Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Tip #260: Learning versus Training

For a long time now, I have emphasized this key message in each and every train the trainer workshop: the training program is about the learner, not the trainer. And each time, as I've shown participants how to develop learning objectives, I've had to continually remind them that learning objectives identify what the learner will do during the session, not what the trainer will do.

Well, I've finally figured out what I've been doing wrong- and it has to do with a disconnect between my message and my semantics.

For example, I originally created and taught the following six-step LESSON planning process:

1. L OOK into the TRAINING NEEDS.

2. E STABLISH the TRAINING GOALS.

3. S ELECT the LEARNING OBJECTIVES.

4. S ET the AGENDA.

5. O UTLINE the TRAINING METHODS.

6. N OTE how to EVALUATE if the training need has been met.

I became aware of the disconnect very gradually. First, since training methods identify how the learners will learn and demonstrate their learning, I realized that "training methods" was a misnomer. "Training methods' imply that the trainer is using the methods to train the learners. This places the emphasis squarely on the shoulders of the trainer.

However, if the training program is supposed to be about the learners and not the trainer, then this emphasis is incorrect. In actual fact, the learners participate in activities that help them learn and apply their new learning. Training methods are really learning activities. So I replaced all reference to "training methods" with "learning activities."

Then I began to extend this thinking to each step in the LESSON planning process. Aren't the "training needs" actually "learning needs?" After all, when we conduct a needs assessment, we are trying to identify performance gaps. Once we identify these performance gaps, we determine the knowledge and skills the employees need to learn to fill those gaps.

And if this is true, then the "training goals" are really "learning goals."

After all, the goals of the program are for the learners to fulfill these identified learning needs. The learning objectives are then the specific learner actions that will help the learners achieve these learning goals.

Thus began my replacement of almost all things "training" with "learning." This revised thinking and editing resulted in my current LESSON planning process:

1. L OOK into the LEARNING NEEDS.

2. E STABLISH the LEARNING GOALS.

3. S ELECT the LEARNING OBJECTIVES.

4. S ET the AGENDA.

5. O UTLINE the LEARNING ACTIVITIES.

6. N OTE how to EVALUATE if the learning need has been met. I've even started to refer to "learning programs" rather than "training programs." Now, there is no longer any disconnect. I feel that I truly model my message that the learning program is about the learner, not the trainer!

Next week, we will begin a discussion regarding how to teach subject matter experts to incorporate participatory learning activities into their technical curriculum and to become comfortable facilitating this interaction.





Last week's Tip on Learning versus Training apparently struck a positive chord for a number of folks.

Sarah Schenkat, HR/Development Specialist at Badgerland Financial, wrote:

"This is wonderful, thank you. I've been slowly getting our association to talk about learning, which is broader, than just training."

Lou Litchison, Program Evaluation, Hutchings Psychiatric Center, sent these comments along with the Tip to his team:

It always amazes me how sometimes things that seem so simple and obvious once pointed out, can be so very subtle and difficult to identify and communicate the first time.

This learning tip is one of those times in a big way. When I took Deb's course I was really struck, right off, how so many people in the class, mostly professional, full time trainers, approached the activities Deb assigned to practice learner centered methods, from a very self-centered, trainer orientation. I knew this was bass ackwards, but absolutely could not put my finger on why it was happening. This is really an excellent, real-world example of paradigm shift - how very difficult it is to challenge our own taken-for-granted view of things. But once we do, and make the shift, a whole bunch of new insights jump right out at us. Really brilliant, simple, very hard to do.

Porter Williams of Spring Mobile wrote:

"Nice changes, Deb. It does change your perspective. This is good. I often find myself not focusing enough on the learners. This is really good!"

Thank you all, including those not quoted here, for writing in. I really appreciate your supportive comments!

I know that last week I promised more information in this Tip about the upcoming Advanced Learning Design workshop on cognitive load, which is scheduled for April 21 and 22. I should have the brochure ready and posted on my website in a day or two.

In the meantime, let's start with a taste of tantalizing information. Cognitive load learning design experts say that, instead of assigning eight practice problems, we should create four worked examples and four practice exercises. (A worked example is a step-by-step demonstration of how to perform a task or solve a problem.) We should then alternate a worked example with a similar practice problem.

According to research findings reported by Ruth Clark, Frank Nguyen and John Sweller (the "father" of cognitive load theory) in their book: Efficiency in Learning. Evidence-Based Guidelines To Manage Cognitive Load, 'starting with worked examples that transition gradually into practice exercises achieves better learning in less time. Why?

When studying worked examples, limited working memory capacity can be devoted to building a schema of how to perform the task. Having a worked example to study just prior to solving a similar problem provides the learner with an analogy available while solving the problem. When having to actively solve a problem without the benefit of an analogous example, most working memory capacity is used up in figuring out the best solution approach, with little remaining for building a schema.

More about this next week!

This week, we begin a discussion regarding how to teach subject matter experts (SMEs) to incorporate participatory learning activities into their technical curriculum and to become comfortable facilitating this interaction.

Friday, January 16, 2009

Tip #259: Bullet Points and PowerPoint Design

In his article: The Cognitive Load of PowerPoint: Q&A with Richard E. Mayer," "Cliff Atkinson poses two questions which I have combined for our discussion purposes:

"The use of bullet points in PowerPoint presentations has been widely criticized. Based on your research, what effect does on-screen text have on learning- and what are the characteristics of a PowerPoint that is compatible with the way people learn from words and pictures?"

I have adapted the following from Richard Mayer's responses to both questions:

"Bullets don't kill learning, but improper use of bullets kills learning. In order to create effective PowerPoint presentations, it is important to understand how people learn. In particular, cognitive scientists have discovered three important features of the human information processing system that are particularly relevant for PowerPoint users:

1. Dual-channels: people have separate information processing channels for visual material and verbal material.

PowerPoint design should take advantage of the dual-channel structure of the human information processing system by presenting complementary material in words and pictures. In presenting a graph, for example, it is useful to have labels on the slide pointing out the main points.

2. Limited capacity: people can pay attention to only a few pieces of information in each channel at a time.

PowerPoint design should take into consideration the limited capacity of the information processing channels, by minimizing the chances of overloading the cognitive system. One technique is to eliminate extraneous material. Thus, a bar graph should not be presented with three-dimensional bars and lots of cute, but irrelevant, clip art.

3. Active processing: people understand the presented material when they pay attention to the relevant material, organize it into a coherent mental structure, and integrate it with their prior knowledge.

PowerPoint design should promote active cognitive processing, by guiding the processes of selecting, organizing, and integrating information. For example, arrows can help highlight the main things that the audience should attend to, an outline can help people organize the material, and concrete examples- perhaps as video clips- can help people relate abstract concepts to their concrete experience.

The implications are that:

1. PowerPoint presentations should use both visual and verbal forms of presentation;

2. filling the slides with information will easily overload people's cognitive systems; and

3. the presentations should help learners select, organize and integrate presented information.

Next week, we will discuss my recent insight on learning versus training.





A quick reminder: There is still time to take advantage of the early bird discount to attend our upcoming two-day learning design workshop: Designing Participant-Centered Curriculum. The program is scheduled for March 18-19 in Madison, Wisconsin. If you are interested, you can see a brochure on our website or contact me directly at (608) 255-2010.

If you have found the discussion of cognitive load valuable to you, you may want to consider attending the Advanced Learning Design workshop on April 21-22. During this two-day session, participants will apply cognitive load theory principles to existing training programs in order to increase the probability that learning will occur and will be retained. More information about the program will be included in the next Tip.

This week, we look at the difference when we focus on learning rather than training.

Friday, January 9, 2009

Tip #258: Cognitive Load Theory Impact on Multimedia

For this week's Tip, I draw from "The Cognitive Load of PowerPoint: Q&A with Richard E. Mayer," by Cliff Atkinson.

Richard Mayer refers to his book: Multimedia Learning, in which he describes the following six research-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction:

1. Multimedia principle: people learn better from words and pictures than from words alone.

2. Coherence principle: people learn better when extraneous material is excluded.

3. Contiguity principle: people learn better when corresponding words and pictures are presented at the same time or next to each other on the screen.

4. Modality principle: people learn better from animation with spoken text rather than animation with printed text.

5. Signaling principle: people learn better when the material is organized with clear outlines and headings.

6. Personalization principle: people learn better from conversational style than formal tone.

When designing a PowerPoint slide, Mayer says that it is important to present a limited amount of information (i.e., coherence principle) and it is useful to have simple graphics to supplement words (i.e., multimedia principle).

Next week, we will look at why Richard Mayer believes that the improper use of bullet points in PowerPoint kills learning!





This week, we conclude our series on cognitive load theory with a look at why Richard Mayer thinks that the improper use of bullet points in PowerPoint kills learning and how he believes PowerPoint should be designed.

Thursday, January 1, 2009

Tip #257: Three More Cognitive Load Theory Effects

According to Cognitive Load Theory and the Role of Learner Experience: An Abbreviated Review for Educational Practitioners (2008), by Anthony R. Artino, Jr., there are six cognitive load theory effects that reduce extraneous cognitive load. The first three that we discussed last week relate to problem solving: (1) goal-free effect, (2) worked example effect, and (3) completion problem effect.

The remaining three are as follows:

4. Split Attention Effect means to replace multiple sources of information (i.e., separate pictures and text) with a single, integrated source of information. This reduces extraneous load because there is no need to mentally integrate the information sources.

5. Modality Effect means to replace a written explanatory text and another source of visual information (e.g. a diagram) with a spoken explanatory text and a visual source of information (i.e., use multiple modalities). This reduces extraneous load because multimodal presentation uses both the visual and auditory processors of working memory.

Helpful background information: One characteristic of working memory is that its capacity is distributed over two, partially independent processors. This dual-processing assumption is based on theories that suggest there are two separate channels for processing visual and auditory information. The implication of this dual-processing model is that limited working memory capacity can be effectively expanded by using both visual and auditory channels rather than either processing channel alone.

6. Redundancy Effect means to replace multiple sources of information that are self-contained (i.e., they can be understood on their own) with one source of information. This reduces extraneous load caused by unnecessary processing of redundant information.

Next week, we will look at how cognitive load theory can affect the use of multimedia in instructional design.





Laurel Learning Tips is now listed with at BestEzines.com.

If you feel that these Tips have been of value to you, I would very much appreciate it if you would visit our entry and either vote or write a testimonial comment. To write a testimonial, you just click on the "Write A Review" section. Favorable reviews will give subscribers confidence in Laurel Learning Tips. Thank you!

This week, we will look at how cognitive load theory can affect the use of multimedia in instructional design.