Will at Work Learning

Where is Will?

Hello!!

I'm still alive and kicking but I have found it necessary to decouple myself from public speaking engagements and from my blog and twitter as I continue to work on the following main events:

• working with my core clients
• writing and researching my magnum opus (a book focused on channeling research-based evidence into practical learning approaches and one intended to get us workplace learning professionals to take to the streets and storm the fortresses of mediocrity that we have built)
• working as a volunteer at my daughter's elementary school as we create a new school design
• coaching my daughter's soccer team, the Huskies

I am still here, and am available for:

1. short consulting engagements
2. e-learning critiques (a research-benchmarking process)
3. keynote or other paid speaking engagements
4. online workshops on research-based instructional design and/or learning measurement

I'd also be delighted to talk about coaching strategies for youth soccer. SMILE

Unfortunately I am not able to be very active with my blog, nor can I accept any public speaking engagements.

If you need to get in touch with me, you can contact me in the following ways:

• email: info at work-learning dot com
• phone: 888-579-9814

Thanks for your patience,

--Will

Will Thalheimer, PhD
President
Work-Learning Research, Inc.

 

 

Cognitive Load Theory Coming Under Withering Attacks

First I must explain that there is a difference between empirical research findings and the theoretical formulations that human researchers create to explain their findings. To reiterate, we have:

1. research findings (data)
2. theoretical explanations (rationales that researchers invent)

The data can be true, while the theoretical explanations can be wrong.

Academic researchers are paid the big bucks---and gain the highest psychic rewards---for developing theories.

As you know if you've followed my work for any length of time, I put much more faith in data than in theories. 

So, while I am about to share criticisms of a theory, I think the research findings are still sound.

Here are some recent criticisms of Cognitive Load Theory:

-----------------

Ton de Jong says:

What has cognitive load theory brought to the field of educational design? The three main recommendations that come from cognitive load theory are: present material that aligns with the prior knowledge of the learner (intrinsic load), avoid non-essential and confusing information (extraneous load), and stimulate processes that lead to conceptually rich and deep knowledge (germane load). These design principles have been around in educational design for a long time (see e.g., Dick and Carey 1990; Gagne´ et al. 1988; Reigeluth 1983). Work in cognitive load theory often denies the existence of this earlier research, as illustrated in the following quote by Ayres (2006a, p. 288): ‘‘Whereas strategies to lower extraneous load are well documented…methods to lower intrinsic load have only more recently been investigated’’ (p. 288). In his study, Ayres introduces part-tasks as one of the initial approaches to lower cognitive load. Describing this as a ‘‘recent’’ approach denies much of the history of instructional design.

de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105-134.

-----------------

Roxana Moreno says:

Under the light of CLT’s [Cognitive Load Theory's] fundamental limitations, I will make the argument that continuing to use the theory to frame instructional design research is instilling the idea that educational research cannot aspire to have the same scientific value as that of the hard sciences (Diamond 1987). The following are some reasons why this might be the case. When educational researchers are not able to demonstrate that they are making progress, they give further reasons to believe that the learning sciences are a lesser form of knowledge (Labaree 1998). Second, although a strength of CL research is the use of controlled experimental studies—one of the exemplary methods of scientifically based research (Eisenhart and Towne 2003)—it has failed to develop adequate methods that permit direct investigation of the research questions at stake. Science relies on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid data across studies by the same or different investigators (National Research Council 2002).

Third, in any science, researchers construct towers of knowledge on the foundations of the work of others. de Jong raises a valid concern about the fact that CL research often ignores the existence of earlier research and theories that may better account for the findings than CLT. The dangers of this isolated approach to science are clearly stated by Labaree (1998) ‘‘At the end of long and distinguished careers, senior educational researchers are likely to find that they are still working on the same questions that confronted them at the beginning. And the new generation of researchers they have trained will be taking up these questions as well (p. 9).’’

Lastly, although bias may not be completely avoidable, scientists are expected to be aware of potential bias sources in their work. One safeguard against bias in any area of study is to be open to reflection and scrutiny. It is the professional responsibility of educational researchers to evaluate the state of current knowledge on a regular basis, identify knowledge gaps, and lay the scientific principles for future investigation. Engaging in this ‘effortful’ practice is key in fostering a scientific community and culture.

Moreno, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory: More food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 135-141.

-----------------

Schnotz and Kurschner (2007) say:

Numerous empirical studies have demonstrated that traditional instruction can and should be re-designed according to principles of cognitive load theory, and that this re-design results in better learning. However, there are also numerous conceptual problems related to cognitive load theory, which sometimes make interpretation of empirical findings difficult. Although the concept of cognitive load has been frequently described in general terms and although definitions have been provided for different kinds of cognitive load, a closer look reveals that the exact nature of these different kinds of load is not sufficiently clear yet. Further clarification is needed regarding the relations between different kinds of cognitive load and whether they can and how they should be manipulated to enhance learning. Other open questions refer to the role of working memory in the process of learning. Although working memory is a key concept in cognitive load theory, it is not sufficiently clear to what extent working memory is in fact required for learning. Finally, further clarification is needed whether and in which way different kinds of cognitive load constrain each other, how they relate to the process of learning and, last not least, how they can be measured.

Schnotz, W., & Kurschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 469–508.

-----------------

So, the theory is shaky, even though it has generated a slew of great research.

The data is still compelling, so, among other things, we can still use worked examples.

1. Worked examples are useful for novice learners.
2. Worked examples may hurt more experienced learners. Better to utilize practice problems for more experienced learners.

Learning Language on the Web

The following provides a nice article of how people are learning language on the web.

NYTimes Article

From a learning standpoint, here are some research-based reasons that these interfaces might be good in helping people learn a language:

1. Most of the learners are motivated to learn a language.
2. Learners have to engage in retrieval practice, which research shows is a strong support for remembering, and also to test understanding.
3. Learners get feedback on their retrieval-practice efforts.
4. Learners are probably spacing repetitions over time.
5. Learners in their practice are engaged in situations that are contextually similar to the way they might utilize a language--by actually engaging in a conversation.
6. Because they provide a way for learners to overcome the fear of initially speaking to others in a foreign language, learners may be more willing to practice for real, which of course will aid their learning.

Are you being fooled by claims of brain-based learning?

What happens when people add scientific-sounding words to their arguments--even if the scientific-sounding words have nothing to do with those arguments?

Research now has the answer. Here's the research abstract from a recent publication:

Explanations of psychological phenomena seem to generate more public interest when they contain neuroscientific information. Even irrelevant neuroscience information in an explanation of a psychological phenomenon may interfere with people's abilities to critically consider the underlying logic of this explanation.

We tested this hypothesis by giving naïve adults, students in a neuroscience course, and neuroscience experts brief descriptions of psychological phenomena followed by one of four types of explanation, according to a 2 (good explanation vs. bad explanation) × 2 (without neuroscience vs. with neuroscience) design.

Crucially, the neuroscience information was irrelevant to the logic of the explanation, as confirmed by the expert subjects.

Subjects in all three groups judged good explanations as more satisfying than bad ones. But subjects in the two nonexpert groups additionally judged that explanations with logically irrelevant neuroscience information were more satisfying than explanations without.

The neuroscience information had a particularly striking effect on nonexperts' judgments of bad explanations, masking otherwise salient problems in these explanations.

So, if you're swayed by "brain-based learning" and other such scientifically-sounding arguments, you might ask yourself, was the argument really persuasive or was I just fooled into thinking it was.

Weisberg, Deena Skolnick; Keil, Frank C.; Goodstein, Joshua; Rawson, Elizabeth; Gray, Jeremy R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(3), 470-477.

Video about New Media and the Young Generation

Check this out (I can't say more):

Charley Morrow on Today's Employment Handcuffs

Charley Morrow, assessment guru, opens his new blog with a brilliant analysis of one of the biggest issues in today's workplace: Employment Handcuffs (my term--don't blame Charley).

More than at almost any other time, today's workers feel stuck where they are. Figuratively, they are handcuffed to their current companies, positions, and bosses.

Charley's got hard data on this, but I've seen this too. I've seen people who hate their bosses who just can't find a job when they are competing with five other applicants (there are six applicants for every job available in the United States).

Employment Handcuffs leads to depression, anger, sabotage, lack of effort, productivity decline, etc.

These handcuffs also puts managers further into the dark then they already are.

Management Blindness Worse Than Ever

Managers are always in the dark about their own leadership performance. The only people that can tell them how well they are doing as leaders are the people they're leading, their direct reports---and their direct reports are scared/inhibited/hesitant to tell the truth about their boss's leadership performance.

But now it's worse than ever. Workers are scared to death of losing their jobs. They've seen their friends and colleagues out of work for months or years. They've seen friends, family, or neighbors' houses go into foreclosure. They've heard stories about how people lose their health care insurance after the Cobra has unwound itself. 

These smart workers won't do anything to upset their bosses---the people who are most likely to fire them.

How this Hurts Organizational Performance

This hurts manager performance and hurts the productivity and performance of all the employees who have bosses. It's a spiraling down effect.

From a CLO's perspective, you better be doing something to improve your managers' performance in this time of employment handcuffing!! Contact me here for consulting advice.

How Managers Can See the Light

1. Managers have to ask for feedback from a place of authenticity. They have to want to improve their own performance. Ya just can't fake it.
2. Managers have to listen to any feedback they get.
3. Managers have to make changes/improvements in what they do.
4. Managers have to avoid being defensive---even when the feedback is harsh, cutting, or wrong.
5. Managers have to thank those who give them feedback.
6. Managers have to be patient. Your folks don't trust that you're not going to retaliate. It will take time to build that trust.
7. Managers have to ask for feedback routinely, not just at performance-review time.
8. Managers have to be available. So many managers are just too busy to be available. Stop going to all those meetings with folks senior to you!! Your job is to get work done through your direct reports---you need to be there for them.
9. Managers may benefit from multi-rater 360-degree assessments or other assessment-like interactions. Ask Charley about this stuff.

And again, Charley's great blog post is worth the read.

Thanks Charley!! And welcome to the Blogosphere!! Glad you're here.

Learning about the Financial Crises. Michael Lewis Interviews...

Michael Lewis's new book, The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine, sounds fascinating---and important.

Brad Pitt bought the movie rights, so it's clearly got an interesting story to tell.

Michael Lewis tells the story of the folks who first figured out that the financial disaster was coming (the one that caused our current Great Recession). Lewis shows how these oddball stock traders figured out how Wall Street was making huge mistakes---when no one else could see it coming.

The following two interviews are must reading if you want to know how we got into the economic mess we are in. They're also riveting storytelling for the most part.

Learning professionals should listen to the interviews---and read the book too---for two themes: (1) How do people's mental models make it hard for them to understand the changing landscape, (2) How attempts at persuasion often fail in the face of these mental models. You might also find it fun to consider how you would "train" the citizenry to have a better understanding of how its government and Wall Street tycoons failed, how financial markets work, etc. Finally, note how Michael Lewis (and the interviewers) set up the dialogue to make a very difficult topic understandable. Great stuff!!

Interview with Terry Gross of Fresh Aire
About 40 minutes.

Interview with All Things Considered
About 9 minutes.

New Look at Schools. Diane Ravitch's New Book.

Nice review of Diane Ravitch's new book on schools, schooling, and the importance of good teachers.

Seems like it shows just how hard it is to find easy answers.

Getting Journalist Skills (for us bloggers)

I'm thinking some of us bloggers ought to learn from journalists.

Here's a whole group dedicated to citizen journalism. AND, they have a book available to help us learn how to do it.

The Information Explosion

Great article in the Economist on the Information Explosion.

This has huge implications for human learning and performance.

Here's what Bob Cialdini wrote in his masterful book, "Influence: Science and Practice."

More and more frequently, we will find ourselves in the position of the lower animals---with a mental apparatus that is unequipped to deal thoroughly with the intricacy and richness of the outside environment...The consequence of our new deficiency is the same as that of the animals' long-standing one: when making a decision, we will less frequently engage in a fully considered analysis of the total situation. In response to this "paralysis of analysis," we will revert increasingly to a focus on a single, usually reliable feature of the situation...The problem comes when something causes the normally trustworthy cues to counsel us poorly, to lead us to erroneous actions and wrongheaded decisions. (p. 232)

As learning professionals, our clients---our fellow workers---will be more and more confused and duped by information overload. To be successful, we'll have to figure out ways to help them fight their way through the accelerating storm of information.

Again, read the Economist article.