Bill's Notebook

Elizabeth Corcoran gives a great argument in the ongoing debate about technology’s effect on our minds.  She makes an important point- “I keep wondering why we lump all “technology” into the same basket. By doing so, we ignore the most important distinction of all: whether we are sponges for absorbing other people’s ideas, or whether we’re making our own.“

She gives an example of how children learn more when they are given tools to create content rather than tools that just deliver content.  Now, she talks about technology in the classroom but this equally applies to technology in the workplace.  Think of the training that consists of delivering content (lecture, PowerPoint, brown bag talk, etc.) versus the training where people are encouraged to play with the new software program or tool.

I consider the basis of learning to be the creation of mental models.  You cannot just transmit your mental model completely to me; I have to create one unique to my own mind.  You can give me information to build the model and you can create experiences that will shape the mental model but the final product is still through my unique mental processes.  But every mental model starts with engagement.  Thus, this is why allowing people to make content rather than absorb content is the key to effective learning.

This article from Edu.Blogs reminds me of a presentation that I gave at a conference where I advocated using SimCity to teach introductory Public Administration.  Game based learning seems a natural way to have students quickly learn a number of complicated skills and in-depth knowledge.

As I go through the various pieces of direct mail from various IT, training, and management gurus, I am reminded of this line from Monty Python’s Life of Brian:

“Brian: I am NOT the Messiah!
Arthur: I say you are Lord, and I should know. I’ve followed a few.”

I’ve always liked Roger Schank since I read his Tell Me a Story back in 1991.  In fact, he’s the impetus for my interest in mental models.  His insights in teaching and learning are well-grounded in his experiences in teaching college classes and his consulting work to many large companies.  That’s why his latest opinion on being realistic about the effects of technology on learning.  “Learning is learning and technology is technology. The two are related if and only if the technology makes it possible to learn something that can be learned in no other way.”

An incident at work has made me think about the “curse of knowledge.”  As one becomes proficient in their chosen field, they accumulate knowledge and experiences that grows their body of knowledge.  The longer a person is in a field, they are able to use chunking to become experts.  The person climbs the mountain of knowledge and once they reach a certain point, they can no longer see where they started.  They forget what it was like to be a beginner in the field.

This is the curse of knowledge and this is a major barrier to informal learning.  It takes a special skill for an expert to re-enter the beginner’s mind and to communicate the concepts to a non-expert.  Some informal learning experts believe that it is enough for learners to mingle among themselves and they will pick up the knowledge (supposedly by osmosis).  But, if that were true, I could become a brain surgeon by hanging around my local hospital.

One can learn a great deal from experts but there has to be some structure and the expert not only has to be an expert in the subject matter but accomplished at communicating that knowledge.  Your average office expert isn’t rewarded for his or her teaching abilities but for their acquisition of skills and knowledge.  I know some managers would like to think they are encouraging learning among their employees but, when the pressure is on, informal teaching and informal learning are luxuries that many organizations can’t afford.