Will at Work Learning

Learning Styles Challenge -- Year Eight -- Now at $5,000

As of today, the Learning Styles Challenge payout is rising from $1000 to $5000! That is, if any person or group creates a real-world learning intervention that takes learning styles into account--and proves that such an intervention produces better learning results than a non-learning-styles intervention, they'll be awarded $5,000!

Special thanks to the new set of underwriters, each willing to put $1000 in jeopardy to help get the word out to the field:

• Guy W. Wallace (Eppic, Inc.)
• Sivasailam Thiagarajan (The Thiagi Group)
• Bob Carleton (Vector Group Inc.)
• Vector Group, Inc. (Bob's firm, in the name of the late Claude "Butch" Lineberry)
• Will Thalheimer (Work-Learning Research, Inc.)

  
Learning Styles Challenge Rules

We're still using the original rules, as established back in 2006. Read them here.

  
What is Implied in This Debunking

The basic finding in the research is that learning interventions that take into account learning styles do no better than learning interventions that do not take learning styles into account. This does not mean that people do not have differences in the way they learn. It just means that designing with learning styles in mind is unlikely to produce benefits--and thus the extra costs are not likely to be a good investment.

Interestingly, there are learning differences that do matter! For example, if we really want to get benefits from individual differences, we should consider the knowledge and skill level of our learners.

     
What Can You Do to Spread the Word

Thanks to multiple efforts by many people over the years to lessen the irrational exuberance of the learning-styles proliferators, fewer and fewer folks in the learning field are falling prey to the learning-styles myth. But the work is not done yet. This issue still needs your help!

Here's some ideas for how you can help:

• Spread the word through social media! Blogs, Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook!
• Share this information with your work colleagues, fellow students, etc.
• Gently challenge those who proselytize learning styles.
• Share the research cited below.

  
History of the Learning Styles Challenge

It has been exactly eight years since I wrote in a blog post:

I will give $1000 (US dollars) to the first person or group who can prove that taking learning styles into account in designing instruction can produce meaningful learning benefits.

Eight years is a long time. Since that time, over one billion babies have been born, 72 billion metric tons of carbon pollution have been produced, and the U.S. Congress has completely stopped functioning.

However, not once in these past eight years has any person or group collected on the Learning Styles challenge. Not once!

  
Research on Learning Styles

However, since 2006, more and more people have discovered that learning styles are unlikely to be an effective way to design instruction.

First, there was the stunning research review in the top-tier scientific journal, Psychological Science in the Public Interest:

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119.

The authors wrote the following:

We conclude therefore, that at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice. Thus, limited education resources would better be devoted to adopting other educational practices that have a strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number. However, given the lack of methodologically sound studies of learning styles, it would be an error to conclude that all possible versions of learning styles have been tested and found wanting; many have simply not been tested at all. (p. 105)

To read more about what they wrote, click here.

Two years later, two of the authors reiterated their findings in a separate--and nicely written--article for the Association for the Study of Medical Education. You can access that article at: http://uweb.cas.usf.edu/~drohrer/pdfs/Rohrer&Pashler2012MedEd.pdf. Here's the research citation: 

 

Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2012). Learning styles: Where's the evidence? Medical Education, 46(7), 634-635.

 

A researcher who had once advocated for learning styles did an about face after he did some additional research:

 

Cook, D. A. (2012). Revisiting cognitive and learning styles in computer-assisted instruction: Not so useful after all. Academic Medicine, 87(6), 778-784.

 

Of course, not everyone is willing to give up on learning styles. For example, Furnham (2012) wrote:

 

 

 

The application of, and research into, learning styles and approaches is clearly alive and well. (p. 77).

 

Furnham, A. (2012). Learning styles and approaches to learning. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, S. Graham, J. M. Royer, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology. APA educational psychology handbook, Vol. 2. Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors (pp. 59-81). doi:10.1037/13274-003

A quick cursory look--today--through the PsycINFO database shows that scientific published articles on learning styles are still being published.

  
Learning Styles in the Workplace Learning Field

Guy Wallace, performance analyst and instructional architect, has been doing a great job keeping the workplace learning field up on the learning-styles debate. Check out his article in eLearn Magazine and his blog post update. 

You'll note from Guy's blog post that many prominent thought leaders in the field have been suspicious of learning styles for many years.

 

 

 

Edgar Dale Myth found in TED Talk....Is there a silver lining to these myths?

The Edgar Dale Myth recently resurfaced in a TED Talk, indicating that TED talks--though doing a great job preparing the speaker to be engaging--don't fact check.

Here is the offending TED Talk, with the erroneous information starting at 5:48.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8ecQDX1XOw

As chronicled on this blog since 2006, and on a precursor website since 2002 (12 years ago), the Edgar Dale Myth is pernicious, dangerous, and seemingly immortal. See the following link for the original post:

http://is.gd/EdgarDaleMyth

Special thanks to JC Kinnamon, PhD for pointing out the offending video to me. JC has been a long-time compiler of the Edgar Dale Myth, and I thank him for his continued efforts!

Crazy Thought

Perhaps there is a silver lining in the continued resurfacing of these myths. For years, I've seen these myths as completely detrimental to our field--something to squash with crusader-like zealotry.

But the speaker in the TED video got me thinking. Perhaps these myths have social value. Perhaps when a myth surfaces, we are receiving an important signal that the conveyor of the myth is a lightweight--that it is very likely that he or she (or they) really don't understand learning at a deep level.

One of the things I hope everybody in the learning field understands is that, first, there is good research and there is bad research; and second, that people who cite research fall into two categories. Some people seek the truth in the research and report what they find. Other people seek research to prop up their previously-held beliefs, to "demonstrate" the benefits of their products or services, or to cast themselves in an aura of credibility.

Yes, it's complicated! And everybody suffers somewhat from unintentional confirmatory bias, but caveat emptor, we as professionals have to be careful in assessing research claims. Science is built on skepticism. Professional practice should utilize a healthy dose of skepticism as well.

The speaker at the TED talk showed that he couldn't be trusted to know learning at a deep level by his use of this phony Edgar Dale "research." And then he double-confirmed it by asking his audience to play word bingo. He gave everybody a bingo card with words on it. Then he had people keep track of the words he was saying. When someone got all the words in a row, column, or diagonal he had them stand up and say BINGO, with applause from the audience. Anybody who knows learning knows that his word-bingo game distracted the audience from the main points of his message, hurting learning.

The use of the Edgar Dale myth by the speaker was an accurate portrayal of his lack of deep knowledge. He may have had some valuable things to say otherwise, but how could we be sure--indications were not good.

Is there a silver lining in the re-occurance of these myths? I've tried to convince myself in writing this that there might be some benefit, but the benefit comes only to those who know that the myths are myths!!! And, for the benifits to accrue, those of us who are out there trying to squash the myths must continue to proselytize and educate. Indeed, for our field to maximize its positive influence, each and every one of us must be hungry hunters of good research, skeptical assessors, and eager communicators.

So, send this blog post to those who are open to continuous improvement. SMILE

 

Poor New York Times piece on Education

Here is the comment I sent to the NY Times in response to their focus on a supposed research study that purported to show that gifted kids are being underserved.

I'm a little over the top in my comments, but still I think this is worth printing because it demonstrates the need for good research savvy and it shows that even the most respected news organizations can make really poor research-assessment mistakes.

Egads!! Why is the New York Times giving so much "above-the-fold" visibility to a poorly-conceived research study funded by a conservative think tank with obvious biases?

Why isn't at least one of your contributors a research-savvy person who could comment on the soundness of the research? Instead, your contributors assume the research is sound.

Did you notice that the references in the original research report were not from top-tier refereed scientific journals?

In the original article from the Thomas Fordham Institute (a conservative-funded enterprise), the authors try to wash away criticisms about regression-to-the-mean and test-variability, but this bone against the obvious--and most damaging, and most valid--criticisms is not good enough.

If you took the top 10% of players in the baseball draft, the football draft, any company's onboarding class, any randomly selected group of maple trees, a large percentage of the top performers would not be top performers a year or two later. Damn, ask any baseball scout whether picking out the best prospects is a sure thing. It's not!

And, in the cases I mentioned above, the measures are more objective than an educational test, which has much higher variability--which would make more top performers leak out of the top ranks.

NY Times--you should be embarrassed to have published these responses to this non-study. Seriously, don't you have any research-savvy people left on your staff?

We have scientific journals because the research is vetted by experts.

Brain-Based Explanations Rebutted Again

Check out this article which claims:

"Science of mind is one of the most important intellectual developments in the last half century. It should not be obscured by neurobabble."

This might be a follow-up post to an earlier one I wrote that showed how easily we are fooled by scientific claims.

 

Learning Styles Challenge -- Three-Year Update

It has been over three years since I offered $1,000 to anyone who could demonstrate that utilizing learning styles improved learning outcomes. Click here for the original challenge.

So far, no one has even come close.

For all the talk about learning styles over the last 15 years, we might expect that I was at risk of quickly losing my money.

Let me be clear, my argument is not that people don't have different learning styles, learning preferences, or learning skills. My argument is that for real-world instructional-development situations, learning styles is an ineffective and inefficient waste of resources that is unlikely to produce meaningful results.

Let me leave you with the original challenge:

"Can an e-learning program that utilizes learning-style information outperform an e-learning program that doesn't utilize such information by 10% or more on a realistic test of learning, even it is allowed to cost up to twice as much to build?"

The challenge is still on.

It has been over three years since I offered $1,000 to anyone who could demonstrate that utilizing learning styles improved learning outcomes. Click here for the original challenge.

So far, no one has even come close.

For all the talk about learning styles over the last 15 years, we might expect that I was at risk of quickly losing my money.

Let me be clear, my argument is not that people don't have different learning styles, learning preferences, or learning skills. My argument is that for real-world instructional-development situations, learning styles is an ineffective and inefficient waste of resources that is unlikely to produce meaningful results.

Let me leave you with the original challenge:

"Can an e-learning program that utilizes learning-style information outperform an e-learning program that doesn't utilize such information by 10% or more on a realistic test of learning, even it is allowed to cost up to twice as much to build?"

The challenge is still on.

Myths the Business Side Has About Learning: Result of Data Gathering

I've been gathering a list of Myths that the Business Side Has about Learning.

I reached out to my clients, to groups in LinkedIn, to my Brown Bag Learning participants. I also reviewed some books, including Stolovitch & Keeps "Telling Ain't Training"; Doyle's "The Manager's Pocket Guide to Training", Bell's "Managers as Mentors". I also brought to memory my own recollections from over a decade of work and research on learning.

I compiled a list of about 140 myths and then used a card-sort methodology to separate them into categories.

Here are the results:

Everybody Hold Myths

First, it became clear that the Business Side isn't the only group that holds myths. Learners and we as Learning Professionals have our own sets of myths. We can't demonize the Business Side. We have to go out of our way to understand and work with the business side to craft workable effective solutions for our organizations and all the people impacted.

Let me say that sometimes I kind of regret that a distinction has to be made between us as learning professionals and them as the business side. There's something wrong with that distinction (we are IN the business aren't we), yet the dichotomy makes some sense since we support others who do the actual work of the business.

The Most Popular Myths
(that the Business Side Has about Learning, according to Learning Professionals)

These are in order from my card-sorting categorization effort. The most-often cited are listed first.

1. Bad Learning Designs are Thought to be Good Learning Designs (big list below).
2. Training Alone Produces Improvements in On-the-job Performance.
3. Information Presentation is Sufficient as a Training Design.
4. Training & Instructional Design Require No Special Skills or Competencies.
5. Learners Know How to Learn.
6. Managers Think Learning & Development is a Low-Priority Part of their Role.

Other High-Importance Categories

• On-the-Job Learning is Forgotten or NOT Utilized or NOT Supported.
• It’s a Training Issue (a conclusion drawn before considering alternative causes).
• Formal Training has Little Impact.
• Experienced Workers Don’t Need Training.
• Development of Learning Interventions is Easy and Can be Shortened or Short-Changed.
• Measurement of Learning. Miscellaneous Issues thereof.
• Technology is Key to Learning Success.

Will's and Other Additions

• Learning Designs Don’t Need to specifically Minimize Forgetting (Enable Remembering).
• Content Doesn’t Need Validation.
• Particular Behaviors are Easy to Learn (e.g., It's easy to do customer service).
• Learning is Always Beneficial. It is Never Disruptive or Distracting. It Never Misinforms.
• Opportunity Costs of Learning Can be Ignored.
• We Don’t Have to Measure Learning.
• We Have to Measure ROI. 
• We can Avoid Measuring Retrieval.

Short List of the Bad Learning Designs that the Business Side (and others I might add) Think Are Good Learning Designs

• It is good to have new employee take all their elearning courses right away before starting work.
• Employees ONLY learn by doing.
• Reading is always bad, boring, and ineffective.
• Training can be just as effective if we make it as short as possible.
• Training doesn’t need pre-work or post-work.
• A large library of courses or books is the way to go.
• Employees need to know everything.
• We should and CAN cater to learning styles.
• Latest management craze (provide book to everyone).
• Six-hour online courses are fine.
• Some learning media are inherently better than other learning media.
• Best value in training is a 10 to 12 hour day.
• More information = More learning.
• People remember 10% of what they read, 20% of what they see…
• Most communication is by body language (57% is body language, only a small fraction communicated is in the actual learning messages).
• We need more exciting visual decorations to grab attention.
• Immediate feedback is always best.
• Etc.

The MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION:  What do we do?

The first thing to do is to demonize everyone and give ourselves kudos for our wisdom,  conscientiousness, and whimsical charm.

No.

The first thing to do is to take responsibility. Just as a speaker must take responsibility to ensure that his or her listeners are understanding the intended message (even though much is out of the speaker's control), we must take responsibility for ensuring that our business stakeholders (1) understand learning at a deep level, (2) understand how they can ensure that training is applied successfully on the job, and (3) understand how they can create a work-learning environment that supports employees in learning on their own, from each other, and from their managers.

I got started on this myth gathering as a way to help me build a course for a client (a very large company) to help them improve work-learning at their company top to bottom, including formal and on-the-job learning.

Will this be easy? No. Someone today at my Brown Bag Webinosh asked, "Haven't we been trying to bust these myths for decades?" Great question, and it goes to the difficulty of the task. Many of us have been trying for decades to make changes, but I think also that many of us are just doing our little part as order takers. We build learning interventions when asked. So, bottom line is that I think we could try harder. That's the first thing.

We need to try smarter as well. I've learned over the years, when I've tried to communicate complicated research-based information, that it is critical to find just the right metaphor, just the right visual model, just the right explanation that is both simple and robust to get the job done.

Maybe human learning and performance is just too complicated to enable this, but I think it's worth a try to build some better metaphors, models, and explanations.

We also need to continue to offer research, real-world examples, and valid evaluation results as evidence. We also need to understand our business partners and their mental models and build our case within their frameworks, so they get what we're saying. We need to build into our training-development process our stakeholder-education efforts and our stakeholder-understanding efforts.

Reaching Out

If your company has created a learning intervention to help your business managers better understand learning and their role in it, I'd love to learn more. Contact me.

If your company would like to utilize or co-develop such a learning intervention, feel free to contact me now.

Complete Lists of Myths That the Business Side Has About Learning
(according to Learning Professionals)
(Note that these are offered "as is" with typos, etc.)

1. "learning" is the accountability of the Training or Development Department or staff, rather than a leadership responsibility
2. 1 and done - one class and they'll know everything
3. 1 or 2 day management training seminar can turn an ineffective manager in to a high performing one.
4. A best practice is to "get all the PPLs out of the way"
5. A business gives a metrics pass to the learning group because “that stuff can’t be measured” and is then puzzled.
6. A learning buffet (large library of courses) is the way to go
7. A learning group is not integrated with those responsible for performance support.
8. a test is need to prove the learners ""know"" it
9. Any set of questions will do. There is no need to check to see which ones are good measures and which are not.
10. Anyone can train someone else therefore anyone can create a training course.
11. Asking a performance leader (someone good at their job) to deliver on the job training should not diminish that performer's output
12. Bad Learning Designs are Thought to be Good Learning Designs (big list below).
13. best value in training is a day 10 or 12 hours long.
14. Build it and it will run: it's vital to get IT involved
15. Build it before or without any needs assessment.
16. Butts in seats is all that matters
17. Content Doesn’t Need Validation.
18. Context doesn't matter; just teach everyone the right steps to a task
19. Courses without organizational support are okay.
20. customer service is easy to teach.
21. Delivering or presenting instructional content (via ILT or online courseware) is sufficient to elicit improved performance in the workplace.
22. Different media create different learning results.
23. Don't bother with objectives; just present the content.
24. E-learning development is fast
25. e-Learning isn't learning.
26. E-Learning takes 1/3 the time of classroom instruction, so it should only cost 1/3 as much to create
27. electronic learning is just as effective as in person learning
28. Employees can't manage their own learning successfully
29. employees need to know everything.
30. Employees only learn by doing.
31. everyone learns the same way (often the way that the manager best learns
32. Everyone learns the same way, so only one style of learning is required..
33. Experienced Workers Don’t Need Training.
34. Facilitators can develop great courses
35. Formal (scheduled, structured, SME-created) learning interventions are the best means of conveying knowledge and skills to our workforce
36. Formal Training has Little Impact.
37. Getting certified by taking a training class alone
38. Hands-on training is okay if it just enables situation-actions
39. Help mgmt solve problem, not just do workshop
40. I already know it so I don't need to go to training.
41. I attended a training class so I don't need to practice it.
42. I attended a training class so I must know how to do it.
43. I don't have to take part.
44. I don't need to go through training, I just need my people to
45. I know everyone had different learning styles, but I learn hands on.
46. I left them a to-do list--they should follow it. No follow up required.
47. I need new folks to start immediately. No time for training.
48. I should see immediate results on my bottom line the first day after training
49. idea sharing is a good form of learning
50. If ""they"" can do it, ""they"" can train it.
51. If I tell all of my people what to do in a meeting, they'll do it and won't need reminders or additional training
52. If someone doesn't know how to do something I will just do it myself because it's faster than teaching
53. If someone is trained on something they will be able to easily figure out how to apply it to their current job without any guidance
54. 'if we build it they will come
55. I'll figure it out on my own so therefore I don't need to go to training.
56. I'm a Director/VP so I don't need to go.
57. I'm a visual learner - I can only understand it if I see it.
58. in hard economic times it makes sense to cut training.
59. Information makes for learning
60. Information Presentation is Sufficient as a Training Design.
61. Interactive eLearning is only for Gen X or younger. Older folks won't get it.
62. It has to be interactive
63. IT training still needs vaildation if the training is presented from a task point of view. Must ensure that the steps taught are the steps needed to complete the task.
64. It’s a Training Issue.
65. Its a training issue
66. It's better if I just have someone show them how to do it.
67. It's easy for people to change if you train them right
68. It's okay for the training function to be order takers.
69. I've been promoted so I don't have to go to training.
70. Just send me the handouts/training materials and I'll figure it out.
71. Lack of cultural sensitivity for global audiences
72. Lack of performance results mostly from lack of skills or knowledge.
73. latest management book or craze (providing book to everyone)
74. Learners have misconception that they don't have responsibility to go beyond listening.
75. Learners Know How to Learn.
76. Learners know what they need
77. Learning Designs Don’t Need to specifically Minimize Forgetting (Enable Remembering).
78. Learning Development is Easy and Can be Shortened or Short-Changed.
79. Learning does not happen outside the classroom
80. learning is a luxury.  We hired smart people.  Just work.
81. Learning is Always Beneficial. It is Never Disruptive or Distracting. It Never Misinforms.
82. Learning P's. don't understand that learning happens on the job.
83. Learning should not take a lot of time away from work.  And people should be able to do self-study for almost everything
84. Learning/Training is the responsibility of other departments -- NOT the responsibility of the managers.
85. Let's give them a book or seminar on the topic and they'll be all better.
86. Live virtual programs (LVC) are most effective when they are recorded without an audience and made available for playback
87. Managers think it's more valuable to create multiple SMEs as opposed to structured learning.
88. Managers Think Learning & Development is a Low-Priority Part of their Role.
89. Measurement of Learning Misc. Issues.
90. Money not available
91. More information provided, more learning.
92. more/better training will solve the problem
93. Most communication is by body language (55%) and tone of voice (37%) rather than choice of words (7%). [This is a bastardization of Mehrabian's studies.]
94. My reports went through e-learning. I don't need to do more.
95. My time is valuable, I don't have time to take a training class.
96. need a class [to practice the stuff]; I already read it
97. Non-business people shouldn’t be involved in business decision making
98. Not just test scores!
99. On the job training happens without structure or reward or cost
100. one size fits all" approach
101. Only paper and pencil tests (i.e., multiple choice/true-false) are adequate for regulatory purposes to prove that the learner has mastered the content.
102. On-the-Job Learning is Forgotten or NOT Utilized or NOT Supported.
103. Opportunity Costs of Learning Can be Ignored.
104. Other High-Importance Categories
105. Particular Behaviors are Easy to Learn.
106. People can learn how to use software from a cheat sheet.
107. people can learn without being made self-aware about their own level of competence.
108. people know "how" to learn
109. People's overall learning doesn't matter, I just want them to do the task right
110. Performers should be assessed immediately after they have received the content from an instructor or from a courseware program.
111. PowerPoint with narration is good enough.
112. PPL completion rate is the way to measure quality of training.
113. PPLs and in-store activities are useless - we need to do hands-on training "instead".
114. presentation = training
115. Pyramid.
116. Quantify and communicate the value
117. Reading is always bad, boring, ineffective.
118. Regulatory and credentialling agencies create good tests.
119. Reports generated by a Learning Management System (LMS) are sufficient for monitoring the learning-to-assessment-to-performance continuum in our workplace.
120. Role plays are a waste of my time.
121. Seen IT buy ""learning"" w/o consultitng HR or Training dept
122. Six-hour online courses are just fine. i.e. no acknowledgement of information overload erasing what is learned.
123. SME's are the best trainers, and Trainers are always the SME's": Pulling an SME to deliver training just because they know the most isn't always the most effective approach.
124. SME's or developers make the best (or even competent) trainers.
125. So often what is perceived by mgmt as good training is attributed to the skills of a good presenter, not to training design.
126. successful performance during training usually results in improved otj performance.
127. Technology is Key to Learning Success.
128. Technology is key to learning success.
129. Tell me what I need to know and that's enough.
130. tell once, people know it.
131. tell them and they'll do it.
132. Telling is all we need to do."
133. Telling somebody once means they will remember it AND apply it to their work.
134. That "presentation" = "training".
135. That stakeholders will see imediate results (i.e. less than 1 year).
136. The best way to design is to use the "present and test method"
137. The biggest myth is that training alone will change people's behaviors.
138. The business believes that they can put an employee through training (be it live, web-based, etc.) and magically they will automatically put the skills into place
139. the course alone will solve the problem
140. the HR as a service provider model gives problems as your 'client' is your customer - and the customer is always right
141. The more slides, the better (death by PowerPoint)
142. The only way to learn is on-the-job-training; spending money on training programs is a waste
143. The skills of instructional designers and educators are pretty shallow and their key abilities are primarily related to instructional technology.
144. the training department can't help - they don't know our side of the business
145. the training is bad
146. there are learning styles
147. There are way too many PPLs... but we need a PPL on _____________.
148. There is no special knowledge needed to teach, design, or organize training
149. They can learn all they need to know in (pick arbitrary unit of time)
150. they don't realize the importance of reinforcement, repeat sessions, follow up
151. They have a college degree so they already know it.
152. They need a course in order to learn
153. Think in-person learning is more effective than online
154. too busy
155. Training & Instructional Design Require No Special Skills or Competencies.
156. Training Alone Produces Improvements in On-the-job Performance.
157. Training can be just as effective if we make it as short as possible (one day instead of three days)
158. training course will solve the problem.
159. Training determines job content and tasks, not the supervisor or work center.
160. training doesn't need follow-up
161. Training doesn't need pre-work or post-work
162. Training done to replace what managers should be doing
163. training fixes everything
164. Training is a cheap-quick-easy solution to a problem with my people
165. Training is common sense.
166. Training is the responsibility of the organization that sponsors it and the trainer who delivers it.
167. Training is time consuming and does not produce results
168. Training isn't very important in my responsibilities.
169. Training Just Happens
170. Training takes too long.
171. Training will automatically change behavior on the job
172. Training willing workers creates willing and able workers.
173. Training/teaching/telling = learning
174. Trainings are luxury and sometimes seen as a cookie for the staff at a time no one really need it. Let them have some legal fun
175. Try again, make sure you use the Access Code that is showing and follow by a # sign.
176. verbal responses (for example to customers) are easy.
177. We can Avoid Measuring Retrieval.
178. we can send them an email.
179. We can train people to do anything...
180. we can train people to instantly recall anything.
181. We can use common sense to guide training design.
182. We can't bring in outside help - our industry is too specialized and our needs are too unique.
183. We Don’t Have to Measure Learning.
184. We don't have to look at the performance situation.
185. We don't have to validate our content.
186. We don't need to learn! We just need to prove we meet the regulation.
187. We don't need to practice. Just tell them.
188. We have no time allocated for training in our budget so it doesn't happen (mgr may not realize that a lot of training happens on the job - not only as a formal process where the employee sits at the computer).
189. We Have to Measure ROI.
190. We only hire people who know what they are doing, they don't need to learn anything, and if they do, they'll pick it up on the job
191. we should automatically assume that an SME is ipso facto 'the best trainer'.
192. We should/can cater to learning styles.
193. When things are not going well it is clearly a lack of skills and knowledge - so TRAIN them
194. Why explain to all levels of employees how the organisation works, how the departments relate to one another, etc
195. Why would I train my employees if they are already doing it?
196. Why would I want to train my employees in specific sub-skills
197. You can develop a perfect course without SMEs.
198. you can fix anything with enough training.
199. You can’t teach people relationship skills (either they have them or they don’t)
200. You don't need objectives, any one can write training.
201. You either have the ability to learn or not.
202. You have competence or not, then you learn it on the job.
203. You need to use a technology to train people properly

Ideas Participants in My Brown-Bag Learning Event Offered on What We as Learning Professionals Ought to Do about the Myth Problem
(Note that these are offered "as is" with typos, etc.)

• Our responsibility - gently guide. Present the right solution when asked for the wrong one
• Give examples of whether X type of intervention has been successful
• Offer performance solutions: this is what we can do (beyond training)
• Bring out the research to dispel the myths
• Develop solid business acumen and work, plan, collaborate from there
• to educate clients
• We need to discuss the learning models and theories that we support when appropriate
• We should be advocates for learners
• We should questions their thinking, ask for evidence
• Provide real evidence of success.
• educate, communicate, inform
• We have to walk a fine line between sticking to the ""truths"" we know, yet dealing tactfully with management's myths.
• myth busters
• Don't be an order taker
• I have found that the RIGHT manager can make a difference. Sometimes change can come from within, by working to influence a middle manager.
• SHOW OUR VALUE
• Have proof/case studies of effects of good design and guidance.
• Don't wait to be invited to clarify them. Anticipate the reality and invite yourself to the table.
• Sell our clients on our skills and recommendations. It keeps coming down to convincing management about the value of what we have to offer.
• As learning professionals we need to promote the effort to focus on what is needed to improve performance.
• To have a clear focus and mission for learning in our organizations, and to be able to communicate clearly, with supporting information.
• Dealing with these myths is our reality and part of scoping a project and defining target and objectives realistically... all the time...

Another Example of the Bogus Percentages. Now by Qube Learning.

Below is another example of the misuse of the now-infamous bogus percentages by a speaker at a prominent international conference in the workplace learning field, this time in an online session in January 2009.

I have documented this problem starting in 2002. The following posts illustrate this problem.

• Original Post (Read this First):  People remember 10%, 20%...Oh Really?

• More Bogus Research Cited. This time at HRDQ
• Excellent Review of Dale's Cone and its Bastardizations
• More Bogus Percentages. This time on Wikipedia
• NTL continues its Delusions
  

A manager at Qube Learning joins the list of folks who have been fooled, and who foolishly and irresponsibly re-gift this faulty information. Point: If you can't verify the credibility of the so-called "research" you come across, don't share it.

And this follow-up slide:

It's a shame we have to keep revisiting this bogus information. I truly wish I didn't have to do this.

Of course, even if you and I wipe this bogus-information example off the face of the earth, there will be more misinformation we'll have to deal with. It's okay. It's the nature of living I think. The learning point here is that all of us in the learning-and-performance field must be vigilant. We must be skeptical of claims. We must build structures where we can test these bogus claims in the crucible of an evidence-based marketplace. It is only then that we will be able to build a fully-worthy profession.

Keep sending me your examples. Thanks to the helpful soul who sent me this example.

Interestingly, just today a major player in our field asked me permission to publish the original blog post (the one debunking the bogus-percentage myth) in their company newsletter (which goes out to over 100,000 people). They too had been using this misinformation in their work and now wanted to correct their mistake. I salute their action.

Excellent Review of Dale's Cone and its Bastardizations

Judith Gustafson just left an excellent comment on an earlier blog post. She let us know about a presentation at the Association of (AECT) Educational Communications and Technology conference in 2002.

Click here for the PPT presentation by Tony Betrus and Al Januszewski of the State University of New York at Potsdam that does a great job of describing what Edgar Dale meant to convey with his cone, AND shows numerous examples of how the cone has been used improperly with the numbers added.

Here is my original post on this.

More Bogus Percentages. This time on Wikipedia.

In what has become an eternal vigil against the myth that "People remember 10% of what they..." I just hit the jackpot with the help of Jay Banks who just sent me an email.

The Wikipedia entry for Edgar Dale had two incorrect references to the bogus numbers that I talk about so often (see my blog category Myths and Worse). I fixed it today, I hope for good.

Here's what it looked like:

And here's what it looked like in Wikipedia:

For those who are shocked that information on the internet might be wrong—or that Wikipedia might be wrong—see my previous entries about Wikipedia (1st Most-Recent).

Learning Styles Challenge 1-Year Update

It has been exactly one year since I offered $1,000 to anyone who could demonstrate that utilizing learning styles improved learning outcomes. Click here for the original challenge.

So far, no one has even come close.

For all the talk about learning styles over the last 15 years, we might expect that I was at risk of quickly losing my money.

Let me be clear, my argument is not that people don't have different learning styles, learning preferences, or learning skills. My argument is that for real-world instructional-development situations, learning styles is an ineffective and inefficient waste of resources that is unlikely to produce meaningful results.

Let me leave you with the original challenge:

"Can an e-learning program that utilizes learning-style information outperform an e-learning program that doesn't utilize such information by 10% or more on a realistic test of learning, even it is allowed to cost up to twice as much to build?"

The challenge is still on.