Muscle Memory

 Our physical bodies are in flux. They build, repair, and dismantle muscle all of the time. They store consumed energy in muscle and fat, and then break it down in a near constant cycle. They build and alter neural networks. It is simply the state of being alive. 

We can intentionally influence the dynamics of this balance through activity and diet, but we tend to forget that this isn’t something we turn on and off with choices or intention. It’s a state of being. 

Learning is also a constant, physical process. We are always perceiving, storing memories, making associations, determining cause and effect. Every time you flick a light switch and something different happens, you learn. Every time the same thing happens, the association is strengthened. It is not allocated to a classroom or training course. It is not something we turn off and on. It too is a state of being. 

Sometimes the literature seems to ring fence learning mediated by intentional teaching - whether in the ISD, constructivist, or transformative realms. While forming theories that provide tools to support and enhance intentional learning are critical - in the same way medical science theories can mitigate the ill effects of muscle atrophy during bed rest - understanding how and when process knowledge or value reframing develops in the absence of intentional instruction can provide a more integrated perspective and theoretical framework. 

Auditory Worked Examples

 In supporting Sales Teams, I’ve known that providing video or audio can have more impact than what a strict method/mode analysis suggests. While “time, motion and interpersonal interaction” does call for video, sales was served by video outside of customer demos  I wasn’t sure of the andragogy of it, but nobody besides myself cared  

Leaders have similar needs, and I recently had a need to really think through purpose and theory to draw a ring around the content that Learning Architects “should be” responsible for in my current role vs. the things I can do, but shouldn’t be considered part of my Body of Work. 

I ran across this: “Worked examples are useful in the initial acquisition of cognitive skills because they allow students to understand principles and their applications more deeply before applying them on their own (Renkl, 2014b). Worked examples have shown to be particularly effective for novice learners, who may experience high levels of cognitive load when learning new concepts and procedures simultaneously (Renkl, 2014a). In fact, worked examples tend to be more efficient and effective for initial skill acquisition compared to problem solving (Renkl, 2014a). If designed well, worked examples can provide models for learners to follow when tackling similar problems, allowing them to transfer knowledge from one task to another.”

I always thought of “worked examples” as math problems, completed templates or forms … things like that. But professions such as sales or leaders work primarily in verbal communication. So *hearing* a policy demonstrates how to communicate it effectively using the same encoding as the final work product.

We could argue that this is simply considering application context, which definitely one of the reasons why “worked examples” are so effective in reducing cognitive load in verbal work product  

However, auditory worked examples offer value beyond this. For example, they effectively demonstrate an “expert” treatment of the communication, allowing learners to self-evaluate the way they frame the message against a “correct” example - one of the meta cognitive tasks required to build the mental models needed for knowledge transfer.

Thinking this through allows a more targeted training approach than “do a video for salespeople”.

https://tll.mit.edu/teaching-resources/how-people-learn/worked-examples/#:~:text=Worked%20examples%20are%20step%2Dby,the%20problem%2C%20and%20the%20solution](https://tll.mit.edu/teaching-resources/how-people-learn/worked-examples/#:%7E:text=Worked%20examples%20are%20step%2Dby,the%20problem%2C%20and%20the%20solution

Connected Knowing

 “ The traditional theory, they suggested, places separate knowing in a central role. Unlike separate knowers, who follow lines of reasoning and look for flaws in logic to create more defensible knowledge, connected knowers suspend judgment and struggle to understand others’ points of view. They look for strengths rather than weaknesses in another person’s point of view. Belenky and Stanton wrote,”

This reminds me of the skills taught by the King Center. 

Community Knowledge

 “ Perhaps the roots of this assumption lie in behaviorism, with its emphasis on the individual organism, or perhaps they lie in the models of assessment that drive educational systems. Intelligence and aptitude are always measured individually, and scoring systems are based on comparison and competition among individuals. Evaluation of learning is based on individual performance in education from the first grade through to doctoral studies. Western society values individualism.”

What if every time a group project was assigned, we taught collaboration, had regular graded checkpoints that only evaluated group interaction and then didn’t allow any individual breakout evaluation for the end product? 

At that point, if one person does the entire project, it’s kind of on them because there was sufficient time to address problematic behavior. 

But still “ But still, this is primarily about how an individual person learns to work with others, not learn in relation to others”

In a module on networking, I asked participants to interview the best networker they know and do a 1-2 slide readout of their takeaways. This prompted learners to tap into the knowledge in their own communities and then share it. And the output was enlightening- one of my personal ah-has about networking.