Web 2.0 - who's doing what?

Fascinating survey of Web 2.0 use by 1369 students, academics and others from this JISC funded SPIRE project:

http://tallblog.conted.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/survey-summary.pdf

Calendars top the poll
What struck me was the popularity of the rarely mentioned Web 2.0 application – the calendar. It would seem that everyone’s using them. There’s a lesson here – that web 2.0 is part of one’s everyday life through tools and desktop add-ons. Everything else hangs off these core activities.

Wikipedia storms ahead
Then comes Wikipedia, blogs, YouTube and Myspace comimg up the rear. The scale of Wikipedia use is astonishing. It really is becoming the world’s most important knowledge and reference source. Blogs are analysed in detail – they really are a force to be reckoned with.

Communications
Messenger and Discussion forums are the two big ones, then Google Talk and Skype. RSS feeds had a surprisingly poor showing.

File sharing
Napster, Kazaa and Limewire were neck and neck, with Grockster a poor fourth.

Games
On online games Second Life was less popular than World of Warcraft, with a surprising number playing online chess and Half-life.

Web 2.0 age sensitive
Engagement with web 2.0 services were tracked across age groups and, not surprisingly; the younger the group, the higher the use. Interestingly the converse was the case for institutional service such as email, library services etc. The older the group, the higher the use.

Turtles and Fruit flies

Having been around in the e-learning or computer based learning business for nearly a quarter of a century, I've seen lots of private and public sector initiatives. There's been good and bad from both sides.

In the public sector I make a distinction between 'Turtle' and 'Fruit fly' initaitives. Turtles, although sometimes a little dull, mature steadily and have longevity. Fruit flies, however, breed like crazy but die soon after they're born.

Turtles
Public sector turtles would include:

Ubiquity of secondary school education
Open University
Abolition of the 11+
1992 expansion of Universities
Janet and Superjanet
Learndirect
Classroom assistants

Fruit flies
Public sector fruit flies:

Whole language literacy
BBC Doomesday project
Individual Learning Acccounts
NHSU
UKeU
Local LSCs
BBC Jam

Give me turtles anytime. By the way, Blair is a fruit fly sort of guy - Brown I'd call a Turtle!

BBC Jam, £75 million for what?

Is the content worth the £75 million (yes read that again) that has been spent so far?

It was with a heavy heart that I tried to log in to BBC Jam, last time was a depressing experience. The whole experience was of an over-engineered project, where visuals and animation took priority over everthing else, including learning.

But here goes. Damn, I’ve had to register again, as my previous registration details had mysteriously disappeared.

Loading….Loading…..Loading…..
You get used to looking at ‘loading’ screens in BBC Jam. Huge amounts of time are spent waiting on something to happen. Then, as many things are introduced with an annoyingly elaborate flash animation, if you repeat something you get this stuff over and over again. This ‘animate everything’ approach disappeared from web design years ago.

Not another robot!
An annoying floating robot (circa 1950), with one of those synthesised voices that remind you of cheap children;s TV, explains a settings toolbar without actually showing it on the screen. What is it with the BBC, robots and tinny voices? It’s the same in Bitesize – they’re everywhere. And why talk through a screen navigation sequence without showing the screen? In any case, the curiously dated robot crashed out with an error message before I could finish the session (just two minutes in). This happens a lot in BBC Jam.

Long linear tour
I then took the tour. A linear animation with zero interaction and no user control. If you miss something, you’re lost. Even the simplest of video and animation delivery on the web has some rudimentary user control.

Design and technology The menu system on this module is a real hoot. I clicked on ‘food for though’ and got nothing but bouncing menu items and coming soon messages. Thoroughly confusing and a complete waste of time. The linear video and animation sequences were as dull as dishwater.

Fieldtrip for SEN (Special Educational Needs)
The laboured animation at the start (you get used to this) has a dog that puts a VHS videotape (dated or what?) into a VCR and, you’ve guessed it, a video appears on a TV screen. By the way the back button doesn’t work. It has the wrong symbol (fast rewind) –should’ve been a vertical line and less than symbol to take you back to the start. Damn. an error message has appeared “A script in this movie is causing Adobe Flash Player 9.0 to run slowly” Not again. In a way I was glad as the content was dire. Largely a scrappy set of linear video and animation resources and horrific load times. I do the ‘game’. It’s a deadening experience wit pythonesque animation – again this is something that’s really common in BBC Jam – scrapbook animation. It’s tedious.

French
Confused from the start. They’ve improved the front-end menu since I last looked but it’s all hopelessly over-engineered. Basic design errors abound. For example an icon with a tick on it is the confirm button, yet the meaning seems to be ‘you got it right’. You have to press exit twice from each section, one would have sufficed. There’s also too much loading time, this was disruptive with endless countdowns and waits. Some just didn’t load at all, with no explanation.

First episode is a few cartoons – linear and next to zero learning. The second is video broken down into phrases, but some edit points are in the middle of words! Identifying the parts of the car was fine, although the vocabulary (windscreen wipers, licence plate, gears etc) was far too advanced for the age group. In another you have to identify words as you hear them, but this is just identifying what’s said, divorced from the meaning of what’s said. In some interactive exercises when you get things wrong there’s no formative feedback to tell you why or what the right answer is. The ‘make your own comic’ is fine, but is an exercise in sorting sentences and takes too long to navigate and complete. The DJ game is simply to identify masculine, feminine and plural, this is OK, but the vocabulary is far too complex at this stage.

The whole thing is VERY clunky and clumsy in navigation, style, interaction, vocabulary and learning. “I was fiddling around with it for ages and nothing happened. It was just a movie. It was crap. It’s confusing. I didn’t know what to do. I felt like it was, like, I should have been getting involved more as I was getting a bit bored. I thought it’d be better cause it’s BBC.” Carl (12 years old). Oh dear!

For a detailed critique from a language teaching expert see:

http://www.camsoftpartners.co.uk/BBC_Jam.htm

Business
The introductory menu is very strange. Loads of animation with buttons flying about, but when they settle, try clicking on the large orange button, nothing happens – classic design error – something looks clickable, but it’s not. You have to look for the barely visible, small rectangle below. Then I get the inevitable loading screen. This time it says the user-friendly word – ‘Processing…’. I do feel as though I’m being processed.

It gets weirder. One of its ‘star’ businesses is Eidos! I’d love to tell you about the other businesses, but hardly anything loaded and worked. What the BBC case study doesn’t tell you is that Eidos was days away from bankruptcy when this was being filmed. Their bank wanted to pull the plug and it was sold off cheaply after massive losses, missed deadlines and bug–ridden releases (a bit like BBC Jam). As an assignment you are asked to do a SWOT analysis of this now defunct company – that WOULD be interesting, if you had the real and current data to view!

The only interesting bit was the ability to explore the Eidos offices, but again, it was a lot of effort for very little reward. Why were all of the Eidos senior staff posing about for BBC film and photo-shoots at the very time the company was sinking - they should have been trying to get their lamentably late games out.

In general, the whole thing is a scrapyard mess. The repeated animations are annoying – same images over and over again – it makes you scream with rage. E-learning is about the user being in control. This is what you get when TV people create interactive content – thinly disguised broadcast material. Interactivity is the name of the game. Here you spend more time hanging about waiting, often on just simple pieces of repeated animation, than learning. Most of the time it’s like an animated PowerPoint in extreme and painful slow-motion. Try the Library – you may lose the will to live waiting on search results.

Finance
At last, something that is really, really good. Don’t know who did the content, but it was well designed and the simulation approach to learning worked. It was way beyond the other content in terms of its focus on learning. It has a consistent interface, sadly lacking in the other content, good structure and a strong focus on learning by doing. Only a couple of niggles – figures should be lined up when presented in columns and some of the video sequences were overscripted.

Is the content worth the £75 million spent?
NO, NO, NO. It’s plagued with:

Technical problems
Horrific loading times
Strange and confusing navigation
Too many linear sequences
Misjudgements on content

Perhaps the wider debate boils down to:

Was the government & EC right to proceed with BBC Jam? NO
Was the early content up to standard? NO
Was the later content up to standard? NOT MUCH
Was the content hopelessly behind schedule? YES
Is the content produced so far worth £75 million? NO
Did the BBC break the government and EC rules? YES

Coaching –panacea or placebo?

I’m struggling with training’s fondness for ‘coaching’. By ‘coach’ I mean someone who helps you achieve their goals, who questions but avoids giving advice. I’m not at all convinced that the personal reports I hear of its effectiveness amount anything more than the famous placebo effect.

Horoscopes work because they’re true!
That’s right, it’s a paradox - let me explain. The psychologist Ross Stagnar famously gave a group of 68 HR professionals a personality test, then gave them all an identical response, with phrases culled from that day’s newspaper horoscope. When asked if the test had ‘nailed’ them, many were very positive about its diagnostic ability. In other words, horoscopes are true because they are so general they apply to almost everyone who reads them. Unfortunately they are also trite.

Graphology also works!
Another psychologist, Kreuger did a similar test with graphology. He asked students to assess a personality diagnosis based on their own handwriting. They were amazed at its accuracy despite the fact that he had given them all the same report. The content that seems to appear to be most personal, but in fact is the most general, is the idea that the person is, deep down, fragile and insecure, yet they put on a front to appear strong and robust.

Coaching as placebo
Could it be that coaching and other aspects of training simply do the same. Placebos work, not because they actually have a causal effect, but simply because the patient believes they work. Does coaching simply state and confirm trivial truths and APPEAR to work?

Non-directive coaching has a similar appeal. But are we simply seeing people as patients to be counselled into healthier states of mind. Managers are portrayed as dysfunctional beings, who, if only they saw the way, would become caring masters, loved by all they manage. As Frank Furedi claims, we seem to be ‘redefining personal difficulty as a pathology’. Do we really think that we can short-circuit the human condition by simply asking ‘open questions’? Or are we just suckers for a little attention and a personal, challenging, but ultimately empty, chat? Discuss (without, of course, asking any closed or leading questions).

BBC Jam axed

Content a jammy mess
My previous post on BBC jam slammed it as a waste of time and money. The content as appalling. It would seem that the Trustees have seen good sense and decided to pull it on 20 March. The arrangement between the BBC and suppliers was all too cosy with the wrong companies chosen to design and deliver the content. This was clear in the output (see my posts Jan and Feb 2006). Some of it was literally unusable.

Unfair competition
They have been flooded with complaints about both the content and its competition with private vendors. Ofcom obviously see it as flouting sensible rules of fair competition. The managers couldn’t handle the rules around consent and broke the rules, accelerating its downfall.

The good news is that the BBC Trustees appear to be doing their job – protecting the interests of the public. This is a victory for commons sense. So the BBC joins the UkeU and NHSU as expensive e-learning failures.

Web 2.0 bites business

Gave two talks over the last two weeks to one of the world’s largest travel companies and the military. It struck me how Web 2.0 is starting to bite on real businesses and organisations.

Web 2.0 and travel
The travel industry is now awash in user-generated content with 21% of online travel users accessing TripAdvisor. There’s loads of review sites and blogs galore on trips people have taken. I never book a hotel without looking at traveller reviews and have even written a few. Travel has been revolutionised by e-commerce, it is now being revolutionised by user-generated content. Some companies are now embracing this by using user-generated content to communicate with customers.

As for the question of trust – how do I know that the reviews are honest? Well I know that much of the professionally written marketing is dishonest, or at least over-polished. I also think that experienced readers can spot the phoney reviews a mile off – then again…..

Web 2.0 and military
Look at the recruitment websites for the army, navy and airforce. Recruitment website (www.armyonline.mod.uk) starts with a 60 degree panorama of army employees. Cick on one and you get a videoclip of them describing their job. The next website, due this year will use real blogs, microsites with content generated by users with live chat to army careers advisors. The web 2.0 influences of YouTube, blogs and messenger are obvious.

(www.careers.royalnavy.mod.uk/) has a similar panorama with video blogs of personnel, written blogs, downloadable ringtones, wallpapaer downloads and some excellent short games. The web 2.0 influences YouTube, blogs, messenger and mobiles are again on show.

(www.raf.mod.uk/careers/) has the richest set of web 2.0 resources. There’s videoblogs of personnel, audioblogs, textblogs, TV ads, a personality quiz, practice aptitude tests, interactive job roles live web chats and SMS reminders. So, in addition to blogs we also see the importance of mobiles.

So the outward face of the services seems to have fully embraced the need for web 2.0 user-generated content to attract new people. Why? Because they understand that two-way communication is expected with this generation (see also America’s Army in the US). They are also less receptive to advertising that lacks realism. They want to hear from real people doing real jobs in their own words.

Multitasking mahem!

OMFG – they’re all multitasking (but so are we). Our kids, students and even us adults are doing it like crazy. But some of us are doing it more than others, and in very different ways.

Multitasking students
Naoimi Baron studied 158 students while messaging, and found that 98% were multitasking , with 70% web browsing, 48% other media, 39% writing a paper, 41% face-to-face conversation, 37% eating/drinking, 39% watching TV and 22% on the telephone. Always on, always connected? Not really. Multitaskers filter, block, ignore and bring activities and conversations to foreground and background.

Messaging and multitasking
Messaging conversations range from 1 to 12, with an average 2.67 simultaneously. Interestingly, few would message while doing nothing else. This was regarded as weird. Messaging was a ‘background’ activity.

Multitasking impairs learning
OK, so we know they’re all at it, but what about the effect this has on their learning. Most studies show that multitasking impairs performance, for example with homework (Koolstra, Van der Voort 2003). Even switching between tasks impairs performance (Rubenstein, Meyer and Evans 2001). In fact multitasking itself is a bit of a myth as we largely switch between tasks, rather than doing them truly in parallel. So don't imagine that all of this social networking is helping people learn in the way we think they should be learning. On the other hand they may be learning skills that are far more useful - handling information, communication and people skills.

Multitasking adds hours
The real advantage of all this technology is time saving, not learning. Time diaries (Keynon and Lyons 2005) have shown that people can add seven hours of activity to their day. They have shown that people can add seven hours of activity to their day. Multitasking is very common with people reporting 2 or more activities reported on 99% of days ,3 or more activities on 81% of days and 4 activities on 52% of days . Remarkably, multitasking ‘adds’ 48 hours to the average week and 46% more time to each waking day . Note that effects of multitasking are likely to be unequally distributed across society. Some of us multitask a lot more than others.

Constructivism – beware of big words

This is Tatlin's Tower, never built, a concoction of constructivist materials and forms, a monument to repudiate of traditional art and painting. It's actually a monument to folly. The idea that one could start anew - the blank slate. At the same time another constructivist, Vygotsky was doing the same for the mind, building theories of cogntive development.

But beware of big, abstract nouns. ‘Constructivism’ is one, used with abandon in education and training, yet the constructivist paradigm may be behind many of the current ills in education and training. It may have put more emphasis on the learner, but it has at the same time crippled effective learning by substituting sociology for the true science of learning.

Constructed confection
I often hear discussions of constructivism jump between cognitive theory to a theory of knowledge then educational theory or sociological theory, even philosophical theory. It’s a messy concoction, often at the level of pub-philosophy. Constructivist writing encourages this by making these giant theoretical leaps from simple observations of how knowledge is acquired to grand relativist philosophical theories. It’s a confusing confection.

Social constructivism
To say that one is a constructivist is not to say much as there are many schools making radically different claims. Social constructivism is one of the more extreme schools, where reality is constructed and therefore a function of social invention. Remember how extreme this view is – there is NO reality prior to our social construction. Even for thos who pull back into language mediated reality don't really know where the line is drawn. It is a debate that has little relevance in the practical world of teaching. Unfortunatley, it leads to the incredibly narrow assumption that learning is meaningful only when individuals are engaged in social activities, which results in an obsession with collaboration.

Is constructivism a construct?
The problem with these extreme forms of relativism, and theories of socially constructed reality, is that it is difficult to defend on the grounds of objective evidence. One cannot appeal to a ‘socially constructivist’ view as this, by its own reckoning is merely one among many. There’s no anchor.

Practice out

To get practical for a moment, one result of all this muddy thinking is the demonisation of ‘practice’, despite the fact that oodles of empirical evidence support the idea of practice as being the key to learning, it is dismissed as being of little value. The net result has been a driving out of practice and homework in schools to the detriment of some types of knowledge acquisition, especially in basic literacy and numeracy, but also in the acquisition of second languages and science.

NLP – No Longer Plausible

Bertrand Russell's famous dictum
"I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing I true"

NLP nonsense
Sharpley’s 1984 literature review found "little research evidence supporting its usefulness as an effective counseling tool" no support for preferred representational systems (PRS) and predicate matching, then in a 1987 study states "there are conclusive data from the research on NLP, and the conclusion is that the principles and procedures of NLP have failed to be supported by those data".

Sharpley, C. F. (1984). Predicate matching in NLP: A review of research on the preferred representational system. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 31(2), 238-248.

Sharpley C.F. (1987). "Research Findings on Neuro-linguistic Programming: Non supportive Data or an Untestable Theory". Communication and Cognition Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1987 Vol. 34, No. 1: 103-107,105.

United States National Research Council
USNRC produced a report, overseen by a board fo 14 academic experts, stating that "individually, and as a group, these studies fail to provide an empirical base of support for NLP assumptions...or NLP effectiveness. The committee cannot recommend the employment of such an unvalidated technique". The whole edifice of influence and rapport techniques "instead of being grounded in contemporary, scientifically derived neurological theory, NLP is based on outdated metaphors of brain functioning and is laced with numerous factual errors".

Druckman and Swets (eds) (l988) Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques, National Academy Press.

Neuromythology
Barry Beyerstein (1990) asserts that "though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP's outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies." With reference to all the 'neuromythologies' covered in his article, including NLP, he states "In the long run perhaps the heaviest cost extracted by neuromythologists is the one common to all pseudosciences—deterioration in the already low levels of scientific literacy and critical thinking in society. "

Beyerstein.B.L (1990). Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the New Age. International Journal of Mental Health 19(3): 27-36,27.

Disillusionment
Efran and Lukens (1990) stated that the "original interest in NLP turned to disillusionment after the research and now it is rarely even mentioned in psychotherapy".

Efran, J S. Lukens M.D. (1990) Language, structure, and change: frameworks of meaning in psychotherapy, Published by W.W. Norton, New York. p.122

Mutual exchange of myths
In his book, The Death of Psychotherapy, Eisner couldn’t find ‘one iota of clinical research’ to support NLP. This is in direct contradiction to the claims made by NLP practitioners, who laud it as a great leap forward in understanding the mind. To be fair Eisner doesn’t just finger NLP he also demolishes; Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, Cathartic Therapies, Recovered Memory Therapies, Humanistic Psychotherapy, Behavioural and Cognitive Therapy, Strategic Family Systems Therapy, NLP, EFT, CBT, BCBT, DHE, EMDR, Gestalt Therapy, Implosion Therapy, Palm Therapy, Person Centred Therapy, Primal Therapy, Reframing, Thought Field Therapy, Direct Exposure Therapy, Spiritual Therapy and many others. The sheer scale of clinically unproven therapies is astounding. The Myth of Psychotherapy: Mental Healing As Religion, Rhetoric, and Repression by Thomas Stephen Szasz is similarly damning. His claim is that almost anyone can sit down with anyone else, have a chat, and call it psychotherapy. The practitioners are unaccredited, or self-accredited, and the theories scientifically unsubstantiated. It is the mutual exchange of myths.

(Quick Fix + Pseudoscientific Gloss) x Credulous Public = High Income
This is the description of NLP by Lilienfield et al (2002) who conclude that NLP is "a scientifically unsubstantiated therapeutic method that purports to "program" brain functioning through a variety of techniques, including mirroring the postures and nonverbal behaviors of clients" and include it in their description "

Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, Jeffrey M. Lohr (eds) (2004) Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology

Grandfather of CBT dismissive
Even Albert Ellis, the grandfather of cognitive behavioral therapy, famous for developing REBT (Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy) specifically identified NLP as one of those, “techniques that are avoided”. This was the one therapy he abhorred because of its “dubious validity” (Dryden & Ellis, in Dobson, 2001: 331). Then again, Ellis published a book in 1965 entitled Homosexuality: Its Causes and Cure. Psychotherapists have a habit of seeing everything as a pathological condition that can be cured by their methods.

Hanging around in HR
Von Bergen et al (1997) showed that NLP had been abandoned by researchers in experimental psychology and Devilly (2005) makes the point that NLP has disappeared from clinical psychology and academic research only surviving in the world of pseudo new-age fakery and, although no longer as prevalent as it was in the 1970s or 1980s… is still practiced in small pockets of the human resource community. The science has come and gone, yet the belief still remains"

Von Bergen, C W, Barlow Soper, Gary T Rosenthal, Lamar V Wilkinson (1997). "Selected alternative training techniques in HRD". Human Resource Development Quarterly 8(4): 281-294.

Grant J. Devilly (2005) Power Therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry Vol.39 p.437

Heard of Eric Kandel?

Education and training largely short-term
One towering piece of theory in learning, the distinction between short and long-term memory, should be applied to everything we do in education and training. In practice we do everything to AVOID taking the distinction seriously.

We teach and train to forget
Largely, we have sheep-dip courses, cognitive overload, poor encoding, too much emphasis on facts, little in the way of spaced practice and short-term summative assessment. Net result, little long-term retention and application. We teach and train to forget.

Eric Kandel?
Kandel's one of the most important learning theorists on the planet but barely known. With a Nobel Prize for his work on learning and memory, he’s a towering figure in the science of learning.

Learning is memory
Learning, for Kandel, is the ability to acquire new ideas from experience and retain them as memories (a simple fact often overlooked). His insight was to first recognise that the functional and biochemical features of nerves and synapses in snails, worms and flies are not substantially different from humans. His work on giant marine snails uncovered not only the physiological but molecular pathways in short and storage in long-term memory through spaced practice. As it turns out, he showed that all of the early gestalt psychologists and a great many other memory theorists got this hopelessly wrong.

His work initially focused on Implicit (Procedural) memories such as habituation, sensitisation and classical conditioning skills and habits, but then moved into Explicit (Declarative) facts and events, where he made further discoveries about the molecular mechanisms in memory.

Kandel has opened up the research pathway to knowing how memory works physiologically, thus opening up the possibility not only of enhancing and curing disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease, but understanding how learning actually works, leading to significant improvements in practice.

Seems abstract but has immediate relevance
Even without Kandel's chemical and physiological confrimation, we have an abundance of psychological evidence showing that the distinction is clear. Why then is it so often ignored?

If this seems a little too abstract consider how hooked education and training is on short-term memory experiences and assessment. We know how deficient short-term memory is because there is no fundamental chemical and physiological change, whereas long-term memory does involve chemical and physiological change. This simple change in focus would radically alter almost everything we deliver.

Open simulations or page-turners?

Ever wondered if low, medium or high navigational freedom is better in e-learning? Are open games and simulations better than limited option structures or linear page turners?

Open structures lead to long-term retention
I always thought that more open, non-linear learning was better in terms of retention and had this somewhat confirmed in work by Dr Dror who, in a recent study at the University of Southampton, put students through an e-learning programme to compare all three. Although it takes more effort (cognitive load) to navigate the open structures, it resulted in higher levels of long-term retention. Interestingly, the linear group scored well in an immediate test but two weeks later the advantage of the linear group disappeared as the open students did better. So e-learning environments with high navigational freedom have better long-term retention.

Why higher retention?
Why does a higher degree of freedom encourage long-term retention? It could be the higher degrees of motivation in the learner. Witness the extraordinary levels of motivation among open structure games’ players. It may also help encode memories as a direct result of more planned and meaningful personal exploration.

So freedom to navigate is a good thing (only, of course, if well designed).

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~id/train.html ).

Arch debunker – me!

Jay Cross made me think (he always does) when he commented on my last post:

Donald, I love your debunking series, but... Having recently come under the spell of Appreciative Inquiry, I'm trying to build on strengths rather than dwell on weaknesses. Who do you like these days? Who's genuine? Inspirational? Worth a damn?

I’ve been presented as the arch debunker. It’s true that I regard education and training as being stuck in old, unvalidated, and often false theory and practice. Some of it on a par with astrology and UFO theories. If true, this is worrying, as much of our time, and more importantly that of learners, is being wasted.

However, I have also been pumping out positive research and practice. I did a quick self-evaluation here. Out of my last 94 posts:

53 quoted recommended research and practice
38 were attacks on old/bad theory and practice
3 could be regarded as neutral

Here’s a quick comparison (not exhaustive):

For
Empirical research in memory and learning, informal learning, web 2.0 tools, blogging, Big Brother, digital reformation, podcasting, YouTube, Wikipedia, games in learning (10 posts), e-learning research showing increased grades (2), art and learning, viral learning, evolutionary psychology, texting, and stickiness.

Against
Learning styles, control freak HR, BBC Jam, errors in BBC Bitesize, blended learning, ineffective compliance training, SMEs, Teachers’ TV, wasted time in classrooms, Socrates, Skinner, Bloom, Gagne, Kirkpatrick, Kolb, Vygotsky, Freud, Rogers, whole language literacy, new-age training fads, NLP, dumbness of crowds, libraries and Maslow.

Oh – I nearly forgot, also nude internet browsing and drinking champagne from shoes!

I suppose I’m a sucker for empirical research. I do think that education and training is sinking into a quagmire of faddish, non-empirical theory, more sociology than psychology. This dated and dodgy theory is mirrored in dull and dubious practice.

Sense of direction
If I have a sense of direction it's is on two fronts:

More focus on good empirical research, especially in experimental psychology and brain research. In the end we have brains which acquire, store and recall knowledge and skills. We have made huge leaps forward in the last 30 years, most of which is ignored by learning theorists.

Keeping the ‘e’ in e-learning. I do believe that the whirlwind of technology is our best hope in terms of improving the efficacy of education and training. The internet and consumer technology has given us brilliant bottom-up models of knowledge creation and sharing. Resistance is futile.

Psychology + technology = Progress

But mainly, I think that we need some serious debate around theory and practice, rather than just sleepwalking into the future with a handful of junk theory and practice.

Maslow – who needs him!

Trite training of trainers
‘Train the trainer’ courses love their dose of Maslow, who claimed to have found the secret of learning and training through his hierarchy of needs. yet it is hauled in without any reflection on it being correct, validated or even relevant. I never did find this theory remotely interesting but as it surfaced in recent conversation at a learning conference I delved a little further.

Trainers love these neat slides. I think it's the pyramid - it's easy to explain. Yet its actual relevance to learning is non-existant. Even as an explanation of human nature or behaviour it's trite.

Hierarchy of needs - let's take a look

Physiological needs
Thirst, food, sleep, warmth, activity, avoiding pain, and sex

Safety and security needs
Shelter, stability, protection, salary, pension.

Love and belonging needs
Friends, partner, children, relationships and community

Esteem needs
Respect, status, reputation, dignity. Self-respect, confidence and achievement.

Self-actualization
Aspirational need, the desire to fulfil your potential.

The first four are all ‘deficit’ or ‘D-needs’. If not present, you’ll feel their absence and yearn for them. When each is satisfied you reach a state of homeostasis where the yearning stops. How’s that for stating the obvious?

The last, self-actualisation, does not involve homeostasis, but once felt is always there. Maslow saw this as applying to a tiny number of people, whose basic four levels are satisfied leaving them free to look beyond their deficit needs. He used a qualitative technique called ‘biographical analysis’, looked at high achievers and found that they enjoyed solitude, close relationships with a few rather than many, autonomy and resist social norms.

It ain’t a hierarchy, it wasn’t tested and it’s wrong
Although massively influential in training, his work was never tested experimentally and his ‘biographical analysis’ was armchair research. The self-actualisation theory is now regarded as of no real relevance. An ever weaker aspect of the theory is its hierarchy. It is not at all clear that the higher needs cannot be fulfilled until the lower needs are satisfied. There are many counter-examples and indeed, creativity can atrophy and die on the back of success. In short, subsequent research has shown that his hierarchy is bogus, as needs are pursued non-hierarchically. In other words his periodic table for human qualities is yet another dead and over-simplistic theory hanging around in dated training courses.

If you're still not convinced, read this entry from maslow's own journal in 1962, 'My motivation theory was published 20 years ago, & in all that time nobody repeated it, or tested it, or really analyzed it or criticized it. They just used it, swallowed it whole with only the most minor modifications'. Enough said.