Tag: learning

’Tis

Sometime around April I blinked and it’s Christmas season again.

Despite the physics-defying acceleration of time, I somehow managed to steal enough of it to publish another round of thought bubbles this year.

I invite you to read any that you may have missed, and comment on any that you’d care to revisit…

A figurine man wearing a red cap in the foreground, and a Christmas tree in the background.

  • In L&D conferences in Australia & New Zealand in 2025 I curate a list of professional development events down under. Keep your eyes peeled for the 2026 edition.

  • In Evidently I highlight two evidence-based features of high-quality online courses.

  • In Apathy and ivory I express my disappointment at the lack of global citizenship among academic researchers.

  • In Wrecking ball I advocate a skills-based learning strategy to mitigate cheating in the age of AI.

  • In The traps of performance consulting I caution the Learning and Development mouse sniffing the Performance Consulting cheese.

  • In Sandwich makers I recommend a simple workflow when using AI so that it complements your intelligence, rather than replaces it.

  • In Stirred, not shaken I share the 5 lessons I’ve learned about learning by blogging about cocktails.

  • In A musing I predict the outcome of everyone using generative AI to remix outputs.

  • In Boge’s Law I illustrate the relationship between the volume of a mobile device in public and its owner’s intelligence.

🎄

To my readers, I thank you for your continued patronage and support. You make it all worthwhile.

Merry Christmas if it’s your thing, and happy new year regardless!

Stirred, not shaken

Last holiday I started a new blog.

Which was unexpected (even for myself) because not so long ago I almost gave up on blogging. Now I’m juggling two.

But there is a method to the madness.

When I hark back to an earlier post of mine, Why I blog, I recognise my founding principle holds true:

I blog primarily for myself. I use writing as a vehicle for my thinking. By presenting my thoughts to the world, I need to understand them, and articulate them effectively for others to understand. And if other people learn something from my insights and experiences, then I’m delighted.

Which is why I’ve continued to blog about educational technology and learning & development more broadly. While I’m still working in the profession, I’m still thinking about it, deliberating new ideas, overcoming challenges in the real world, and striving to innovate.

Publishing my cognition crystallises it.

Having said that, I’ve consciously taken a step back to spend more time enjoying other aspects of my life. Not just quirky interests such as cryptozoology, but also quirky hobbies such as cocktail making. And the latter is what my new blog, Ryan’s Cocktails, is all about.

I don’t consider myself a cocktail expert – not by a long shot. I prefer the term enthusiast, and I’m using the blog to document my journey as I learn the craft. And if other people learn something from my insights and experiences, then I’m delighted.

However I’m not just learning about cocktails. By looking through the lens of this completely different topic, I’ve sharpened my focus on the lessons that blogging teaches me about learning…

A tuxedoed Leonardo DiCaprio in The Great Gatsby raising a toast with a martini.

Lesson #1. Curiosity fuels expertise.

Find a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life. Well the same applies to learning. When you’re interested in a topic, researching it is no chore; it’s a joy. One question leads to another, which in turn leads to another, and so on rhizomatically. As you dive head-first down each rabbit hole, you extend the depth and breadth of your knowledge.

In the context of cocktail making, I’ve explored a world of spirits, liqueurs, syrups, garnishes, apparatus, measurements and techniques, not to mention the myriad tips and tricks I’ve picked up along the way.

In the context of learning & development, I’ve explored a world of learning theory, instructional design, educational technology and executive strategy, not to mention the myriad subtopics and allied topics in-between.

Lesson #2. Primary sources are superior.

I learned this lesson well in history class. While secondary and tertiary sources are useful – especially in the absence of a primary source – they are ultimately interpretations. Like a game of Telephone, mistakes, omissions or other misrepresentations will be made, and thereafter perpetuated.

In the context of cocktail making, I’ve sourced an 1930s-era bartender’s original recipe to correct a mistranslated ingredient, and I’ve read the Mexican standards to clarify the official differences between mezcal and tequila. You may think I’m mad, but I had a ball doing it, and now I know what’s right.

In the context of learning & development, I maintain a similar healthy skepticism of secondary and tertiary sources, especially when it relates to empirical research. For example, I recently read on Wikipedia that Ebbinghaus investigated the rate of forgetting, but not the effect of spaced repetition; yet a cursory glance at his book’s table of contents reveals otherwise.

Indeed the pioneering German is no stranger to criticism. Over the years, many of our peers have derided his findings because they were based on a sample of 1 (himself); yet in the preface of the same book he warns us of exactly that, while emphasising his investigation is preliminary. So when I refer to the forgetting curve, I don’t position it as a universal truth; rather I use it as a device to explain a theoretical concept.

By way of a more recent example, the mainstream media has been reporting that ChatGPT causes brain rot; yet by reading the original paper by MIT, I can see they made no such claim. Their contribution suggests that its use for essay writing eliminates the need for critical thinking and hence inhibits learning – not that it degrades what has already been learned. By understanding this point of difference, we can do something about it.

Lesson #3. Mental models are a superpower.

All models are wrong, but some are useful. By simplifying a complex system, they can only ever be considered high-level approximations; but in doing so, they help us make sense of said system.

In the context of cocktail making, hundreds – if not thousands – of cocktails exist, plus endless tweaks and variations. Meaning they’re impossible to remember. However, by understanding classes of cocktails such as sours and daisies, and memorising ratios such as 2:1:1 and 3:2:1, I can use patterns to recall most of the recipes that I’d ever want to make at a moment’s notice.

In the context of learning & development, models such as ADDIE, Bloom’s, 70:20:10 and Kirkpatrick abound, and I’ve even devised my own for training at scale and implementing a skills-based learning strategy. Again, some of these models attract derision from our peers, but by definition they’re not meant to be exhaustive. I use them in the flow of work to cross-check any big ticket items that I may have forgotten, and to respond in real time to those unexpected questions that start with: So how are you going to …?

Lesson #4. Distributed knowledge makes us superhuman.

While mental models are a superpower, the human mind remains humanly fallible. The volume of knowledge that is pertinent to our practice is so vast, we can’t contain it all in our own heads. So we need to leverage other forms of accommodation.

In the context of cocktail making, although classes and ratios will help me recall a given recipe, sometimes I’m too distracted or too tired or too lazy to try – or it falls outside the bounds of a mental model – so I’ll look it up on my own blog. I prefer doing this over googling it, because my blog distills all my prior research and experimentation.

In the context of learning & development, I similarly mine my own blog to refresh my memory of a key concept, source copy for a proposal, or audit my work against the ideas I’ve championed in the past. Without having my blog for reference, I’d have to start from scratch each time.

Lesson #5. We must transcend AI.

The emergence of generative AI has empowered us like never before, but I caution against blithely outsourcing our intelligence to the robot. Just as googling something will provide an immediate but potentially meaningless answer, using the likes of ChatGPT as a 21st-Century Batcomputer is quick and convenient, but it lacks the kind of depth and nuance that only time and effort can earn.

In the context of cocktail making, for example, I could easily ask ChatGPT to give me the recipe for an Amaretto Sour. And I’m sure its reply would be satisfactory. However, it won’t be the way that I make an Amaretto Sour – which is the product of significant critical thinking on my part. Certainly the robot can help me get there, but ultimately it’s up to me to steer the research, do the experiments, and refine the recipe (not to mention the technique) to make the Amaretto Sour that suits my palate.

In the context of learning & development, ChatGPT can similarly be used as a tool to boost speed and productivity. However, despite stellar prompting, no response will perfectly align to the culture, systems and other circumstances that define your working environment. It’s still on you to work out what really works and what doesn’t.

In other words, we need to transcend AI to progress from output to outcome.

Sandwich makers

The latest research paper to cause a stir among my peers is Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task by a bunch of boffins from Massachusetts, mostly MIT.

It’s quite long (over 200 pages) but in the interests of time, I consider the premise of their argument to be articulated by this paragraph that refers to previous research published in BJET, which they go on to triangulate with methodologies such as electroencephalography:

One of the most prominent effects of using AI in writing is the shift in how students engage with the material. Generative AI can generate content on demand, offering students quick drafts based on minimal input. While this can be beneficial in terms of saving time and offering inspiration, it also impacts students’ ability to retain and recall information, a key aspect of learning. When students rely on AI to produce lengthy or complex essays, they may bypass the process of synthesizing information from memory, which can hinder their understanding and retention of the material. For instance, while ChatGPT significantly improved short-term task performance, such as essay scores, it did not lead to significant differences in knowledge gain or transfer [55]. This suggests that while AI tools can enhance productivity, they may also promote a form of ‘metacognitive laziness,’ where students offload cognitive and metacognitive responsibilities to the AI, potentially hindering their ability to self-regulate and engage deeply with the learning material [55]. AI tools that generate essays without prompting students to reflect or revise can make it easier for students to avoid the intellectual effort required to internalize key concepts, which is crucial for long-term learning and knowledge transfer [55].

In another words, while the likes of ChatGPT make writing quicker and easier, they eliminate the need for critical thinking and hence inhibit learning.

And this should come as no surprise to any digital native who’s only ever used a GPS navigation system and thus has no idea of how to get from A to B without it.

But what has surprised me is the amount of heat that the paper has attracted on social media. While I’m no stranger to calling out the limitations of academic research when I feel it’s warranted, I do feel some of the rocks being thrown at the Bay Staters are a tad unfair. But that’s a story for another day.

A sandwich in polygonal style.

If we shift our attention from experimental design (and dare I suggest academic politicking) to real-world practice, then I think we can progress; not by preventing students from using modern technology to produce scholarly work, but by showing them how to do so in a way that promotes understanding and knowledge retention.

When I reflect on my own use of ChatGPT, I’m cognisant of the fact that I’m reluctant to let the robot do all the heavy lifting. For example, if I were to brainstorm a list of topics to be covered by a new curriculum, I’d draw up my own list first, then I’d prompt ChatGPT to generate a list, then I’d compare the pair – adding the topics I left out and consider important, and ignoring the ones I don’t.

Similarly, if I were to write an essay – as per the MIT study – I’d outline my key themes and structure first, then I’d prompt ChatGPT to write a draft, then I’d compare the pair.

My approach is what Kerry Harrison calls an AI sandwich, whereby the workflow is human-AI-human. She describes the steps as follows:

  1. Before you start using AI tools, spend time thinking, exploring, researching and crafting your prompts. Use your amazing human brain.
  2. Apply your AI writing tool of choice.
  3. Take the output and fine-tune it. Add/refine prompts, apply your human creativity, flesh out an idea. Make it your own.

While Harrison feeds her thinking into her prompts, and I tend to withhold mine for cross-referencing purposes, our approach remains the same – we use AI to complement our intelligence, rather than replace it. So our outcomes are the products of combined forces, better than either force alone.

Which may be irrelevant to a great many people. Alas, not all students want to learn. But we should help those who do become sandwich makers.

Wrecking ball

Miley Cyrus’s Wrecking Ball may be an ode to the impact of artificial intelligence on higher education.

Since the launch of ChatGPT in particular, traditional means of assessment – such as essays and assignments – have been usurped by students who use the robot to write it for them.

From what I can gather, the response by educators has been mixed. Some refuse to recognise the problem (head in the sand); some trust their students to act honestly (fingers crossed); others police it with AI detectors (though that’s flawed); while others have admirably taken on the challenge of modernising their pedagogy, either by changing the nature of the assessment or by incorporating the use of AI in the exercise.

Of course cheating is not a new phenomenon in college. Plagiarism is almost as old as publishing itself, while contract cheating is the analog forerunner to generative AI. Impersonators have even been caught taking exams on behalf of someone else.

This has spawned a range of mitigation measures, such as Turnitin, ID checks and live online proctoring.

All of which are moot in the context of easy riding – an insidious practice that not only compromises academic integrity, but also prompts us to recast who’s doing the cheating.

If academic integrity is the foundation of academic credibility, sooner or later those chickens will come home to roost.

Big Bird in a meeting, looking out of place among the humans.

Alas, the higher education sector is a microcosm of society. Its experience proves that when an opportunity to cheat is available, and the incentive is strong enough, a proportion of the population will do so. We’re only fooling ourselves to pretend otherwise.

Another microcosm is the corporate sector, which is certainly not immune to the foibles of the human condition. Here, e-learning is the poster child of dubious behaviour, such as checking your email while a video plays in the background, speed clicking the Next button, brute forcing the quiz (aided by poor question design) and even tricking the LMS with some cheeky code monkeying.

This too has spawned a range of mitigation measures, such as auto pausing the video on blur, gating the navigation, reporting the time spent (though I’ve never seen this enforced), increasing the number of questions (quantity > quality), and even attempting to lock down the browser.

All of which are moot when the robot can complete the module for us.

A humanoid robot working on a laptop.

Clearly, as per our friends in the higher education sector, we in the corporate sector need to evolve our approach.

One way would be to address why people cheat in the first place. The evergreen reason is busyness, among a raft of other extrinsic drivers. So adjusting our instructional design (eg micro-learning) and boosting intrinsic motivation (particularly by improving the relevance and authenticity of our deliverables) are important pieces of the puzzle.

But the great unsaid why some people cheat is, frankly, they’re lazy. I realise some folks may find this notion confronting; in certain circles, students can do no wrong, and a similar brand of progressive parenting is popular in L&D. However I think we’re better off recognising it as an aspect of human nature.

So do we eliminate e-learning altogether? I say no, because its advantages as a mode of delivery make it a valuable ingredient in the L&D blend.

Instead, I think the first step forward is to acknowledge that our online modules can and will be cheated. But I also think the second step is to temper that acknowledgement with an appreciation of the fact that not everyone will cheat.

Hence an online module should be a worthwhile learning experience for anyone who chooses to consume it in the right spirit. Notwithstanding that, it shouldn’t be the be-all-and-end-all of the education. Rather, it should be a contributor to a broader campaign to lift capability.

Having said that, I advocate an even deeper approach to mitigate cheating: adopting a skills-based learning strategy. By that I mean shifting our mindset from one of delivering courses to one of validating skills. Employees who can already demonstrate a learning outcome need not do the course, while for everyone else it becomes a resource.

Heretically, one may say let them cheat. Because in a sense, it doesn’t matter so much whether they do the course or not. What really matters is the rigour of your validation process, which represents the sum total of their skill building experiences. If someone hasn’t bothered to build the skill (via your course or otherwise), they won’t be able to practise it.

In this way, the course becomes a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Evidently

The world of Learning & Development abounds with myths, advertorials, pseudo-religious dogma, echo chambers, contrarianism, counter contrarianism, and assumptions presented as fact.

In this chaotic context, how do we practitioners distil what really works to improve our practice?

One way is to focus on evidence. The scientific method – despite its flaws and limitations – is designed to separate the signal from the noise. Hence, we should take more notice of the empirical research that’s available to us.

In the immortal words of W. Edwards Deming, “Without data, you’re just another person with an opinion.”

Scientists working in a laboratory.

So it was my pleasure to host peers who feel as passionately about this topic as I do at the latest IDeL Meetup. And this was no regular talkfest.

A mission that I bestowed upon my guests was to arrive on the night armed with a source of evidence (eg journal article, industry report, or perhaps the results of their own in-house experiment), and share at least one finding that is practical (we can apply it in our own roles) and is supported by data (qualitative or quantitative).

And the resourceful nerds accomplished their mission with distinction.

I kicked off proceedings by socialising the journal article Features of high-quality online courses in higher education: A scoping review. In this study, the researchers report the findings of a thematic content analysis they conducted on 38 peer-reviewed publications, with a view to identifying the principal features of online courses that contribute to a positive learning experience for students and improve the teaching experience for educators.

I was attracted to this paper because my role in the corporate sector has historically involved e-learning, and more recently it has pivoted to enterprise-wide skills-based learning for which I blend online courses with other formats to uplift capability at scale. So anything I can learn from the higher education sector to improve the online components of my solutions should increase their quality overall.

In the paper the researchers identify four themes relating to high-quality online courses: design, facilitation, student engagement, and assessment. Under those banners they discuss several subthemes and considerations, and it was a couple of those that I chose to share with my guests at the meetup.

Clear learning outcomes

The career contrarians in our midst would have us believe that we shouldn’t present learning objectives to our target audience. However, as with so many other academic arguments in our domain, the “right way” is circumstantial.

For a mandatory compliance course, for example, stating the learning objectives up front is arguably unnecessary because the employee must complete it regardless. However if the course is optional, the learning objectives are valuable information that helps the employee decide whether it’s relevant to their needs and hence worth their time and effort.

Within the course environment, I’m also an advocate of learning objectives because they act as advance organizers. Having said that, I’m less inclined to list them in traditional bullet-point form, but rather start with a splash (eg a scenario) from which they emerge in context. These objectives can be presented as broadly or as granularly as you deem appropriate for the target audience; while the outcomes you report back may be worded quite differently for quite a different audience.

By the way, before any learning has taken place, I call them learning objectives. After learning has taken place, I call them learning outcomes. The former are an aspiration; the latter are an evaluation.

Instructor presence

The benefits of instructor presence acknowledged by the researchers won’t be a surprise to anyone – timely feedback, clear communication, community building – and instructor absence has been a bugbear of mine for almost a decade.

In my opinion, educators who dump their tuition-paying students into online courses and leave them to fend for themselves are violating their ethical obligations as a service provider. But this is a hornet’s nest that I shall refrain from kicking any further because many folks in the higher education sector don’t even see themselves as service providers.

Back in the corporate sector, I think the extrapolation from the research is that expensive content libraries and digital learning platforms are doomed to fail on their own. Indeed I have seen this prediction play out throughout my own career, and I have grown to appreciate that human-human interaction not only improves learning outcomes… the audience craves it.

Whether an AI agent can replace the role of the instructor is another hornet’s nest that I shall not kick today. Suffice to say, regardless of how advanced the technology becomes, a human partnered with a robot would be my bet for the best model.

A print-out stating Meetup IDeL Table laid on a restaurant table.

On the subject of human-human interaction, I had a ball discussing the above with my guests at the meet-up, along with the evidence that they brought to the table.

If you’re disappointed in missing out on all the fun, join our group and keep your eyes peeled for the next meet-up.

Not in Sydney…? Reach out to an organizer and host your own!