On the first day of “flying lessons”, Clarence could barely control his excitement (and Felix could barely control his bladder). Clarence explained that their apartment had 15 floors and each day Felix would jump out of a window starting with the first floor eventually getting to the top floor. After each jump, Felix would analyze how well he flew, isolate on the most effective flying techniques and implement the improved process for the next flight. By the time they reached the top floor, Felix would surely be able to fly.

Felix pleaded for his life, but it fell on deaf ears. “He just doesn’t understand how important this is…” thought Clarence, “but I won’t let naysayers get in my way.” So, with that, Clarence opened the window and threw Felix out (who landed with a thud).

Next day (poised for his second flying lesson) Felix again begged not to be thrown out of the window. With that, Clarence opened his pocket guide to Managing More Effectively and showed Felix the part about how one must always expect resistance when implementing new programs. And with that, he threw Felix out the window. (THUD!)

On the third day (at the third floor) Felix tried a different ploy. Stalling, he asked for a delay in the “project” until better weather would make flying conditions more favourable. But Clarence was ready for him. He produced a timeline pointed to the third milestone and asked, “You don’t want to slip the schedule do you?” From his training, Felix knew that not jumping today would mean that he would have to jump TWICE tomorrow. So he just said, “OK. Let’s go.” And out the window he went.

Now understand that Felix really was trying his best. On the fifth day he flapped his feet madly in a vain attempt to fly. On the sixth day he tied a small red cape around his neck and tried to think “Superman” thoughts. Try as he might, though, Felix couldn’t fly.

By the seventh day, Felix (accepting his fate) no longer begged for mercy. He simply looked at Clarence and said, “You know you’re killing me, don’t you?” Clarence pointed out that Felix’s performance so far had been less than exemplary, failing to meet any of the milestone goals he had set for him. With that, Felix said quietly, “Shut up and open the window”. He leaped out, taking careful aim on the large jagged rock by the corner of the building. And Felix went to that great lily pad in the sky.

Clarence was extremely upset, as his project had failed to meet a single goal that he set out to accomplish. Felix had not only failed to fly, he didn’t even learn how to steer his flight as he fell like a sack of cement. Nor did he improve his productivity when Clarence had told him to “Fall smarter, not harder.” The only thing left for Clarence to do was to analyze the process and try to determine where it had gone wrong. After much thought, Clarence smiled and said, “Next time…… I’m going to find a smarter frog”

Engineers Australia list 7 forms that CPD may take in order to retain chartered status:

• Formal post-graduate study not undertaken for award purposes;
• Short courses, workshops, seminars and discussion groups facilitated by recognised practitioners in the field;
• Learning activities in the workplace;
• Private study;
• Service to the engineering profession;
• Presentations at seminars and symposia;
• Tertiary teaching and/or academic research; and
• Other structured activities that meet the objectives of the policy.

But how do trainers stay up to date?

There are some great training conferences. The Australian Institute of Training and Development (AITD) hosts one most years. They also hold professional development events in most capital cities on a regular basis. There is a usually a large Australian contingent at the American Society for Training and Development’s (ASTD) annual conference.   

While the opportunity to maintain currency is available, it is not required. The standard qualification for trainers in Australia is the Cert IV in Training and Assessment. It lasts forever.  

I believe that the value that good trainers add to industry, commerce, government and society is so high that there must be a requirement for continuing professional development, if only because of the value that poor trainers subtract. 

The effect has been quite unexpected. I have now discovered that to get the message out there is a presentation skills requirement – beyond use of the tools, and now I am coming to realise that the biggest concern is a psychological one.

Early in the course I was attracted to an on line discussion group, TR Dev at Yahoo groups. This is a closed group, but you can apply for membership through a button on the sidebar of this weblog.

The first discussion I encountered was about the mythical statistic that we recall 10% of what we hear, 20% of what we see, 30% of what we see and hear together, and an ever increasing proportion until you reach 90% for the type of communication medium that the salesman is trying to push.

Like most trainers I first heard those numbers early in my training career, but as a former engineer I asked questions like how long after the episode was the recall measured? My mentor didn’t know, but promised to get back to me. I am still waiting.

The discussion on the list caused me to reflect on the significance I give to numbers as a learning aid.  Because I am from a numerate first life I start analysing the numbers as they are presented. For many it seems, the number is enough. Perhaps that is why 67.42% of statistics are made up on the spot. (That was meant to be a joke.)

But an article in this morning’s Sydney Morning Herald that addressed the numbers issue caused me to reflect on how much information I deliberately avoid looking for.

The article was an extract from the book Risk: the science of politics and fear, by Dan Gardner.

The headline attracted me because one of the areas that I train in is Risk Management. The first paragraph nearly turned me off, because it started “‘Recent figures suggest some 50,000 pedophiles are prowling the Internet at any one time,” says the website of Innocence in Danger, a non-government organisation based in Switzerland.”

The subject was an area that I prefer to remain blissfully ignorant of. I am not saying it is not important, just that my mind is made up that I find the subject repulsive. There is too much good stuff that I don’t have time to find out about. I choose not to spend my weekends contemplating an abhorrent topic.

It was the next paragraph that got me in: “No source is cited for the claim, which appears under the headline ‘Some terryfying [sic] statistics’.”

So for the moment, forget about the topic, I won’t mention it again until the end, when I will discuss the effect that the topic had in almost making me avoid the article.

The number 50,000 is just too round to be believable. like the 10%, 20%, 30% or 90% recall. 

So rule number 1: Suspect numbers that are too round 

But there are other concerns with the statement, that are common to misuse of numbers.

How about all 50,000 being on line at any one time. If each spends 12 hours per day every day on the net then the number of deviates has just doubled. They must work in shifts to keep the number at 50,000 at all times. If six hours of prowling is all that some can mange because of firewalls and footsteps, the number is now up to 200,000. If some are only a little bit deviant, so only prowl for six hours a week, then the number may be as high as 1.4 million. this is getting close to the results of the survey I saw that said 50% of respondents admitted to viewing X-rated material on the Internet. The other 50% were women.

Rule number 2: Look for specific details of the source of the study.

No doubt you can still remember the number quoted in the study, but which of the following is cited as the source:

• A study conducted at Harvard university
• FBI statistics
• The Swedish Government
• A non government organisation based in Switzerland
• Recent figures

Correct. It was “recent figures”. They were quoted on a Swiss web site, but the non-government organisation that hosted the site dose not claim to have done the counting.

According to the article, however, it is not just this one web site that displays them.

It has been cited in Britain, Canada, the US, and points beyond. Like a new strain of the flu, it has spread from newspaper articles to TV reports to public speakers, websites, blogs, and countless conversations of frightened parents. It even infected Alberto Gonzales, the former US attorney-general.

Rule Number 3: The more often the number is quoted, the more important it is to seek out the source.

Like most university students, I hate academic referencing. But the requirement to justify statements with references to authoritative sources is something that should be taught long before university.

Sure it is time consuming. Both in seeking out the source and appending it to each comment in a conversation. But this particular statistic is, according to Gardner, finding its way into all of he sources that we look to for information –  ”from newspaper articles to TV reports to public speakers, websites, blogs, and countless conversations of frightened parents.”

Rule Number 4: if a celebrity said it Google for their exact words.

Gardner claims that “It even infected Alberto Gonzales, the former US attorney-general.”

I was unable to confirm through a Google search:

• Gonzales (as attorney general) had sought a random selection of 50,000 Google searches  as part of a  defense against a supreme court challenge to a child protection law;
• A suspect was found to have 50,000 illegal photos on his hard drive, and
• Yes, Gonzales did use the figure in the context quoted in a CNN interview. When asked for the source, he cited a Dateline program on another TV channel. When the Dateline reporter was asked for the source in a radio interview for a media watch program, he conceded he referred to an unnamed expert, but has not used the number in follow up programs. 

Another favourite celebrity myth of mine is that  we could all be as smart as Einstein if we would stop using just 10% of our brain. It has all the ingredients of a doubtful citation – 10%, nice round number, celebrity source, oft quoted by motivational speakers.

A source who does cite his sources, Dr. Karl Kruszelnicki had this to say:

The myth that we use only 10% of our brain is finally being proved untrue, because over the last few decades, we have invented new technologies (such as Positron Emission Tomography and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) that can show the metabolism of the brain. In any one single activity (talking, reading, walking, laughing, eating, looking, hearing, etc) we use only a few per cent of our brain – but over a 24-hour day, all the brain will light up on the scan.

Notice how he maintains a readable style while revealing his authorities. While his source in this case is not specific, it can readily be confirmed by reference to the technology he nominates. We went to school together, although at the time I was probably only using 10% of my brain. Ooops!

Rule Number 5: Watch for qualifiers

The 50,000 cited in the article has been expressed as

• as many as 50,000
• at least 50,000

as well as the definitive number.

The place where they prowl has been identified as

• on the Internet
• in social networking sites, and
• on MySpace.

Quite a difference, I would imagine.

The number has also been sourced as coming from

• the FBI – who decline to confirm the number and say that an accurate estimate is impossible to offer;
• a conversation with British police, although details of time and context were not forthcoming. They were able to advise, however, that only 1 abduction and murder by a stranger had occurred in Great Britain in the previous two years, the fear inspired by the 50,000 prowlers.
• the attorney general, who, as we saw, got it from Dateline, who got it from”an expert.”

Rule number 6: Beware of internal biases

This is where the psychological insight joins the process, design and content concerns that i believe makes credible e-learning content. 

I was pleased to find a citation from Dr. Karl, because I like his style. I have a remote 40 year old connection with him and no doubt this adds to his credibility in my eyes. The article was in my favourite paper. I would not have seen it, or taken it as seriously if it had been in an alternate paper.

I almost ignored the article on a subject dear to my heart because of it was set in a context that I find repulsive.

My preference is to write at level that is understood by year 6 students, because that is often the literacy level of my target audiences in my work. One university lecturer described one assignment as quite racy, but insisted I put in some speed bumps, as I saw the citations.

We also look for information that reinforces what we already know. That is a principle of adult learning. Paradigm shifts are painful.   

Remember these 6 rules the next time you see an article that seems to be too good to be true.

Now I must go and reply to one of the e-mails that offer me $46 million dollars, the proceeds of a Nigerian coup. At least it is isn’t $50,000,000. That would be too round a number and would arouse my suspicions. 

The first question was:

List the hierarchy of risk controls.

The answer is:

• Substitution
• Isolation
• Engineering
• Administrative controls
• Personal protection equipment

The only way that you would know the answer to that question is if you had done a course or read a book and memorised them

The purpose of the hierarchy of controls is to reduce risk.

The higher the option is on the list, the better the risk control. 

None of that information comes out in the question. It is also my experience that many people can recite the list, but have little knowledge of risk management principles.

I reworded the question and created a survey on Poll Daddy to allow him to ask the questions on-line in a way that would check understanding as well as recall.

It is not the ideal tool for on-line asessment, but does show how the questions ahould be worded for an assessment.

The Stanford University Web Credibility Project was among the first of the attention grabbing offerings. It had links to 79 papers on the topic. So perhaps one criterion is lots of referenced papers.

Another of the papers in the Google listing was Criteria for evaluation of Internet Information Resources by Alastair Smith, VUW Department of Library and Information Studies, New Zealand.  It was all text and had no pictures, not even a model. He provides a long checklist for librarians – his words: “a ‘toolbox’ of criteria that enable Internet information sources to be evaluated for use in libraries, e.g. for inclusion in resource guides, and helping users evaluate information found”

One of his criteria is “Is the resource interesting to look at? Do the visual effects enhance the resource, distract from the content, or substitute for content? If audio, video, virtual reality modeling, etc are used, are they appropriate to the purpose of the source?

“A related criteria to graphic design is navigational design, mentioned below in the context of browsability and organisation.”

He mustn’t rank it very highly if his own contribution is a benchmark.

Be wary of taking the next step on my journey – to Experience Festival. It may have a  high Google ranking, but it is full of ads and pop-ups, so I didn’t dig any deeper.

Safe browsing is one of my concerns, and that site didn’t meet my criteria.

Even with these criteria firmly in place there is still an indescribable element, that I think explains why people are still being duped by the widows of Nigerian oil company directors who need help to move money out of the country. It is a kinesthetic feeling. A gut reaction.

With this in mind, I compared what I could recall from the thousand or so books around my house, many of which I have read at least the back cover of.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs tells me all I need to know about pscyhology in 7 words.

McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y is my one page guide to management.

Hertzberg’s Hygiene Factors can be used on any motivation question that Maslow or McGregor leave unanswered.

Arnold Mehrabian’s finding that only 8% of communication is dependant on the words used has helped me no end to identify faults in other people’s communication. This probably also means that my weblog posts are getting a little long.

So a quick synopsis in one paragraph, or even better a couple of words or phrases, has served me well so far. Even more so if there is a number that I can attach to it.

With this in mind, I have come up with an acronym:

R – References

I – Images

S – Safe – popups are an immediate discreditor. ads, don’t help much, either.

K – Kinesthetics, which my on-line dictionary defined as “The unconscious perception of movement and spatial orientation arising from stimuli within the body itself” OK it doesn’t quite match the meaning I wanted, but try finding another word that starts with K that does.

Y – for you. Past experience, personality profiles and inherent biases will filter what YOU find on the net. 

So yes, there is plenty of information on the web, but believing it could be R-I-S-K-Y.

Their thoughts were fresh in my mind when I found two other sites – one allegedly “debunking the learning styles myth” and another feel good video of a shop assistant who made a difference by inserting thoughts for the day in customers’ grocery bags.

First the question of learning styles. I have never accepted any form of star signs that says “this is who you are and you have no control over it.” I am a Libra so I don’t believe that sort of stuff. The idea of categorising the whole population of the world into four, five, eight, twelve or thirteen identical silos has never seemed credible to me. But that may be because there are only two sorts of people – those who believe and those who don’t. And believe me, there are plenty who believe!

Stahl’s debunking article says “The reason researchers roll their eyes at learning styles is the utter failure to find that assessing children’s learning styles and matching to instructional methods has any effect on their learning.”

There are two problems with applying the research that Stahl cites is that it relates only to “modalities” – visual, auditory and kinesthetic. Problem 2 is that it only applies to children.

My problem is not with Stahl’s paper, but the headlines. He is referenced widely on the web as discounting learning styles theory. Yet he only examined one small aspect of learning styles and only on one targeted audience, albeit a significant one.

The word adult appears three times in his 5 page paper – child or one of its derivatives appears 53 times. The three references to adults are all in respect to the role as educators of children – their learning process is not examined.

So there is no attempt to examine adult learning styles in this paper. My problem is not with his work. It is the way that it is cited as evidence that learning styles don’t work.

I mentioned that he singled out modalities as the sole learning styles. He does mention other dimensions, but dismisses them as cognitive styles, personality types and aptitudes.

This where Johnny the bagger, the video I mentioned above, comes in. Not the video itself, but the comments that it elicited. Many of the comments at a site which features the video were totally accepting of the message and believed the story. Others saw it an urban myth.

My issue is that a story was told, but its effect on different people was widely different. But whether it was true or not, the story will have an effect. For some the effect will be to inspire them to make a difference on a one to basis and go away feeling good about it. That was the effect it had on me. Those who made negative remarks will feel good that they have debunked another myth. Our individual responses to the same stimulus varies.

You can call it learning styles., you may prefer, as I do, to talk about learning preferences. But whether the message comes via the net or in a classroom different people will interpret it differently.

The flogging that Debra talked about, the concerns that Lorraine expressed are valid. But their validity lies in the different nature of people. If we wish to teach them something we have to match the way we present information to the way that they process it.

The gullible will be tricked. The cynical will never be convinced. We need to frame our messages so that those who want to learn can come to us for support.

He sat down and read the manual. I started making calls or messages or miles.

Debra thought it was Gen Y that jumped in without reading the instructions. Andrew explained that Gen Y is equalisation of the sexes – now women are allowed to do what men always did – in this case ignore the instructions.

About 25 years ago – when IBM were first talking about releasing desktop computers – David Kolb was putting the finishing touches to his observations on the adult learning styles. As Gen Y were barely born, he probably wasn’t influenced by them.
[slideshare id=308306&doc=kolb-cycle-1205627827759793-4&w=425]
He postulated that there are people who jump in and do stuff. They start their learning with a concrete experience. Others start with a review of an experience – reflective observation. The experience may have been planned or unplanned, theirs or someone else’s. But the question “What can we learn from this?” starts their learning process.

For that reflection to proceed it needs to be measured against some theory – abstract concepts. Maybe the concepts arise from the reflection. Maybe they are first stated during the reflection. Those concepts become the starting point for other learners. The ones who read the manual first.

But if learning stops there, all we have is another book. The possibility of doing better is what inspires a fourth group of learners – active experimentation. “What would happen if?” is their question. 

Of course what does happen if is a whole new concrete experience. So the cycle is closed. No actually it is just opening up – spiralling out of control. Learning is unstoppable.

We start learning with our preferred approach. We have learned when we have been through the cycle.

 We also have other learning preferences. Some of use prefer the concepts in words, other like pictures. Some of us are happy to watch the first time, other need to be part of the action. Some of us prefer to learn on our own, others do it better in a group. 

Google “adult learning styles” and there is no shortage of pages (372,000 in 0.27 seconds when I checked), most of them propounding the one true faith.

In fact our preferred style is the result of many things, gender and generation are probably two. These are sometimes called nature and nurture, at other times they are called genetics and environment.

The trap that we can easily fall into is that if the only tool we have is a hammer then every problem starts to look like a nail. (Maslow said that first.)

The first step is awareness. Knowing what is available. This seems to me a much bigger task on-line than in the traditional world.

The next step is “how to”. Some of these tools take longer to learn than others. Just the technical use.

Next comes when to. When to use a blog, when to use tags, when to use a wiki, when to use whatever Ning and Netvibes are.

All of these things have to precede use of the tools. And I suspect that there are some other precursors, too. Plain English writing, citation, judgement on content validity ….

The list goes on.

The next five years will eclipse the last fifty in terms of hard data production on adult learning. For the present, we must recognize that adults want their learning to be problem-oriented, personalized and accepting of their need for self-direction and personal responsibility.

according to an article in Innovation Abstracts

The catch is that the article was published in 1984.

Have a look and see if there is a single one of their thirty points that you can mount a credible case against. Then have a think about a recent adult learning experience that you attended and see how many points out of thirty you would award.