<This blog post was orginally posted at http://usablelearning.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/is-learner-motivation-your-responsibility/>
Just had this quick interchange with Patti Shank on twitter:
This is a totally fair comment on Patti’s part — you can’t force someone to be motivated (and undoubtedly some of our disagreement stems from semantics – not that THAT ever happens on twitter). A lot of the conversation around gamification (for a heated throw down on the topic read the comments here) is about the dubious and likely counterproductive effects of extrinsic rewards as motivators. According to Alfie Kohn in his book Punished by Rewards, a big part of the problem with extrinsic motivators is that it’s about controlling the learner, not helping or supporting them.
So that I totally agree with – you can’t control your learner, or control their motivation.
But design decisions do have an impact on human behavior. For example, this chart show the rate of people who agree to be organ donors in different European countries:
In the blue countries, choosing to be a organ donor is selected by default, and the person has to de-select it if they do not want to be a donor. In the yellow countries, the default is that the person will not be an organ donor, and the person has to actively choose to select organ donor status.
Now it could be that some people aren’t paying attention, but at least some of that difference is presumably due to people who do notice, but just roll with the default (you can read more about it here – scroll down to the Dan Ariely section).
So the way something is designed can make a difference in behavior. Of course, that’s not a training example, so let’s take a closer look at how training might come in to play.
Is it a training problem?
Robert Mager used this question as a litmus test:
“If you held a gun to the person’s head, would they be able to do the task?”
He further discusses this in his book on Analyzing Performance Problems but later uses the less graphic “could they do the task if their life depended on it?” question (Thiagi advocates for the version “Could they do it if you offered them a million dollars?” if you prefer a non-violent take).
So basically, if someone could do the behavior under extreme pressure, then they clearly know how to do it, and it’s not a knowledge or skills problem, and therefore outside of the domain of training (could be up the person’s specific motivation, could be a workplace management issue, etc.).
Here’s where I disagree
I think the way you design learning experiences can have an impact on the likelihood of people engaging in the desired behavior, and that it is part of an instructional designer’s responsibility. I don’t think you can control people, or force the issue, but I do think the experience they have when they are learning about something can make a difference in the decisions they make later.
There are a couple of models that influence my thinking on this, but the two I use most often are the Technology Acceptance Model, and Everett Rogers Diffusion of Innovations.
The Technology Acceptance Model
The technology acceptance model is an information systems model that looks at what variables affect whether or not someone adopts a new technology. It’s been fairly well research (and isn’t without its critics), but I find it to be a useful frame. At the heart of the model are two variables:
It’s not a complicated idea – if you want someone to use something, they need to believe that it’s actually useful, and that it won’t be a major pain in the ass to use.
TAM specifically addresses technology adoption, but those variables make sense for a lot of things. You want someone to use a new method of coaching employees? Or maybe a new safety procedure? If your audience believes that it’s pointless (ie not useful), or it’s going to be a major pain (ie not easy to use), then they will probably figure out ways around it. Then it either fails to get adopted or you get into all sorts of issues around punishments, incentives, etc.
I keep TAM in mind when I design anything that requires adopting a new technology or system or practice (which is almost everything I do). Some of the questions I ask are:
- Is the new behavior genuinely useful? Sometimes it’s not useful for the learner – it’s useful to the organization, or it’s a compliance necessity. In those cases, it can be a good idea to acknowledge it and make sure the learner understands why the change is being made – that it isn’t just the organization messing with their workflow, but that it’s a necessary change for other reasons.
- If it is useful, how will the learner know that? You can use case studies, examples, people talking about how it’s helped them, or give the learner the experience of it being useful through simulations. Show, Don’t Tell becomes particular important here. You can assert usefulness until you are blue in the face, and you won’t get nearly as much buy-in as being able to try it, or hearing positive endorsements from trusted peers.
- Is the new behavior easy-to-use? If it’s not, why not? Is it too complex? Is it because people are too used their current system? People will learn to use even the most hideous system by mentally automating tasks (see these descriptions of the QWERTY keyboard and the Bloomberg Terminal), but then when you ask them to change, it’s really difficult because they can no longer use those mental shortcuts and the new system feels uncomfortably effortful until they’ve had enough practice.
- If it’s not easy to use, is there anything that can be done to help that? Can the learners practice enough to make it easier? Can you make job aids or other performance supports? Can you roll it out in parts so they don’t have to tackle it all at once? Can you improve the process or interface to address ease-of-use issues?
Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations
The other model I find really useful is from Everett Rogers’ book
Diffusion of Innovations. If you haven’t read it, go buy it now. Yes, NOW. It’s actually a really entertaining read because it’s packed with intrguing case studies.
It’s loaded with useful stuff, but the part I want to focus on right now are his characteristics of innovation that affect whether a user adopts or rejects an innovation:
- Relative Advantage – the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than the idea it supersedes
- Compatibility – the degree to which an innovation is perceived to be consistent with the existing values, past experiences and needs of potential adopters
- Complexity – the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to use
- Trialability – the opportunity to experiment with the innovation on a limited basis
- Observability – the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others
There is obviously some crossover with TAM, but If I’m designing a learning experience for a new system, I use this as a mental checklist:
- Are the learners going to believe the new system is better?
- Are there compatibility issues that need to be addressed?
- Can we do anything reduce complexity?
- Do the learners have a chance to see it being used?
- Do the learners have a chance to try it out themselves?
- and, How can they have the opportunity to have some success with the new system?
Now, if somebody really, really doesn’t want to do something, designing instruction around these elements probably isn’t going to change their mind (Patti’s not wrong about that). And if a new system, process or idea is really sucky, or a pain in the ass to implement, then it’s going to fail no matter how many opportunities you give the learner to try it out.
But here’s the thing – I can design a training intervention that can teach a learner how to use a new system/concept/idea, which could meet the Mager requirement (they could do it if their life depended on it), but I will design a very different (and I think better) learning experience if I consider these motivation factors as well.
I don’t want to take ownership of the entire problem of motivating learners (waaaaaay too many variables outside of my scope or control), but I do believe I share in the responsibility of creating an environment where they can succeed.
And bottom line, I believe my responsibility as a learning designer is to do my best to motivate learners by creating a learning experience where my learners can kick ass, because in the words of the always-fabulous Kathy Sierra kicking ass is more fun (and better learning).
—————————————
References
Davis, F. D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology”, MIS Quarterly 13(3): 319–340
Johnson, Eric J. and Goldstein, Daniel G., Do Defaults Save Lives? (Nov 21, 2003). Science, Vol. 302, pp. 1338-1339, 2003. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1324774
Mager, Robert and Pipe, Peter, Analyzing Performance Problems: Or, You Really Oughta Wanna–How to Figure out Why People Aren’t Doing What They Should Be, and What to do About It
Rogers, Everett Diffusion of Innovations
I hear you. I always break out the story of working on a training manual and having the (fed govt) client actually attempt to measure the worth of the instructional material by the thickness of the binder.
…which leads me to my point: a lot of the ‘metrics’ that clients use to ‘measure’ the value of training have nothing to do with training effectiveness or learning outcomes. They have to do with either business objectives, saving face, and workplace-positioning goals that, if the stakeholders were honest with themselves, don’t have anything to do with learning. Or they could, but they don’t actually see it that way. It’s why evaluations rarely reach beyond certain levels. It’s why clients tend to go clicky-clicky-bling-bling or question the need for imagery at all (and essentially want elearning when a PDF would do). Clients feel empowered to tell us how we should do our jobs partially because they don’t see what we do as terribly difficult, but also because they know the *real* motivations behind the learning project that we have been contracted to complete.
Sort of glad to know I’m not alone with this problem but disappointed too because so far I haven’t seen someone offer a clear solution. I thought it was a credibility issue but now I’m not so sure. Perhaps people think it’s faster and cheaper to throw training at employees rather than fix the process itself. This is especially true if the person requesting training is the one who came up with the failing process and doesn’t want to admit that it is the issue and not the employees’ ability to carry the process out.
I do think that people think it’s faster and cheaper to throw training than to think. Except it isn’t.
I think your point about not second-guessing the orthodontist or the lawyer is an interesting one. There’s something about instructional design that people think is self-apparent, or easy. Graphic designers get it too — I’ve seen lovely, well-constructed designs get shredded by clients who want the logo “pop more” and can you just move the intro text over here…
I once had a boss who wasn’t really an e-learning person (he had a project management background). We were talking about staffing a project that needed an instructional designer, but I was fully committed on existing projects. One of the programmers had just expressed an interest in learning more about instructional design, and my boss said that we could just use him (the programmer) as the ID. After my stupefied silence had passed, I had to ask him what it was he thought *I did*?
I do think that crappy evaluation plays a role too. I frequently refer to pre/post tests as political evaluation. Nobody thinks it’s a real indicator, but it’s politically expedient to show some kind of lift. As long as we accept and facilitate that, it’s no wonder people aren’t conscious of the value of ID.
Hmm. Lots more thoughts on this. Might be a good panel topic for Learning Solutions or similar…
Craig, I think a PDF would make perfect sense INSTEAD of an e-learning course in so many cases. In fact, why not have a PDF and then come back online for some quiz questions? I mean really, why have them read all this text online, right? And you’re right, if the real motivation is CYA, we might as well do as cheaply and quickly as possible. What’s the harm in that? Save the real effort for things that are worth it.
Maery, I think part of the time the problem is what Craig said. They don’t care about results, they only care about saying they did training. But you’re so right, if the person who requests training created the problem, how much do they really care about fixing it?.
Julie, Wow, how demoralizing to have a boss actually say to your face that a project manager could take your place. He didn’t even REALIZE that this was a supreme insult. See that’s what’s really so awful… He didn’t even realize you had unique skills. And I don’t think that’s unusual. What’s up with that?
Two days ago, a client explained to us that PowerPoint slides should have a title at the top, and bullets, with smaller ideas indented under the bigger ideas. He especially likes the interactivity (of our instructor-led discussions) of line-by-line animation that prevents the student from getting ahead of the instructor. The client wants our product to look more standardized. There is no feedback from any level of evaluation indicating a problem with how things are right now.
It is a sticky, frustrating situation. A wrong response on our part could jeopardize our contract, and therefore the employment of several people. Of course, if we do what the client wants, it would result in a lowering of quality, and that would jeopardize the contract. We can’t afford to be a doormat here.
I think part of the solution is educating the client that you have expertise and credibility. There’s something about the CPLP after my name that has caused some clients to stop and listen, and let me guide them to the best solution. It doesn’t always happen, but I’m sure hoping my CPLP comes through for me again, because I don’t really appreciate being told how to do my job by someone who believes line-by-line animation is interactivity.
To Maery’s point, I do think credibility is part of the issue. I think we exacerbate that when we don’t succinctly explain to the client that the tactical “throw training at it” approach is going to impact the bottom line in a much worse way than taking the time and effort to fix the process. It isn’t just about asserting ourselves, it is about ensuring we are fluent in the language of business, and tying everything we do to the ROI.
Valerie, I’ve been in similar situations and have similarly wondered what makes the most sense. Does the client want you to do what they ask or to tell them what you think is right and why? I tell them what I think and why. That’s what they’re paying for. But I think you’re absolutely right that establishing credibility is key. And part of that certainly has to be understanding business and understanding their business. There may be a very good reason for not taking the approach you recommend in their circumstances. That’s why a partnership between what we know and what they know is essential towards a good result.
This does seem to be an inherent problem with some instructional design projects. One issue is the point at which the ID is brought in. Sometimes the scope of the project has already been agreed upon by the time I begin working on the project, especially if I’m collaborating with an agency. Most “page-turner” online courses would function better as PDFs instead of requiring the learners to click through screen after boring screen. Probably even more frustrating than this problem is when I know the learners would benefit from the content in the form of a robust scenario-based online course, but there the budget/timeline won’t support my recommendation.
Nothing worse than getting parachuted in on a project when you realize that the approach/scope/content is all wrong and there’s precious little you can do about it.
Totally agree here. As an outsider, I can say no, because I really don’t think it’s fair for clients to pay me for something I know is not in their best interest. But if you’re inside, I know that many times you have to go along to get along.
Patti: I think part of the issue is a lack of understanding or awareness of the role of the education/L&D practitioner. I recall vividly getting pigeon-holed by a PM about a new initiative (and I had only been with this org for a couple of months at the time) and he said “Yeah, we’ve got some training to do on this new system and our help desk (almost 100 people) needs training. You’ll be able to whip that up this week, right?” In a lot of cases, perhaps we’re our own worst enemy. As practitioners we’re often so eager to please and appease the stakeholders that we don’t do nearly enough self-promotion – as you noted above. Granted, we’re also victims of circumstance because many of the nuts & bolts practitioners learn their craft through sheer hard work as opposed to formal education. Therefore, in the eyes of the stakeholders, that isn’t nearly as valuable as someone who took a more formal path to their education, etc. ADDIE is also part of the issue. I don’t think we’re doing enough among ourselves to explore, promote, and implement new models and approaches.
Whatever change we want to effect, it’s going to have to be a grass roots effort.
I really wonder how much self-promotion we could get away with. That is, I think part of the problem is that they think that we do is fairly self-evident and we tend to over complicate matters. I agree that we need to educate them but I think we need to plant ah-has somehow and not directly tell them because in this case, I think they feel like they already know. In any case, I don’t have the answers, as I’m sure is evident by my rant.
On the one hand, I am glad to learn that I am not alone in feeling like I allow myself to be treated doormat.
The problem is I don’t think there is a simple solution. I’ve been seeing the same issues raised pretty much continuously since I got started doing instructional design/performance consulting over 10 years ago. (It’s my third or maybe it’s my fourth profession, so I am not a youngster by any means.)
One reaction is to think about “firing” any client (and turn down the job and the money) who does not treat me as an intelligent professional and a partner who has a lot to contribute to the success of the project. Work only with people who get it. I haven’t been able to do that yet. Has anyone had any success with an approach like that?
Another reaction is that the training profession itself has a credibility problem when it comes to identifying ROI and the benefits of training. For one thing, ROI is probably the wrong term. I am pretty sure in business terms that accountants and finance officers use, training isn’t an “investment” it’s a cost. So, we should probably be doing a “cost-benefit analysis” — and calling it that. I have stopped paying much attention to training ROI analyses because the claims were unrealistic and not even very well documented.
I think one part of the solution will be to keep promoting the value of training and performance support (which I think is considerable) and, in addition, admitting that most money currently spent on training is wasted doing training the way it is being done now — they way it has always been done. How many studies do we have that show 90 percent training is forgotten within 30 days. And how many billions of dollars does industry spend on training. Putting those two facts together, 90 percent of those billions of dollars are wasted. Aren’t they?
Train people for what the do or will do every day. Provide clear job aids for anything else. Easy to say, not easy to do — but isn’t that always the case?