Awards. Are they good for us?

A leading eLearning awards site lists 10 reasons why you should enter awards in 2012.

7 out of those 10 reasons are to do with business development.

Does that strike anyone else as a bit… odd?  Awards should surely be about promoting best practice and providing inspirational exemplars of great learning content. Shouldn’t they?

But they’re not, they’re about money.  They’re about gaining new business and promoting yourself and your organisation.  Some vendors produce content specifically to win awards, or at least with an eye to making it ‘great’ so that it’ll have a better chance.  Is that so bad?  You could argue that the client with the cash to spend on content that will win awards gains, because they’re getting a superb product.  Maybe that’s true but what about the other clients who in part chose the vendor based on the awards they have, only to receive a not-so-great product?

I’m not vendor bashing here.  It’s a business reality and if that’s a way to help the business, why not?  If you’re pitching for business then a list of awards your organisation has won is bound to help your cause.

What I’m interested in is how they make a difference.  I’ve looked for evidence of previous winners but can’t find the learning content that won the awards (or at least it’s very hard to find).  Good examples of eLearning content are difficult to find, so why not make them available for all to see, learn from and aspire to?

And what about those people who enter but don’t win.  (I’m not a bleeding heart liberal of the ‘everyone deserves a prize’ mindset by the way).  It’s not an equal playing field in many cases, with different organisation being able to provide different levels of evidence and proof.  What happens to the moral of a team, or a sole practioner, who work their hearts out to deliver the best they can.  Only to be told they didn’t make the grade.  They didn’t make the shortlist or didn’t win the top prize.  Someone else is better.  Don’t we teach our children that effort is better than attainment.  Are we rewarding that too?  If so, where?

Then there are internal L&D professionals up and down the country who put their heart and soul into producing the best they can under difficult conditions and manage to make a small difference.  They should get an award, but never will.  They’ll not win because the evidence isn’t there, or it doesn’t look good enough, or it’s not interactive enough, or it’s not for a client that pays or their boss won’t support them…

So what difference do they make?  Do they affect positive change?  Not really – what they often do is reinforce the status quo.  If you think about it, if ‘this‘ has won an award, it’s bound to be good, right?  So we should do ‘this‘ too.  I’d love to think I’m being simplistic but I’m not.  If everyone does ‘this‘ then where is tomorrows great going to come from?  This is actually a big deal.

I wonder what the effect would be of some eLearning awards that awarded unintentional eLearning, the kind that informs, guides, instructs and teaches without ever meaning to.  It’s the you tube video or the simple ‘press the blue up’ instruction from Malcolm Gladwell’s example.  It’s the ad that reminds me to clunk, click or the flash movie that shows me how to get out of a skid.  Now that would be inspiring.  You can’t nominate yourself because you don’t know you’re doing it.  The purpose would be to inspire others, rather than promote self.  Is that where we should go instead?

Returning to the theme, are awards good for us?

No.

No because you’ve got to question the motivation for entering awards.  No because they can give false impressions.  No because they can promote the wrong behaviours.  No because winning awards shouldn’t be why we do things.  No because they don’t affect change.  (They actually reinforce the status quo). No because they don’t make enough of a difference.

I’ll leave the final word to Bruce Mau and his Incomplete Manifesto for growth, number 26:

Don’t enter awards competitions. Just don’t. It’s not good for you.

[Disclaimer: the opinions and thoughts expressed here are my own and in no way reflect the views, opinions or values of the organisation that I work for.]

The Bad, The Ugly and the Learnentation

[Warning: this is a little bit of a rant. You’ve been warned]

Quality.  Now there’s an interesting word.  We talk about it all the time.  We need great quality this, and superb quality that.

But here’s the thing.  It’s not what we expect when it comes to online learning.  By ‘we’ I mean the average worker who has to endure eLearning at work. I did say endure. We all know this is true. Let’s get over that.

What we expect is something that at best isn’t too bad. Even normally it’s probably designed by someone who hates users and at worst, it’s a Learnentation.

(I hope that word isn’t the only contribution to L&D that I make.)

A Learnentation is a presentation that’s been turned (or mangled) into ‘learning’.  We all MUST have seen it.  It’s a PowerPoint presentation, full of text and bullets and bonkers animation (to add interest) that’s been put through a ‘design process’ to make it a learning object.  Someone may have (badly) recorded their voice into it and: “hey, I can just show the hapless idiots (Ooops, I mean my valued internal customers) this!”

Am I ranting?  Maybe, but it’s justified.

It gets worse though, because now there are tools that’ll add flash interdistractions into the learnentation.  That means it’s engaging. Because the user has to click stuff.  I think we all know my thoughts on this kind of thing, so I won’t go there now.  And we end up with something that has little value other than allowing whoever created it to feel proud at having achieved something and a box that’s now ticked. (Training? Tick.)

So what is the cause of all this?

Well, I’m afraid Articulate has a lot to answer for in this one.  They’re mainly responsible for giving tools to people who don’t know better and they think they can create ‘learning’. (To be completely fair, you can get the same effect using Adobe Presenter or even Captivate – producing Presentivates).  They also produced Engage. Which generally doesn’t.  It’s over-used and under thought-through.

So why am I so exercised by this?  Well the thing is it’s actually harming the cause of L&D. We should be seeking to help people be better, or at least not doing any harm. Instead, we’re standing back and letting people create rubbish and not intervening because: “It’s so important to get users to generate content”.  Is it?

Is it really?

When I talked about this at Learning Tech 2010, I talked about review and quality gates with this particular problem in mind.  User generated content is kind of like home movies when you’ve just bought your first video camera.  It’s rubbish.  No, that’s not fair. It’s often completely rubbish.  (Sometimes, about 2% of the time,  it’s great though)

So what do we do?

First of all we pry the tools out of the hands of the dangerous. We stop them using it. Yes, I know you’re gasping but there are some that shouldn’t be allowed to touch this.  It’s like the gun argument. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Yeah, but people without guns find it significantly more difficult etc. etc.  It’s the same with tools. Tools don’t produce bad learning. They’re tools. People produce bad learning. But if they didn’t have the tools…  Then, for the misguided, we provide guidance. For the promising we provide support and ideally we’ll show them some grown up tools, or some grown up methodologies to use their current tools.

Then, we work hard to create a standard that everyone aspires to.

This is because it’s not only the tools, it’s us, it’s L&D that are letting this happen.  Be honest: Hands up who’s created a learnentation (or a presentivate)?  All of us, probably. But we realised (hopefully) that it’s not valuable and did something about it. Did we?  Well we should.

Am I saying don’t give users tools to create content? No. I’m saying give them the tools, the support, the guidance and give them a role model and an exemplar.  When you show normal fare next to good fare, the good stuff looks better.  So show them your good stuff and let them aspire to be better.

And for goodness sake don’t let them think that a presentation can be ‘turned into’ learning simply by adding a voice-over and some templates navigation…

[Told you it was a rant]

Now the reasonable bit.  Tools like Articulate can allow skilled and highly creative practitioners to build effective online learning.  Used sensibly it can be used to create engaging and interesting and effective learning objects.  The problem is; there aren’t that many skilled and highly creative practitioners out there…

[Ok, now I promise the rant is over]

I remember everything (occasionally)

I bet you can remember where you were when Diana died.  Or what you were doing when you found out about 9/11.  I bet the colours are vivid as you recall the exact moment the planes went in and when the towers came down, the feelings of horror and fear.  You can also probably remember in bright detail, writ large across your memory some personal, important events.  Maybe it’s your wedding day, or the birth of your children.

But you can’t.

Maybe I should have said “I bet you think you can remember…”

Before you shout at me, or throw your slippers at the computer, think for a second.  Memory is an interesting thing.  We are entranced with the notion that memories are reproduced from one file (as it were).  But neuroscience tells us memories are recreated from various different parts of the brain, each time they’re ‘recalled’.

Yes, I said Recreated.  Not recalled.

You were right, I was… less right 

(Megamind, 2010)

Just after the Challenger disaster a scientist called Ulric Neisser created a study that has been produced time and again.  He asked a fairly large group of people to write down their thoughts and perceptions of the day.  He then went back 3 years later and asked them to write them down again.

This being an experiment he showed the originals to the participants only once they’d written their memories down a second time.  7% were the same.  That means 93% of respondents recollections were different.  (They were still vivid and bright in their detail, but they went predictably down the brilliantly named Ebbinghaus curve of forgetting, just as normal recollections do.)

Let me say that again, 93% had a different recollection to the one they had straight after the event.  This was reproduced by the 9/11 Memory Consortium with very similar results.

What’s happening here?  Well, as I said before, apparently our memories are recreated from various different parts of the brain, not recalled perfectly formed.  This is where error can creep in.

(One participant said “I know it’s my handwriting, but I can’t believe I said that”)

Fire and Forgettable

So what does this mean for us, as Learning Professionals?

It means this:

If we are going to try and help our users get some knowledge, we better make sure it’s there when they need it.  Because if it isn’t, they’ll get it wrong.  Use it or lose it has never been more pertinent.  (By the way, I define Knowledge as information plus connections.  Knowledge is like a butterfly, beautiful and alive, constantly shifting and moving.  Information is like a butterfly, but one that’s been pinned to a board). There are lots of industries that require regular refresher training to continue working; nurses, paramedics, firemen and lawyers to name but a few.  For the rest of us, we seem to be served by fire and forget learning.

Or fire and forgettable learning.

If we realise that even the most momentous events of our lives are subject to memory failure, how much more is this going to affect that piece of workplace learning we’re working on?  So what do we do?

What we do is make sure we give our users time to refresh when it’s needed, and we make sure that the salient facts are there when they need them.

Refreshing can also be called spaced practice.  If it’s important enough then they need to do it again, regularly.  Once a month, once a quarter, whatever.  It depends on what it is.  We might not think it’s important if we’re in a large corporate and this is a piece about the latest infrastructure update.  But this is very important if we’re dealing with an updated procedure to defuse a bomb, get through a door in a fire or prove someone guilty…

Making it easily accessible means they don’t have to go 3/4 of the way through a 4 hour eLearning course.  It means it’s right there.  It’s that code tip that pops up.  It’s the help button.  It’s the posters or the colleague who’s just been on the course.  Because if we don’t, our users are going to make lots of mistakes based on inaccurate information they think they remember.

Uncomfortable Question…

However, this leads me to another uncomfortable question.  If we don’t need the user to recall it.  If it’s not critical to doing their job well, then why on earth are we wasting time telling/teaching/showing them?  (Even compliance training could be done in a better, more brain friendly way to make sure it sticks.)

Too often, we produce information, call it knowledge sharing and create ‘learning’ that is ineffective and, according to neuroscience, we’ll not only forget it but when we try and recall it, we’ll get it wrong.

Remember the conclusion

So where is this going?  Well, it’s not that startling, but it constantly amazes me how much this doesn’t happen.  Here’s the deal:

If we want users to ‘get’ some knowledge (information plus connections) then we need to make sure it’s there, in many forms, in many ways and often.

If it’s not critical, don’t do it.

Insight from an unexpected source

I recently heard a talk from a missionary in the Kerio Valley in Kenya. Regardless of what you think about their religious activities, the story they had to tell was compelling.

Work started in the valley 25 years ago, where things were pretty desperate.  The little water they had was poorly used and the land was badly parched.  Farmers had replanted the same crop year after year so the soil was exhausted and the average cow would give just 1/2 a litre of milk a day.  Disease was rife and there were no health facilities.  The people survived on handouts.

Now there’s water throughout the valley thanks to it being pumped from a mountain stream.  The cows give 15 litres of milk a day, farmers rotate crops and are able to sell into the local, national and now international markets.  Disease is down, and community projects are common.  Children, even orphans are able to receive schooling and some students have even managed to go to university.  This is a real good news story.

This story deals with behavioural change resulting in real, tangible results and benefits.

So how did they do it?  How did they make that change?  These are the key things that popped out to me.

Slow

The didn’t rush, they knew it would take time so they allowed for that.

Living it

The missionaries lived in the situation.  They weren’t apart.  The first guy in built a house that was seen as luxurious.  It had a door.  They were there, with the locals, speaking the language, struggling with the same things. They shared the pain.

And that gave them credibility.  Because they also came with skills.  They quickly built the water system.  They showed the farmers the benefits of crop rotation by doing it themselves.  One woman missionary even used to visit the local women.  She’d travel for hours to find remote, lonely women who needed someone to talk to.  Oh, and she was in a wheelchair.  This brings me to my next point.

Wanted to help

These people actively wanted to help.  Their reason for being there was to help and they were there for the long term.  It came to the point where people always came to them for help, advice and guidance not because they were missionaries, but because they were willing.

Examples

The final key point is that they were prepared to go first.  The cattle that give 15 litres of milk a day aren’t the same breed.  One of the missionaries bought a new breed cow into the valley because he couldn’t persuade the farmers to try it.  It was a cross breed and was adapted for dryer conditions.  But the only way to persuade the locals was to be first.  So he was.  The cow is now the standard breed in the valley.

When it came to planting mangos a little later, one farmer trusted him and went first.  This guy now has 600 trees.

Learning points

So let’s just tease those out again:

• They took their time
• They lived it, with the locals, in their environment and facing their struggles
• They had skills that could help the locals
• They were willing to go way beyond the call of duty to help
• They led by example, being first to show the way for others

All this meant they gained trust, credibility and respect.  The behavioural change came as they’d gained these things and they earned the permission to do more.

Parallels

The parallels are so obvious here.  How often do we ignore these basic foundations for doing what we are supposed to be experts in?  To affect behavioural change these seem to be some of the rules:

• Don’t rush.  Don’t go in with the solutions all worked out, or even give the impression that they’re all worked out.  Sure you have skills, but don’t trumpet them as right from the off.
• Live it.  If you want to change someone, you need to show them that you understand the place they’re in.  So go and sit with your users. Go and experience what they experience. Feel the customer anger, feel the stress of the pitch.  Talk to them, socialise with them.  If you do, you’ll earn their respect, and the permission to give your views.
• Use your skills selflessly.  Go beyond your learning role and help.  If you see someone struggling with a report, offer to help in your lunchtime.  If they need help creating a team presentation, give them your time.  As learning people we should have skills others lack, in communication, creation, delivery etc. Give freely and don’t expect back.  You’ll find that if you do then they’ll listen to you.  They’ll accept your ideas about how they should change corporately, because you’ve helped them individually.
• If something is hard for the team, group or organisation, go first.  Be the first to adopt the new process, to take the new learning, try out the new solution, even if it’s your solution in the first place.  I promise you that next time someone else will be willing to give it a try first.

Now it’s over to you, what other rules are there?  If you really want to make a difference for your users, are you willing to step up to this significant challenge?