveying what the problem was that needed to be addressed and explaining how the individual or group went about solving the problem usually gains the learners attention more fully than a set of “how to do” instructions.

It is also likely that telling a story after explaining a problem or opportunity will engage the learner in the solution. A topic can be introduced followed by a story and then the learners can be given an exercise where they will need to use the information provided in the story. Learning by doing is a proven learning technique. Combining both story telling and hands on practice both of which are proven technique for learning is likely to provide the results businesses need from the training they offer.

Even when the training involves new products or services a story can be incorporated into the training. New products and services are developed based on a perceived need or opportunity. Telling a story about the need a business has and explaining how the product can contribute to addressing that need can be an impactful story.

I recommend that if you are developing training on any topic that you think about how the subject of the training can be enhanced by a story.

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.

A Learning Consultant Reviewer

Lately I’ve been wondering if we are developing learning products in the most efficient way. Are we maybe missing out on developing a better learning product? I’m not thinking about cost effectiveness or timeliness or any other factors yet. Just for right now I’m talking about the learning product itself.

Okay, first I need to share my bias. I believe that content developed by course developers should be reviewed by learning consultants like me, in addition to being reviewed by technical resources.

For many years my role in various learning organizations was to review learning materials and consult to course developers. I would have preferred to be involved from the very start, when the need for the learning product was first identified. But in most cases I was brought in to review and provide feedback to the almost complete product.

My role was to identify areas that needed to be enhanced, revised, developed further, and so on. Sometimes I recommended exercises so the learner could self-test the application of what was being taught. At other times I recommended revisions to the language used. Often, because we were working with international audiences, I needed to determine whether there might be a better way to present the material to different audiences. I also reviewed the instruction for several other factors. While this was my role, it isn’t as far as I know a role that many other people have filled currently or historically.

While I wish that I could say that large portions of my recommendations were implemented, in most cases they weren’t. In almost all cases it was simply too late to make any but the smallest non-technical revisions or additions or corrections.

Now, what if I was a partner to a team of course developers, and I reviewed each component as it was developed? If this were the case, I could not only recommend enhancements but often I could draft a version of my recommendations.

For example, if I believed a story or an exercise would allow for better absorption of the content, I would draft a version of what I was recommending. This is something I was actually able to do on occasion, but not as often as I would have liked.

I was never a subject matter expert (SME), nor did I know very much about the technical content being taught. But I did have the developing instructional materials as a basis to work from. I most often got things right enough so that the SME could revise or build on what I had developed. My products usually had holes in them where I just didn’t know enough. And sometimes those holes even let the course developer know that additions were needed. But, I’d write what I knew and then put a note for the SME to add content where needed. Sometimes I’d include an example from life.

Maybe the content was talking about how to solve a technical problem and the steps needed to resolve the problem. I might include an example of solving a problem like changing a light bulb and the steps and thought process needed to get there. This usually was enough for the SME to develop a better example if necessary.

At other times, I saw that detailed and complex content was being presented and I thought an exercise would help the learners to integrate and also verify that they understood what was being presented. Again, I developed questions based on the content. For example, I would turn a concept that was presented in the instruction into a question and try to develop the correct response along with incorrect responses for review and modification.

The key was that I gave a direction to work with. If for example, the instruction was covering how to code in a new language. I might use an example of a new feature in a new car. I’d explain how the new model contained a new feature. Perhaps the car now made a sound when the driver changed lanes without having the turn signal on. I might give this example to a course developer writing a module on an upgrade to an existing product and ask that they include this type of example.

Having a trained consultant provide this kind of support to course developers would produce better learning products. Learners would in turn be better able to understand and use the product. This resource might not only improve the learning products, it might also lead to better sales, support, marketing or whatever roles for which the product was developed.

It’s an idea that, like I said above, still needs a lot of consideration regarding cost, timeliness, and other factors. But the rewards might far outweigh the price. What do you think?

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.

Evaluating and Adopting Change

We live in an age where change is constant. In the learning field there are a lot of new products, processes and methodologies that we as learning professionals should review, consider and hopefully, find some that will work for us. As we review the new, we also want to keep in mind what is already working and add or augment to what we know works for us.

As Crystal Kadakia and Lisa M.D. Owens point out you can update what you have, refreshing and adding without getting rid of what is good.

https://www.td.org/Publications/Magazines/TD/TD-Archive/2017/03/Modernizing-the-Learning-Design-Process
Association for Talent Development (ATD)
Wednesday, March 01, 2017 – by Crystal Kadakia, Lisa M.D. Owens

“Don’t throw away your existing programs just yet. You can modernize them by adding a few of the nine elements commonly seen in modern learning:
• accessible 24/7
• autonomous
• chunked into smaller bites
• easily updateable
• experiential
• self-selected
• hyperlinked to related content
• MVAK—that is, multimedia, adding visual, auditory, or kinesthetic input
• social.”

Here is another list from early in the year about the new topics for 2017:
http://www.yourtrainingedge.com/top-learning-and-development-trends-in-2017/
Top Learning and Development Trends in 2017
By Guest Contributor – 01/16/2017

Your Training Edge: Your Online resource for Corporate Training
• Mobile Learning
• Social Learning
• Adaptive Learning
• Virtual Reality
• Measuring Effectiveness

Both of these lists are good because so much is going on these days. I think when the 2018 review of the 2017 new trends and predictions for 2018 come out we will once again read about a multitude of new and innovative ways we can enhance and improve learning events in our organizations.

I think the guest author of the “Top Learning and Development Trends in 2017” has it right.

“As an astute professional, you need to keep a close eye on every development in the training and development space and other areas. Connect the dots and use newer techniques even from outside the learning and development domain to make your strategies unique and innovative.”

However, I also want to mention that we should not lose sight of several other factors to consider in modernization the way we plan and create learning materials. I believe the most important element is still the need to begin with identifying the end result at the beginning of any effort. The end result is what we want learners to be able to do as a result of what they have learned. In this way we can develop the training with a focus on what needs to be included to achieve that end result. Yes, this isn’t new, but it needs to be considered in our modernization activities.

We need to continue to focus on both how we present learning events as well as how people learn. We also need to look at things like explaining the concept or process that needs to be learned. In addition, we need to include examples, practice, feedback, and an explanation of where things can go wrong and how to prevent or fix issues. Yes, again, these things are not new but they need to continue to be mentioned as sometimes we get wrapped up in the new and we forget what still is relevant and important.

Development of learning products can be roughly divided into a few areas, formatting the content of the presentation, looking at how people learn, and determining what has to be integrated into the learning event to make learning happen. We need to give learners the ability to assess how well they are doing, which practice exercises allow them to do. In addition to practice questions about the concepts or processes, we need to provide the learner with situations that allow them to use what they have learned to solve problems. It is not enough to ask learners to explain a concept or a process; they also need to apply their learnings to real world situations. A very good way to do this is to develop scenario questions. Scenario questions describe a situation in which the learner has to apply what they have learned to respond to the question. Feedback explaining how and why things need to be done to address the situation described in the questions is critical for learning to occur. Learners need feedback and they also need pointers to places where they can learn more.

In the last few years we have really begun to make good progress in finding ways to enhance learning events. But we still need to pull all the components together, test how well they are working, and see what else we need to do. It is great that we have new tools and that we can make things available 24 seven but we still need to focus on how learning happens and what is needed for learning to occur. So let’s continue to find new ways to design, develop and deliver learning products.

10 Steps to Design Effective Instructional Materials

This is (mostly) a check list of what I believe are the key points for instructional designers to remember. Use these before starting to develop a new instructional product. Similar to reading a reminder or an update about good nutrition, good sleeping habits or getting enough fresh air and so forth. This post addresses the steps that I think are important to winding up with quality instruction.

What’s old is new again or dressing up or modifying an old concept can lead to increased success. I am cheering in the stands because leaders in the field of learning have recognized and publicized the fact that (once again) less is more. Yes, some of us know this is a concept that has been around for a long while, but it is now getting prominence.

Give people small units of instruction with examples and an opportunity to practice components, provide feedback to the practice exercises, and then explain how to apply the learning to real world activities. Small units of instruction can be linked to each other to create a course. Okay, so here is a checklist for developing small (20 minutes or less) units of instruction.

1. Begin with the end in mind, document what you want the learner to be able to do
2. Develop test questions that will allow the learner to demonstrate what they are able to do
3. List the steps needed to accomplish the end results
4. Identify the order in which steps need to be completed. Showing which steps can be completed in any order and show which steps must be completed in a specific order
5. Explain the gotchas, list the things that could go wrong and explain how to avoid them, how to fix them, or how to mitigate them
6. Develop instruction for each step, explain why it needs to be done, why it needs to be done in a specific order (or doesn’t need to be done in a specific order)
7. Develop several examples for each step
8. Develop one or more questions that will allow the learner to test if they are able to perform the action needed
9. Find a member of the target population to go through the instructional unit while you take notes on what works and what doesn’t work
a. Note: If a member of the target population isn’t available have someone else work through the training and identify what might be confusing or missing
10. Modify the materials based on findings from the evaluation of the unit of instruction

This might look like a lot to do, but doing something right the first time will produce the product you need without having to revise or replace parts because the product doesn’t work. A learner should be able to complete each unit of instruction you develop in 20 minutes or less. The development process should also take less time once you gain proficiency in using this process.

I hope that you will use this checklist and see how it works for you. Please comment below!

Content versus Packaging

Many years ago when someone wanted to express their views they would stand on a box and speak to the assembled crowd. Every so often I feel the urge to get up on my soapbox and once again speak to what I believe is key in designing instruction. Regardless of whether that instruction is instructor led, via gaming, mobile, blended, or any other method of delivery. This is one of those times.

As I read the latest articles on instructional methodologies for improving learning, I keep seeing posts that talk about the selection of media. The comments are all about packaging the content. And not nearly enough, in my opinion, about developing quality content through good instructional development processes.

Most of the current publications addressing the development of learning products are about different delivery methods and uses of media, or combining media and classroom strategies. I keep wondering why learning designers are not talking about strategies for developing the content. I believe we need to keep reinforcing the methodology of starting with the end result, moving on to identify what the learner will need to be able do, and then what the learner will need to know, before determining which media would be appropriate.

There is no question in my mind that we now have many really good delivery tools. But they are not the key component to good instruction. I liken it to using the finest ingredients to create a dish using a poor recipe. The results can’t be predicted.

I believe we need to keep reinforcing the key steps in instructional design. If developers begin with the end in mind and then determine what the learners will need to be able to do at the conclusion of the learning event it will go a long way toward helping identify the media that will support effective learning.

There’s nothing wrong with adding interesting and engaging methodologies for delivering the content, but if the content is not good, it doesn’t matter how good the packaging is. When you receive a present or gift and you see how beautifully it is packaged, you’re likely to be impressed. You usually appreciate it for the moment but, in most cases, what is more interesting and more important (and more valuable!) is what’s inside the package. To me that’s the same as instructional development processes figuring out first and foremost what the content needs to be and then looking at the delivery media.

Of course practice in applying the concepts and skills is also critical to making learning happen. With all the new learning technologies available, developers can find many interesting ways to provide practice in performing the learning goals. But even here we need to expand our thinking about how to provide instruction and associated practice exercises.

It’s Time to Finally Kiss Traditional eLearning Goodbye

By Jenny Dearborn January 7, 2015
https://www.eremedia.com/tlnt/its-time-to-finally-kiss-traditional-elearning-goodbye/?utm_campaign=elearningindustry.com&utm_source=%2F&utm_medium=link

“Skip the dinosaur era thinking that every learning need can be solved by a self-paced click-through eLearning and get on the cooler AND more effective bandwagon of mobile, social, chunking and gamification.”

While good delivery methods contribute to the overall learner experience, developing good instruction is not dependent on the delivery method. That is not to say that the delivery methodology isn’t important, but it isn’t the major factor in developing good instruction. Good instructional development needs to first have the learning objectives and the end result identified prior to selecting the delivery methods. Once that is done it is time to consider the delivery methods.

If A Classroom Is How You Train, You’re Doing It Wrong
By Daisy Hernandez September 29, 2016
https://www.eremedia.com/tlnt/if-a-classroom-is-how-you-train-youre-doing-it-wrong/?utm_campaign=elearningindustry.com&utm_source=%2F&utm_medium=link

“… many companies fail to develop a structure that supports new learning technologies. When blended learning programs go wrong, they can reduce the engagement and retention levels they were seeking to improve. When professionals are considering this type of approach, there are a few nuances to consider.”

… Vary learning communities by size and scope, so learners can go as in-depth as needed and the information can be shared with external members.

… Foster continual reinforcement of content with virtual training rooms so learners can engage with each other and experts before, during, and after training via Q&As, comments, etc.

… provide access to additional channels, such as discussion boards, newsrooms, mobile access, etc., to cultivate learning communities.”

Thank you everyone for listening to me during this brief time on my soapbox.

The Changing Times

Usually when I select a topic for a new blog I start by doing some research. I think about the topic and what I want to share. Then I look for current postings about the topic, what the most common thinking is, and what new or interesting information I can impart.

For this blog I wanted to look at the roles of corporate course developers and trainers. It wasn’t so long ago that people who wanted to be hired into a technical role often found that only training roles were available. They generally came in, did their time in the role, and then moved on within the corporation.

I was very surprised to learn that the requirements for current jobs had changed significantly. In what I think of as only the recent past, the main requirement was a technical background and a willingness to learn on-the-job how to develop and/or deliver training.

Today the role of instructional designer now has many additional responsibilities. And, of course, along with the additional responsibilities there are additional areas of knowledge required to carry out the role responsibilities.

The instructional designer is now a sought after role. People want to be in the role rather than wanting to move from it into a more prestigious role.

https://elearningindustry.com/6-figure-instructional-designers
WANTED: Six-Figure Instructional Designers
By Vicki Kunkel
May 26, 2015

“Once considered the red-haired stepchildren of corporations, instructional designers are finally going from no-respect Rodney Dangerfields to super cool content heroes.”

Kunkel also had two important observations to make.

The first was that the role now commands a six-figure salary, but she also said:

“One caveat: nearly all of the director and VP level positions required both design and development skills; not one or the other.”

This last comment was of great interest to me as, other than when I was a student, I have worked as a course designer or as a consultant to course developers but never both. The role of the course developer has expanded to include more areas of expertise and is generally now referred to as an instructional designer.

I am wondering where the role of the individual who uses a structured process to design and develop instruction has gone. In the past this role was known as an instructional designer. This role, while still performed in an academic setting, doesn’t seem to have a place in corporate training departments. As this is a role that I have performed in several different corporate settings I believe it is a role that has gotten lost and that corporate training departments might do well to consider bringing it back.

What Do Instructional Designers Do?

What Instructional Designers Do: Is this a career for you?
by Connie Malamed

“Instructional design involves the process of identifying the skills, knowledge, information and attitude gaps of a targeted audience and creating, selecting or suggesting learning experiences that close this gap, based on instructional theory and best practices from the field.

Ideally, workplace learning improves employee productivity and value and enhances self-directed learning.”

I believe that the change in the role responsibilities for the corporate person who is called an instructional designer are excellent but I would also like to see corporate training departments considering the value of adding someone who does the up front analysis of what is needed based on learning theory. As we move more and more away from instructor led training I believe this role will become even more important. I believe using these techniques will allow for better-targeted learning experiences with better learner retention.

If we look at other professions we can generally see that people who perform those roles do a creditable job with delivering the needed end result. Accountants, engineers, business executives and many others for the most part deliver a more successful end result than training professionals. Almost all business training organizations request feedback on the quality of the course and when an instructor is involved the company also looks for feedback about the delivery. This is because there are, in my opinion, far too many complaints about the quality of training offerings. If a learning professional does the up front analysis and identifies the end results for a learning event, it will go a long way towards offering a better quality product.

We don’t need any more Snake Oil

A chemist usually knows what will happen when they combine certain chemicals. A mathematician knows the formulas to use to solve certain types of problems. A writer can follow a standard to include references in a publication. But, a learning professional doesn’t always know whether their development or delivery techniques will produce the desired end results.

It seems like a day doesn’t go by without someone or some organization promoting the miracle new method for designing, developing, or delivering training. Why do we continue to look for new ways to train people? Why haven’t we as educators found the Holy Grail for making learning happen? Why are we still looking for the next big thing to help learning occur?

There are those who propose that learning happens best when combined with humor, graphics, stories, games, and on and on. I agree that each of these (and many more) methods can help learning to occur. But so far we haven’t found a consistent methodology for consistently transferring knowledge.

When we look at other fields of endeavor we find that there are methodologies that are tried and true. In fact there are many of them for many fields. And although the field of learning has embraced many techniques, we really don’t have a set that most professionals recommend to ensure that learning will occur. Some support the theory that different people learn differently and that different techniques work for visual, auditory and kinetic learners. There are others who say that, if the learning materials are developed following a design model, then everyone will learn from the materials regardless of whether they show a preference for visual, auditory or kinetic materials. They may take different amounts of time to gain the capabilities, but everyone will learn.

I wish I could say that I have the definitive answer that will always make learning happen. Unfortunately, I don’t. However, I do think that there are certain elements that most often produce good results. But, is this enough? Don’t we want a tried and true process for making learning happen more often than not?

A concern that I have is that there are too many “snake oil” methods for producing learning results. Another concern is that while research activities into learning methods have produced successes, research hasn’t yet (and may never) identify a holistic approach to consistently developing successful learning events.

Over the years incremental findings for successful techniques have certainly been identified and promoted. Yet, there are still so many techniques and tools being promoted that have little or no value. Why is this the case? I believe as learning professionals we all want to find the process that will deliver better learning results from our efforts.

“Mind, Brain, and Education Science: A comprehensive guide to the new brain-based teaching (W.W. Norton) is a book based on over 4,500 studies and with contributions from the world’s leaders in the science of Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE).” History shows us much of what has occurred since people started to teach. This reference covers the science of Mind, Brain, and Education. This science has been around for some time but is still considered an emerging field. At this point most of what is published about MBE addresses young learners. However, I believe it can also provide guidance to those of us who develop learning events for adult learners. More information about MBE and the history of learning can be found in:
http://education.jhu.edu/PD/newhorizons/Journals/Winter2011/Tokuhama4
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE SCIENCE OF LEARNING: Part 1 (3500 B.C.E.-1970 C.E.)
And
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE SCIENCE OF LEARNING: Part 2 (1970s-present)
Dr. Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa, Ph.D.

“If research produces useful knowledge for most of the industries and businesses of the world, then shouldn’t it be serving the same function for education? Somehow education has been mostly exempt from this grounding in research.”

Click to access FischerGroundwork.MBE2009.3.1.pdf

Mind, Brain, and Education: Building a Scientific Groundwork for Learning and Teaching; Kurt W. Fischer
Presidential Address: First Conference of the International Mind, Brain, and Education Society
Volume 3—Number 1 © 2009 the Author Journal Compilation © 2009 International Mind, Brain, and Education Society and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Perhaps some researchers will look at how these three areas (MBE) interact for adult learners as well. For right now this is an area that is ripe for research. I hope that some doctoral candidates will begin to explore and publish their findings in this field focusing on adult learners. In the meantime we all need to be careful that we don’t buy the snake oil to find a quick fix for developing learning events.