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

The ”Cheap Trick” Episode

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!

The ”What the LMS” Episode

In this episode, Will and Matt are joined by two renowned experts, Lori Niles-Hofmann and Steve Foreman. This extended, single segment show is all about the LMS. What is it? How did we get here? Where are we going? What are we trying to accomplish and how do we meet our LMS needs? Lori and Steve share their expertise on how to evaluate an LMS and how to evaluate LMS vendors. They provide tons and tons of tips and advice on everything about these monsters. Did you know there were tons of different types of LMSs? We didn’t. Do you even need an LMS? Everyone has them? Do you? Why do you?Lori is a senior learning strategist with over 20 years of L&D experience across many industries, including international banking, management consulting, and marketing. Her specialization is large-scale digital learning transformations and acts as a trusted adviser to CLOs around the world. Lori has developed data-based methodologies and frameworks that empower L&D teams to move from business support function to strategic business driver. She is currently based in Toronto, Canada with one foot in Europe. You can find Lori at https://lorinileshofmann.squarespace.com. Steve is a management consultant and software designer/developer in the eLearning space. He subscribes to a broader definition of eLearning that includes knowledge management, expertise location and management, communities of practice, and performance support solutions. You can find Steve at http://infomediadesigns.com. In our Best and Worst, Lori mentions during her best, Matt Ash from The Media Zoo sending her a game in the New York Times, called CAN YOU DEFEAT THE PRIVACY CHICKEN. Check it out here.

The ”Happy New Years’ Resolutions” Episode

DISCLAIMER: We apologize for the recording sound on Matthew’s side of things… First, he was sick. Second, his microphone broke and the sound quality was reduced. We will fix this before the next episode. Now… onto the show…In our first segment, we explore what is a learning objective. How are they used, should they be used, how are they constructed, how are they consumed, and what are alternatives to them. We mention Bob Mager and his book, Preparing Instructional Objectives: A Critical Tool in the Development of Effective Instruction. Will also refers to his mentor and doctoral advisor, Ernie Rothkopf. One of the research articles Will references is: Rothkopf, E. Z., & Kaplan, R. (1972). An exploration of the effect of density and specificity of instructional objectives on learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 6, 295-302. From Will, here is the classic piece he wrote about rethinking instructional objectives. Click here. And, Will’s classic video on objectives that Matthew sends to everyone. Click here. Our second segment delves into the overall purpose of training. Is it just to ultimately yield business results? Shareholder value? Or, aligning more with the sustainability values of today, to provide outcomes aligned also with employee well-being, the enhancement of the community, and other broader benefits to the many. Click here for the LinkedIn Post that inspired this segment. We also brought up Self-Determination Theory again. The motivation model originally conceptualized by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan from the University of Rochester. While both of them have done quite a bit of writing about SDT within the context of work (and Rich is now offering a program on Coursera beginning February 10), the two researchers Matthew mentions are Marylène Gagné and Jacques Forest. The specific articles and book referenced are listed first along with other articles Jacques has shared with Matthew. That list is at the bottom of the episode notes. If you are interested generally in SDT, go here and/or take Rich’s Coursera program.In our third segment, we are joined by Kassy LaBorie. Together we all discuss how to bring interactivity to the virtual classroom. We discuss the differences and similarities between classroom and virtual classroom delivery. Kassy shares the misconceptions many have about virtual classrooms. And, so much more about virtual delivery. Kassy mentions the wonderful video, A CONFERENCE CALL IN REAL LIFE, embedded above. Or, click here to see it on YouTube. Kassy can be found at https://kassyconsulting.com. She is the co-author, along with Thomas Stone, of Interact and Engage!: 50+ Activities for Virtual Training, Meetings, and Webinars. Tom, also Kassy’s husband, wrote the very cool baseball book, Now Taking the Field: Baseball's All-Time Dream Teams for All 30 Franchises. Finally, we take a break from our Best and Worst closing and have several of our listeners share their personal New Years’ Resolutions. Will and Matthew share theirs, as well. Contributors are: the very same Kassy LaBorie you listened to in segment three, Phil Reynolds, Cara North, Clark Quinn, Ellen Burns-Johnson, Roger Kaufman, Allison Samon, Ulrich Boser, Julie Dirksen, Alex Salas, Mirjam Neelen, and Dave Barton.SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY REFERENCESForest, J., Gilbert, M.-H., Beaulieu, G., Le Brock, P., & Gagné, M. (2014). Translating research results in economic terms: An application of economic utility analysis using SDT-based interventions. In M. Gagné (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory (pp. 335-346). Oxford:  Oxford University Press.Trepanier, S.-G., Forest, J., Fernet, C., & Austin, S. (2015). On the psychological and motivational processes linking job characteristics to employee functioning: Insights from Self-Determination Theory. Work and Stress, 29, 286-305. The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory Güntert, S. T. (2015). The impact of work design, autonomy support, and strategy on employee outcomes: A differentiated perspective on self-determination at work. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 74-87.Trepanier, S.-G., Fernetet, C., & Austin, S. (2015). A longitudinal investigation of workplace bullying, basic need satisfaction, and employee functioning. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20, 105-116.Van den Broeck, A., Schreurs, B., De Witte, H., Vansteenkiste, M., Germeys, F., & Schaufeli, W. (2011). Understanding workaholics’ motivations: A self-determination perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60 600-621.Ng, J. Y. Y., Ntoumanis, N., Thogersen-Ntoumani, C., Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Duda, J. L., & Williams, G. C. (2012). Self-determination theory applied to health contexts: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on PsychologicalScience, 7, 325-340. 

The ”Myths, Misconceptions, and Superstitions” Episode

A special episode. Only two segments this time. Our guest, Clark Quinn, was too interesting to boot off, so we kept him going longer- for a double length discussion on a myriad of different topics.   For our first segment, we dig into awards in the Learning Industry. Will shares how the different industry organizations, in general, approach running awards programs. We then discuss the merits of these awards and what they mean- in other words, can they be trusted? Are they beneficial? Are they even useful? Are they fair? Are they accurate representations of merit. We also discuss the responses we got when Will posted this question on LinkedIn. Note that the referenced poem Matt wrote in college, HANK, is too humiliating to share. No one will ever see it! 🤔 You’ll have to listen to see what we are talking about here.  Then, we are joined by our long-time friend and colleague, Clark Quinn. Clark is one of the eminent leaders in learning technology strategy. He has written several books, including Revolutionize Learning & Development: Performance and Innovation Strategy for the Information Age and most recently, the great Millennials, Goldfish & Other Training Misconceptions: Debunking Learning Myths and Superstitions.  During this segment, we start with an exploration for why it is important to be aware of the myths, misconceptions, and superstitions (MMS) that are pervasive in the industry. We discuss what the differences are between each of those classifications and why using tools and resources more accurately is a better business case. Clark shares why it is so appealing to accept MMS. In other words, why do we diss science and throw money away? We then dive deep, exploring a few examples within each of those categories, including:   MYTHS: The Generations Effect‎ Multitasking‎ ‎Dale’s Cone‎‎Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP)‎  MISCONCEPTIONS: No Knowledge versus Focusing on just Skills‎ ‎70-20-10 ‎  SUPERSTITIONS: ‎Interaction Yielding Engagement  Other MMS’ we raise include: DiSC, MBTI, Strengths, Neuro-everything that isn’t actually neuroscience, and Mehrabian’s 55-38-7.  Clark also references Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and his work on FLOW. You can find the seminal book, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, here.Matt references Human Development and exploring the human lifecycle as a more reliable way to look at the impact age may have rather than the Generations Effect. Without naming them directly, the information he references comes from the work of noted psychologist, Richard M. Lerner and his book, Concepts and Theories of Human Development and the work of Dale Dannefer, the Selah Chamberlain Professor of Sociology and Chair Department of Sociology, at Case Western. And, we learn that Will is a suspicious guy who loves leading questions🤣🤣.  And, finally, Clark joins us for the Best and the Worst.    

The ”I am a Coach... really... I am” Episode

In this episode, we discuss what it means to be creative and whether there is place for learning professionals to embody creativity to support insight learning. Will will ask a series of prompt questions for discussion. He explains the difference between Transfer Learning and Insight Learning and makes the connection to being creative. Along with the prompting questions, Will defines creativity based on a synthesis of some of the latest research on the topic. Will references the Duncker Problem. The Duncker Problem is a cognitive performance test, measuring the influence of functional fixedness on a participant's problem solving capabilities. The test was created by Gestalt psychologist Karl Duncker and published posthumously in 1945. Matt references the Nails on a Nail activity. You can see it on YouTube here.Then, Matt delivers a rant about a particular form of coaching he has been seeing in the field. Specifically, coaches who only engage clients facilitatively. They reflect what they hear and view themselves essentially as a mirror for the client to look into as one searches for a path toward a change one wants to make. The coach is not a SME and is not supposed to advise. The coach sticks to a process that gets the client to identify solutions. Please note: Matt is not attacking coaching in general. Just this particular form of it. Will coaches Matt very aggressively.Finally, Will interviews Roger Kaufman, one of the giants in the field of Educational Tech (Instructional Design). They discuss Roger’s Mega Planning model, a framework for adding measurable value to society. Roger can be found at https://www.megaplanning.com. Roger and Will discuss one of Roger’s main themes... “If you’re organization is a solution, what is the problem.” They also discuss Roger’s partnership with Mariano Bernardez. Mariano is the current Executive Director of the Performance Improvement Institute Global Network and CEO of the Performance Improvement Institute. And in honor of Roger, Will has even added new theme music to hide our edits.🤯 Of course, we end with the Best and the Worst. In the very beginning of the episode, we reference Laurel and Hardy and couldn’t remember their first names. They are Stan and Ollie, respectively.

The “Where’s the Evidence” Episode

In this episode, Will has a conversation with The Good Practice Podcast guys, Ross Garner and Owen Ferguson. You can find them at https://podcast.goodpractice.com. They share their origin story of the show. Will asks them whether we podcasters should go after and challenge the “bad actors” in our industry. The answer will surprise you. After Matt and Will debrief his Good Practice conversation, they dive deep into what makes evidence good evidence. In other words, how does one evaluate the quality of evidence in our field. In the discussion, Will and Matt discuss his first draft on a taxonomy for evaluating research. IT IS A FIRST DRAFT! But, click here to see it. They use 70-20-10 as an example for their exploration. The article Will wrote on 70-20-10 is here.And, of course, they tease the possibility of an exploration of A/B testing… again.In the final segment, Will and Matt share the Learning Translators they turn to when exploring new research. There also might be a pumpkin pie recipe. The list below is more people than directly referred to in the episode, as we left a few out as we discussed the topic.Julie Dirksen: http://usablelearning.com Patti Shank: https://www.pattishank.com Will Thalheimer: https://www.worklearning.com Clark Quinn: https://quinnovation.com Ruth Clark: https://www.clarktraining.com Karl Kapp: http://karlkapp.com Guy Wallace: https://eppic.biz Jane Bozarth: http://linkedin.com/in/janebozarth Donald Clark: http://planblearning.com Mirjam Neelen: http://linkedin.com/in/mirjamneelen The presentation Matt made is Grenoble, France on Myths, Misconceptions, and Snake Oil is here. Thanks to Clark Quinn for inspiring the title of the talk.Matt refers to The Invisible Gorilla: How Our Intuitions Deceive Us by Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons. You can watch an interview Matt did with Chris Chabris here.And, of course, the Best and the Worst of the Week. We have a listener page. On it, we ask you a million questions about the show and how we can make it better. Check it out, and answer the questions. So far, all the things Matt likes are winning! 😁Also, we ask you to go to iTunes and Spotify and rate Truth In Learning. The more ratings we get, the higher up we go when one searches for shows like ours. Positive reviews are indeed preferred. 😜

The “ASK QUESTIONS” Episode

In this episode, Will goes away... to the beach. So, while I waited for him to return, Thiagi and I recorded a segment where we discuss the role of the learner. We share client examples, overcoming pushback from stakeholders who don’t initially accept the idea of learner-led approaches, and effect of leveraging learners in the classroom as evaluators (which helps them cement their comprehension, memory of the material, decision making while applying the concepts, and more. We also detour and talk about the distinction between performance versus and business outcomes. Thiagi refers to Thomas F. Gilbert, a psychologist and the founder of the performance technology- (HPT- Human Performance Technology). Thiagi refers to mindfulness. We don’t talk about it, but if you are interested in the topic, check out Carol Dweck’s book, MINDSET, THE NEW PSYCHOLOGY OF SUCCESS. We also reference Professor Chuck Petranek and his amazing simulation, Sex on the Beach, a social simulation about sexual behavior and AIDS.Will does eventually return, a bit sunburned. And, for that segment, we are joined by Patti Shank. https://www.pattishank.com. Patti is an evidence-based learning and development expert who focuses on “doing what works.” As she puts it, she “uses science to improve the results from instruction.”We discuss the merit and method of asking effective questions to drive, as Patti calls it, deeper learning. The conversation, of course, weaves through her typical theme of better practice, feedback, and memory. She discusses mistakes used when developing test questions and how to make those better. We go even deeper exploring what exactly is an assessment and how do questions play into them- which of course leads to a clarification of what are learning objectives. In the episode, Patti refers to Noted nutritionist, Zoe Harcombe, who can be found at...  http://www.zoeharcombe.com. Patti joins us for The Best and the Worst of the Week. Will references Scott H. Young’s new book, Ultralearning: Master Hard Skills, Outsmart the Competition, and Accelerate Your Career. 

The ”We Should Be Journalists” Episode

In our fifth episode, we go long… maybe too long! 😜 But, we got on a roll. We have lots of guests, a heated debate, and more. In Segment One, we go meta. We discuss why we should actually be negative. In other words, why it’s good to debunk, challenge, question, and even attack ideas. We discuss the pros and cons and why many in our field are so adverse to negativity. In Segment Two, Will conducts two separate interviews. In both, he explores whether we should do more investigative journalism in the L&D field. How can we ensure we are indeed doing all the right things? The first is with Ryan Watkins, co-host of the Parsing Science podcast and a professor in Educational Technology Leadership at George Washington University. Ryan also has an amazing website at We Share Science.The second is with Truth in Learning friend, Julie Dirksen. Julie is a research to practice guru. She is the author of DESIGN FOR HOW PEOPLE LEARN. Check out her cool website, Usable Learning.‎In Segment Three, we each share our top three research-based learning facts. What should we design into our learning programs to make them most effective.And, of course, we end with the Best and the Worst of the week. ‎We also referenced several times an article Will wrote called Donald Kirkpatrick was NOT the Originator of the Four-Level Model of Learning Evaluation. This one could possibly change your life!‎Matt mentions Self-Determination Theory, a model for why we do what we do. Here is a link to an article he wrote on How Learners Are Motivated. You can also learn a ton about motivation and specifically the model here, at the Center for Self-Determination Theory. We mention Mike Taylor and his wonderfully info-packed website. Here is the link… https://mike-taylor.org. 

The ”Rats Vs. Hamsters” Episode

In this episode, we discuss Will’s rat problem and the differences between rats and hamsters. Yes… you read that correctly. Don’t worry, this part of the podcast goes pretty quickly and we do indeed get to the good stuff. In the first segment, we chew on how to evaluate specific models, tools, or resources. During this segment, Matt refers to a course he took on Coursera  by Scott E. Page from the University of Michigan called MODEL THINKING. Then, in segment two, we pull a bait and switch… we tell you we are going to talk about what makes a training objective a good training objective and what is actually the goal of training itself. We cover a little of this, but then we get derailed. We get into a debate about the differences between education and training. It’s not as simple as one thinks.Finally, we talk about what makes a  trainer great. What are the characteristics and features of the best of the best? We are joined by Matt’s daughter, Lia, who has a particularly insightful and interesting perspective on this topic. We end with the Best and the worst. Lia stays with us to give hers, as well. 

The ”I am a...” Episode

In Episode Three, we tackle the question of using NPS (Net Promoter Score) as an evaluation tool for learning and development programs. First, we define what it is and explore how it is being applied (too often inappropriately). In segment two, we get philosophical. In practice, in business, and particularly in L&D, is it becoming more and more difficult to disagree with each other? Can we even do so? Should we? Well, of course..., but how should we go about it in a meaningful, yet supportive way? In segment three we are joined by Thiagi. We explore what labels we should use when describing what we do. Trainer, designer, consultant? Other terms? Will offers a solution. Thiagi asks several practical questions. And, finally, we all (Thiagi, too) share our best and worst of the week- although Thiagi shares his from long ago.