How to Balance Theory and Research

I love to dwell in both theory and research. Both are fascinating to me.

But how do I balance theory and research when they conflict with each other?

I share an example and I know this is stormy waters ahead for some readers because I'm going to create waves.

 Photo by Ant Rozetsky on Unsplash

First, the theory; Andragogy or Adult Learning Theory credited to Malcolm Knowles and to smaller degrees to other theorists.  Before I go any further, I have to acknowledge that in 2022, there is a STRONG movement to discredit Knowles and Adult Learning Theory.  More than I can count, it's currently cool to disrespect this around instructional design. It's quite ugly.

Examples:

 

 

 

I find this trend really disturbing and an example of cancel culture. Realistically, I find that IDs that put no mental effort into truly studying Andragogy dismiss it out of hand as unreal based on their surface understanding. Said another way, they believe that they know what Andragogy is and then they say it does not exist. BTW, LinkedIn comments have become hot when I've described that THE MOST COMMON COMPLAINT against andragogy is that "children occasionally display these adult traits too, so, therefore, adult learning as an exclusive or separate thing does not exist."  Heads-up: Classic  logical fallacy of composition. 

Once in a while someone will ask "What is an adult anyway?" which I find to be at least a cognizant thought and then explain "Yes, defining an adult is the first exercise in an Adult Learning Theory class." Duh. It's actually really hard to define an adult because there are so many different standards. 

In summary, using a logical fallacy of composition argument is already weak.

Additionally, I find that Andragogy is well-respected, research-supported part of education around for over 30 years. What's next to pick apart? Gender studies?!? 2022 does seem to be the Year to Attack Women. What about Black Cultural studies? How about studies about any particular group?? Or should I be saying "Any particular group that isn't White Mainstream?"  See? That's where cancel culture gets you eventually; no one is good enough. I reject all of this.

Rinse & repeat on Brain-Based Learning.

 

Oops, I'm way off track.

OK, back to Andragogy and what it says about designing good learning for adults-- so we are moving into application now.  Andragogy would predict the learners want to know why. Why are they being forced/told/cajoled into taking this training?  The most standard response to that is: Tell them the objectives at the start of training.

So you'll see this as objectives at the front of textbook chapters or objectives listed in course syllabi. Sometimes an instructor will literally read them out loud.

This is the cod liver oil of learning. I'm telling you this BECAUSE IT IS GOOD FOR YOU. 🗣

Remember: Mary Poppins' cod liver oil tasted like Rum Punch. And she was adding 'just a spoonful of sugar', aka magic.

However, we run into a problem here.

What if 

• your coffee has not kicked in, 
• or you arrived late, 
• or reasons
• or no reasons, 

you really don't care why you are being forced to take this training?  The objectives don't matter to you as a learner. They are not going to impact your life...so who cares?

True enough. I find all of those objections to be valid (even the being late thing because hey, people can be unintentionally late. It's unfair to assume late-arriving learners are late on purpose.)

So....how do we balance this?

Theory says tell them the objectives.

Research or in this case Real World Application says not or at least, it's wasted effort.

For the first time on my blog, I'm going to reference another blog that I read a lot of: Donald Clark Plan B. 

Ways to make your e-learning totally suck

Admittedly, Donald's writing isn't always research but he does have many years of experience that one would be silly to disregard.

Here is his take directly on this:

Donald says the #1. item to include are learning objectives. [Satire remember, but still.]

He links to another blog post here.

So how do I square this circle?

How to you explain why and not bore the adult learner?

The first example that jumps to mind is something I've noticed that Google* now happily does. When I conduct a search, Google (AI?) offers me similar questions and their answers. Sometimes, the questions Google offers, I realize, are better than how I articulated my question.

 

For example, this is a Google search I did on "jonah fled to tarshish" and honestly, I did not even type "to tarshish" because I did not want to spell Tarshish. Google auto-filled that part after I typed "jonah fled..."

But it's the part just below the first answer--- that would be "above the fold" in weird web speak (which is actually referring to newspaper speak??)-- that is the part I want to point out.

It's called People also ask

It's other grammatically correct questions that the Google AI has posed that might be related to my search with little down arrows indicating that I could learn more by just clicking on those questions. Super simple to do by both mouse and by smartphone browser. One click.

Why am I pointing those out?

They are like objectives. Sometimes those questions truly are better than what I typed in for my search.  Sometimes they hit the nail on the head, so to speak, and they are deeply and truly WHAT I WANT TO KNOW and I say a silent "Oh thank God, yes, that's my question!" 

See?!?! Right there. When someone has a feeling THAT passionate, you've struck something. Something good that YOU AS A DESIGNER NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO.

These questions are:

• at the top
• as items I could open if I wanted
• can be scrolled right past.

BINGO.

We've hit the mark. 

That is how learning objectives SHOULD be available to the learner. Read the list again.

• at the top
• as items I could open if I wanted
• can be scrolled right past.

Theory and Research combined

You can bet that Google did a lot of research (and had oodles of data to learn from) that lead to this top 3 questions and even the phrasing "People also ask" being the shortest and most informative way to present these questions/options/information to Google users.

 

Bravo.

 

This is theory and research combined. Gold star. ⭐

E-learning content creators: Go forth and hide (I'm kidding! but seriously, one-click hide!!) your learning objectives at the front of the learning experience and make them optional to read. 

This all comes down to saying that Andragogy has some real value to give instructional designers. You should care about your learners and most especially care if you are designing mandatory learning. They might want to know why, they might not. So neither ignore that desire nor hit them over the head with something boring and forceful.  Seek the way that seems to resonate with them. 

If want to know why, here it is, over here.

If not, keep clicking.

Theory and research balanced. Mischief managed.

*There actually are great examples of how adults learn all around us. The trick is, they don't often carry the label of learning. But they carry the behavior of learning: a change in the learner.

Examples? Happy to provide:

• YouTube researching a car repair.
• The entire "Idiot's Guide to ___" and "___ For Dummies" book series, written for adults & assumes a teacher & textbook are nearby.
• Prompts to start a new online account with your health provider.
• A well written set of IKEA instructions. Wait, is that a gotcha? Does that exist? LOL.🤣
  

Again, another -- thinking of and providing examples-- one would study (!!!) if one studied Adult Learning Theory in depth.