I as of late read How People Learn: Designing Education and Training that Works to Improve Performance by Nick Shackleton-Jones. It took me some time (WFH and lockdown in any case) to complete it. That is on the grounds that, following twenty years in L&D, you don’t just peruse a book this way. You work with it and mutilate it profitably with notes, remarks, features, activity focuses, the works. You begin to scrutinize some essential suppositions.
In the event that you have been around in learning sufficiently long, you should understand this. What’s more, set up your mentality to reset. In the event that you have recently begun your excursion in the area, I recommend you sit tight for some time before you get this.
In this book, Nick difficulties a few longstanding L&D hypotheses, convictions, and rehearses, and doesn’t look excessively compassionate at Instructional Design by the same token. Its attention is exclusively on how we realize and what should be possible to improve that in the work environment (and the scholarly community).
In’s first experience with the book (that he has named “All that you think about learning isn’t right”) he takes on Hermann Ebbinghaus. As everybody in learning would know, Hermann Ebbinghaus, a German analyst, was a pioneer in the investigation of memory. He found the failing to remember bend and the dividing impact. Scratch figures Ebbinghaus “accomplished something unfathomably inept”.
“What Ebbinghaus achieved was what might be compared to finding the most ideal approach to utilize a cell phone to pound in nails: his examination was both exact and horribly deceptive simultaneously. At the end of the day, while there most likely is a most ideal approach to pound in nails with a cell phone, in case you’re doing that in any case you are somewhat of a nitwit. As is regularly the situation with crude brain science, the patent ludicrousness of the methodology didn’t keep it from being broadly acknowledged as a model for memory, learning, and eventually for training.”
“Tragically, what Ebbinghaus supported was at last a type of misuse – he had found that you can fit a square stake into a circular opening – on the off chance that you hit it once more, and once more, and once more (instead of, state, asking why it didn’t go in the first run through).”
Allow me to explain that these are only a couple sentences from the presentation and the book isn’t about Nick versus Hermann. As you probably sorted out at this point, Nick’s punches are dangerous and tenacious, and I might want to shield the L&D kids from those.
A miniature experience
Our group had a new experience with Nick when we were working on our new eBook on microlearning (have you downloaded the free book at this point?).
During our exploration, we found that Nick upheld the somewhat extreme view that “the LMS is, best case scenario, a consistence and occasion the board framework, and has little to bring to the table the learning association.” Moreover, he accepted that in the event that we grasped microlearning, it was equivalent to “supplanting one awful thought with another”.
After much discussion, we concluded that Nick’s perspectives merited a different book and remembering those for the microlearning summary would have created some turmoil. (Do you figure we should have included Nick? Peruse the book and let us know why.)
Assets and not courses
Scratch would prefer to have a savvy asset than a short course. On the off chance that you need to explore a bustling intersection, would you favor a three-minute course or a Google map?
Scratch didn’t accepting our contention that microlearning was basically an asset.
“The essential point of assets is to improve execution by diminishing the need to learn—so we can’t actually call them ‘miniature learning’. Assets are setting driven, while miniature learning is content-driven.”
This is the thing that Roger Schank, another L&D heavyweight, needs to state in his foreword to Nick’s book: “Scratch discusses assets for learning. He is directly about what he says and his proof for what he says is right on target. In any case, as I would see it, assets are not an option in contrast to courses, at any rate not a choice to very much planned courses. Courses are an ill-conceived notion, obviously, if what we mean by courses is talks, or readings, trailed by a numerous decision test. In my view, conventional courses should be supplanted by profound jumps into genuine issues.”