Saturday, June 24, 2006

Microsoft GEARS up learning

Bob Mosher is one of Microsoft’s evangelists – fun guy, full of bright ideas, which he loves to share. We used Net Meeting to get his talk up and running at the Moving Learning conference. This is perhaps the best conference I've been to when it comes to moving the debate about formal/informal learning forward. As Chair, Bob's talk was a challenge, as the link went down mid-presentation.

80% of what we learn is NOT through courses and , according to Kim Cameron of the University of Michigan, we remember:

Lecture 5%
Reading 10%
Audio-visual 20%
Demonstration 30%
Discussion 50%
Doing 75%
Teaching 90%

Given this data, why rely on fixed, largely classroom based, up-front courses? He recommends Microsoft's new GEAR blend.

G - Gather
E - Expand
A - Apply
R - Receive

Gather people physically or virtually to explain the new approach and what we all want to achieve. Expand their knowledge through resources and content. Apply this knowledge in the workplace in real projects. Receive feedback on performance. This bridging knowledge into the workplace using a blend.


Clive Shepherd said...

How reliable are these figures from the University of Michigan? Do you trust them? I only ask because I know you used to enjoy debunking these sorts of statistics when you wrote for Epic.

Donald Clark said...

Good point.

There was a classic, but always unverified slide, used by trainers that said 10% of what we read, 20% of what we hear, 30% of what we see etc. This was bogus.

This table was lfted from Charles Jenning's talk. I haven't checked the source.

One study I always liked was Bloom (1984)The 2-sigma problem, Educational researcher , 13 (6) 4-16. This was the first of many studies that showed massive rises in attainment when teaching and learning move away from the classroom. The study showed that the classroom was the LEAST effective method of learning by a mile. It's a pity that this study is ignored while his primitive 3-dimensional Cognitive/Psychomotor and Affective schema is remembered.

Dave Lee said...

My reaction was the same as Clive's. This set of Michigan figures looks suspiciously like the bogus data long touted by trainers everywhere. I too like the 2-sigma data from the Bloom study. Sam Adkins regularly uses this chart which represents products and research which support Bloom's 2-sigma data. I'm a bit more confident following data that has been supported or confirmed by 320 studies.

I must say that I'm a bit disappointed in GEAR. Why doesn't the GATHER stage include the gathering of resources, materials, and appropriate presentation devices.

In our new collaborative world, how can EXPAND not include interaction with each other?

There is no place specified for practice. I'd suggest that practice would be a first stage of APPLY.
Would you happen to have a link or document regarding Microsoft's GEAR blend?