Cargo Cults, Shiny Object Syndrome, and eLearning

An interestinganthropological phenomenon occurred as a consequence of World War II. Pacific Islanderswho had encountered Western civilization for the first time created a set ofbeliefs about how they could obtain more of the unusual goods these newcharacters had introduced. Rituals were created to bring the return of theproviders or at least their mana, the gifts that rained down from above. Thesewere called cargo cults.

We seem to have the samesituation in the eLearning industry. We act as if, hearing of wondrous rewardsothers have experienced, we too shall have fantastic outcomes by investing inthe same approaches. Yet this frequently leads to disappointment rather thanthe expected boon. What’s going on here?

Shiny Object Syndrome and eLearning

There are a variety ofreasons why people keep placing hope in new technologies—or, at least, feel thatthey need to pay attention to them. New tools (I almost wrote “toys”) appearregularly, and many have legitimate upsides. And, of course, none of them aregoing to be a panacea. Yet we like to chase the newest shiny object.

It’s fun to experiment withthe latest technology. It’s new, it’s cool, and it’s unexplored. Maybe we cando something meaningful with it! Microlearning,AI,AR,and VR: these are currently the shiny objects of interest. Each hassome meaningful affordances, and some real barriers. And yet none of these aregoing to address the full suite of needs. Even microlearning, an umbrella termthat encompasses (and doesn’t sufficiently differentiate between) spacedlearning and performance support, doesn’t address the whole performance ecosystem.

It may be important to beseen chasing the new technologies. Organizations want to be up-to-date, and it’svalid to be experimentingwith new technologies to understand their capabilities and apply theircore affordances to meet organizational needs. However, doing so without somecaution is also a worry.

Be wary

There are reasons to be wary.Some of the new approaches, the latest shiny objects, are snakeoil. The touted benefits aren’t real. That may be based onmisapprehension of data or over-extension of results, or are premised onunsolid foundations. The point is that many products are sold on empty promisesthat are empty or to meet requirements other than focusing on the impact. Fastand cheap are ok after you’re ensuring you’re getting an appropriate impactfirst.

A common problem is theanecdote. People who’ve tried a new system will tout the benefits they believethey’ve obtained. There are several problems with that. For one, they have avested interest in believing that their expenditure was worthwhile; otherwisethey’ve wasted money. So, you have to take their results with a grain of salt.Second, the results might be a placebo or Hawthorne effect;just the attention improved some measure, or it came as an outcome of someother aligned initiative. And even if their results were real, will theydirectly transfer to your situation?

You also have to question thedata; was it truly independent? Has it been published in refereed journals? Bewary of “proprietary” research. You aren’t expected to be an expert in researchmethodology, so what do other independent voices say? Who can you trust?

The biggest concern, ofcourse, is that this may be distracting from getting the core right first. Agold-plated bad egg is still a bad egg. Money spent chasing fads may well bedetracting from going back and ensuring that the core learning design is right.

How to get back to the core

The best way to ensure thatthe impacts of your initiatives are optimal is to ensure that you’re followingwhat research has determined is the best approach. There’s a reason fourindividuals in our field (caveat: I was one) banded together to put a stake inthe ground about what good learning shouldbe by publishing the eLearning Manifesto. Andwe’re seeing an increasing suite of research-driven guides to quality learning,from authors including RuthClark, JulieDirksen, and PattiShank.