The ”Cheap Trick” Episode

The LDA Podcast: An Exploration of Evidence-Informed Approaches to Learning and Development

For our latest episode, we’ve got mail! All good, and some very useful and constructive feedback. We share. And, somehow, the greatest working rock band in the world, Cheap Trick gets a plug. (Eye roll from Will) In the episode, Matt mentions his experience meeting the band and here’s the photo he shared with Will. Matt’s in the middle, next to his cousin, Mark.

Matt with Cheap Trick before their Albany, NY concert on February 7, 2020.

For Segment One, Will shares a discussion he had on LinkedIn with an individual who posted bad information as valid. This person made a case that eLearning is better than in-person training. The elearning-is-better argument wasn’t really what Will had issue with, but rather the evidence this person used to make the case. The individual is on the learning technology side and had a stake in what he/she espoused. The argument used a whole bunch of falsehoods. After Will called the piece out, the person went out in search of evidence to confirm the original thesis… confirmation bias. The point of this segment is not to litigate this individual’s view. No. Rather, it is fodder for Will and Matt to discuss what gets put out there as research. In other words, how does actual research get misconstrued, misunderstood, and then put out there as truth.

We also mention the documentary about the Flat Earth Society called BEHIND THE CURVE. https://www.netflix.com/title/81015076

We also mention a LinkedIn discussion Matt started on ending the traditional Icebreaker. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/matthew-richter-0738b84_truthinlearning-thiagi-trainthetrainer-activity-6636243679377965057-tHgN

Then, in Segment Two, there are two scams our friend Cara North identifies during her discussion with Will. The first involves teachers (and others) who are transitioning into our field and look for help from those who say they can support and facilitate them through the transition. Unqualified consultants and “experts” offer their services with the promise of making jobs happen. But, the outcomes don’t support the promise. Cara also highlights how universities often offer Masters’ programs in instructional design, but don’t then provide the skills and competencies to help people get jobs. Students often do not get what they need to be able to do the work. So, for her, these two “scams” are linked and related problems we have industry-wide. Cara offers advice and tips before jumping into a program or getting help from the so-called experts. You can find Cara’s website here: https://caranorth.com.

Then, Matt and Will debrief and discuss some of the semantics related to the topic.

Finally, in Segment Three, we discuss how one approaches learning. Why do we separate eLearning designers from in-person designers? Why do we put the onus on the platform first and not on the learning outcomes. We argue that logistics should be a compromise we make after we initially understand the desired outcomes and objectives. We look at Will’s eLearning research review from 2017, still a definitive comparison of elearning and classroom training. https://www.worklearning.com/2017/08/10/major-research-review-on-elearning-effectiveness/

Making the connections to our first segment, we explore that eLearning can be better than in-person training. Or, in-person can be better. In other words… as always, it depends!

And, of course… we end up talking about what we mean by eLearning. Is it a webinar? A Live, Virtual, Online Training (LVOT), an asynchronous program? Etc.

You can learn more about Will’s Presentation Science Program here: https://www.presentationscience.net

Will mentions Pathwright for writing online courses. Here’s the link: https://www.pathwright.com

And, we end the session with the Best and the Worst where we call out (in a good way) Jane Bozarth, Director of Research at the eLearning Guild. You’ll have to listen to the episode to learn why!