The Debunker Club (http://www.debunker.club/), one of my hobbies, is hosting a debate about the potency/viability of the 70-20-10 model. For more information, go directly to the Debunker Club's event page.
A new meta-analysis on debunking was released last week, and I was hoping to get clear guidelines on how to debunk misinformation. Unfortunately, the science still seems somewhat equivocal about how to debunk. Either that, or there's just no magic bullet.
Let's break this down. We all know misinformation exists. People lie, people get confused and share bad information, people don't vet their sources, incorrect information is easily spread, et cetera. Debunking is the act of providing information or inducing interactions intended to correct misinformation.
Misinformation is a huge problem in the world today, especially in our political systems. Democracy is difficult if political debate and citizen conversations are infused with bad information. Misinformation is also a huge problem for citizens themselves and for organizations. People who hear false health-related information can make themselves sick. Organizations who have employees who make decisions based on bad information, can hurt the bottom line.
In the workplace learning field, there's a ton of misinformation that has incredibly damaging effects. People believe in the witchcraft of learning styles, neuroscience snake oil, traditional smile sheets, and all kinds of bogus information.
It would be nice if misinformation could be easily thwarted, but too often it lingers. For example, the idea that people remember 10% of what they read, 20% of what they hear, 30% of what they see, etc., has been around since 1913 if not before, but it still gets passed around every year on bastardized versions of Dale's Cone.
A meta-analysis is a scientific study that compiles many other scientific studies using advanced statistical procedures to enable overall conclusions to be drawn. The study I reviewed (the one that was made available online last week) is:
Chan, M. S., Jones, C. R., Jamieson, K. H., & Albarracin, D. (2017). Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological Science, early online publication (print page numbers not yet determined). Available here (if you have journal access: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797617714579).
This study compiled scientific studies that:
- First presented people with misinformation (except a control group that got no misinformation).
- Then presented them with a debunking procedure.
- Then looked at what effect the debunking procedure had on people's beliefs.
There are three types of effects examined in the study:
Misinformation effect = Difference between the group that just got misinformation and a control group that didn't get misinformation. This determined how much the misinformation hurt.
Debunking effect = Difference between the group that just got misinformation and a group that got misinformation and later debunking. This determined how much debunking could lesson the effects of the misinformation.
Misinformation-Persistence effect = Difference between the group that got misinformation-and-debunking and the control group that didn't get misinformation. This determined how much debunking could fully reverse the effects of the misinformation.
They looked at three sets of factors.
First, the study examined what happens when people encounter misinformation. They found that the more people thought of explanations for the false information, the more they would believe this misinformation later, even in the face of debunking. From a practical standpoint then, if people are receiving misinformation, we should hope they don't think too deeply about it. Of course, this is largely out of our control as learning practitioners, because people come to us after they've gotten misinformation. On the other hand, it may provide hints for us as we use knowledge management or social media. The research findings suggest that we might need to intervene immediately when bad information is encountered to prevent people from elaborating on the misinformation.
Second, the meta-analysis examined whether debunking messages that included procedures to induce people to make counter-arguments to the misinformation would outperform debunking messages that did not include such procedures (or that included less potent counter-argument-inducing procedures). They found consistent benefits to these counter-argument inducing procedures. These procedures helped reduce misinformation. This suggests strongly that debunking should induce counter-arguments to the misinformation. And though specific mechanisms for doing this may be difficult to design, it is probably not enough to present the counter-arguments ourselves without getting our learners to fully process the counter-arguments themselves to some sufficient level of mathemagenic (learning-producing) processing.
Third, the meta-analysis looked at whether debunking messages that included explanatory information for why the misinformation was wrong would outperform debunking messages that included just contradictory claims (for example, statements to the effect that the misinformation was wrong). They found mixed results here. Providing debunking messages with explanatory information was more effective in debunking misinformation (getting people to move from being misinformed to being less misinformed), but these more explanatory messages were actually less effective in fully ridding people of the misinformation. This was a conflicting finding and so it's not clear whether greater explanations make a difference, or how they might be designed to make a difference. One wild conjecture. Perhaps where the explanations can induce relevant counter-arguments to the misinformation, they will be effective.
Overall, I came away disappointed that we haven't been able to learn more about how to debunk. This is NOT these researchers' fault. The data is the data. Rather, the research community as a whole has to double down on debunking and persuasion and figure out what works.
People certainly change their minds on heartfelt issues. Just think about the acceptance of gays and lesbians over the last twenty years. Dramatic changes! Many people are much more open and embracing. Well, how the hell did this happen? Some people died out, but many other people's minds were changed.
My point is that misinformation cannot possibly be a permanent condition and it behooves the world to focus resources on fixing this problem -- because it's freakin' huge!
Note that a review of this research in the New York Times painted this in a more optimistic light.
Some additional thoughts (added one day after original post).
To do a thorough job of analyzing any research paradigm, we should, of course, go beyond meta-analyses to the original studies being meta-analyzed. Most of us don't have time for that, so we often take the short-cut of just reading the meta-analysis or just reading research reviews, etc. This is generally okay, but there is a caveat that we might be missing something important.
One thing that struck me in reading the meta-analysis is that the authors commented on the typical experimental paradigm used in the research. It appeared that the actual experiment might have lasted 30 minutes or less, maybe 60 minutes at most. This includes reading (learning) the misinformation, getting a ten-minute distractor task, and answering a few questions (some treatment manipulations, that is, types of debunking methods; plus the assessment of their final state of belief through answers to questions). To ensure I wasn't misinterpreting the authors' message that the experiments were short, I looked at several of the studies compiled in the meta-analysis. The research I looked at used very short experimental sessions. Here is one of the treatments the experimental participants received (it includes both misinformation and a corrective, so it is one of the longer treatments):
Health Care Reform and Death Panels: Setting the Record Straight
By JONATHAN G. PRATT
Published: November 15, 2009
WASHINGTON, DC – With health care reform in full swing, politicians and citizen groups are taking a close look at the provisions in the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) and the accompanying Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act (H.R. 3961).
Discussion has focused on whether Congress intends to establish “death panels” to determine whether or not seniors can get access to end-of-life medical care. Some have speculated that these panels will force the elderly and ailing into accepting minimal end-of-life care to reduce health care costs. Concerns have been raised that hospitals will be forced to withhold treatments simply because they are costly, even if they extend the life of the patient. Now talking heads and politicians are getting into the act.
Betsy McCaughey, the former Lieutenant Governor of New York State has warned that the bills contain provisions that would make it mandatory that “people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner.”
Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican member of the Senate Finance Committee, chimed into the debate as well at a town-hall meeting, telling a questioner, “You have every right to fear…[You] should not have a government-run plan to decide when to pull the plug on Grandma.”
However, a close examination of the bill by non-partisan organizations reveals that the controversial proposals are not death panels at all. They are nothing more than a provision that allows Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling.
The American Medical Association and the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization support the provision. For years, federal laws and policies have encouraged Americans to think ahead about end-of-life decisions.
The bills allow Medicare to pay doctors to provide information about living wills, pain medication, and hospice care. John Rother, executive vice president of AARP, the seniors’ lobby, repeatedly has declared the “death panel” rumors false.
The new provision is similar to a proposal in the last Congress to cover an end-of-life planning consultation. That bill was co-sponsored by three Republicans, including John Isakson, a Republican Senator from Georgia.
Speaking about the end of life provisions, Senator Isakson has said, “It's voluntary. Every state in America has an end of life directive or durable power of attorney provision… someone said Sarah Palin's web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts.”
That's it. That's the experimental treatment.
Are we truly to believe that such short exposures are representative of real-world debunking? Surely not! In the real world, people who get misinformation often hold that misinformation over months or years while occasionally thinking about the misinformation again or encountering additional supportive misinformation or non-supportive information that may modify their initial beliefs in the misinformation. This all happens and then we try our debunking treatments.
Finally, it should be emphasized that the meta-analysis also only compiled eight research articles, many using the same (or similar) experimental paradigm. This is further inducement to skepticism. We should be very skeptical of these findings and my plea above for more study of debunking -- especially in more ecologically-valid situations -- is reinforced!
This is a guest post by Laurel Norris (https://twitter.com/neutrinosky).
Laurel is a Training Specialist at Widen Enterprises, where she is involved in developing and delivering training, focusing on data, reporting, and strategy.
Robust Responses to Open-Ended Questions: Good Surveys Prime Respondents to Think Critically
By Laurel Norris
I’ve always been a fan of evaluation. It’s a way to better understand the effectiveness of programs, determine if learning objectives are being met, and reveal ways to improve web workshops and live trainings.
Or so I thought.
It turns out that most evaluations don’t do those things. Performance-Focused Smile Sheets (the book is available at http://SmileSheets.com) taught me that and when I implemented the recommendations from the book, I discovered something interesting. Using Dr. Thalheimer’s method improved the quality and usefulness of survey data – and provided me with much more robust responses to open-ended questions.
By more robust, I mean they revealed what was helpful and why, talked about what they thought their challenges would be in trying it themselves, discussed what areas they thought could use more emphasis, and shared where they would have appreciated more examples. In short, they provided a huge amount of useful information.
Before using Dr. Thalheimer’s method, only a few open-ended responses were helpful. Most were along the lines of “Thanks!”, “Good webinar”, or “Well presented”. While those kinds of answers make me feel good, they don’t help me improve trainings.
I’m convinced that the improved survey primed people to be more engaged with the evaluation process and enabled them to easily provide useful information to me.
So what did I do differently? I’ll use real examples from web workshops I conducted. Both workshops ran around 45 minutes and had 30 responses to the end of workshop survey. They did differ in style, something that I will discuss towards the end of this article.
The Old Method
Let’s talk about the old method, what Dr. Thalheimer might call a traditional smile sheet. It was (luckily) short, with three multiple choice questions and two open-ended. Multiple choice questions included:
- How satisfied are you with the content of this web workshop?
- How satisfied are you with the presenter's style?
- How closely did this web workshop align with your expectations?
Participants answered the questions with options on Likert-like scales ranging from “Very Unsatisfied” to “Very Satisfied” or “Not at all Closely” to “Very Closely”. Of course, in true smile-sheet style, the multiple choice yielded no useful information. People were 4.1 level satisfied with the content of the webinar, “data” which did not enable me to make any useful changes to the information I provided.
Open-ended questions invited people to “Share your ideas for web workshop topics” and offer “Additional Comments”. Of the thirteen open-ended responses I got, five of them provided useful information. The other seven were either a thank you or some form of praise.
The New Method
Respondents were asked four multiple choice questions that judged effectiveness of the web workshop, how much the concepts would help them improve work outcomes, how well they understand the concepts taught, and whether or not they would use skills they learned in the workshop at their job.
The web workshop was about user engagement, in particular, administrators increasing engagement with the systems they manage. Questions were:
- In regard to the user engagement, how able are you to put what you’ve learned into practice on the job?
- From your perspective, how valuable are the concepts taught in the workshop? How much will they help improve engagement with your site?
- How well do you feel you understand user engagement?
- How motivated will you be to utilize these user engagement skills at your work?
Responses were specific and adapted from Dr. Thalheimer’s book. For example, here were the optional responses to the question “In regard to the user engagement, how able are you to put what you’ve learned into practice on the job?”
- I'm not at all able to put the concepts into practice.
- I have general awareness of the concepts taught, but I will need more training or practice to complete user engagement projects.
- I am able to work on user engagement projects, but I'll need more hands-on experience to be fully competent in using the concepts taught.
- I am able to complete user engagement projects at a fully competent level in using the concepts taught.
- I am able to complete user engagement projects at a expert level in using the concepts taught.
All four multiple choice questions had similarly complete options to choose from. From those responses, I was able to more appropriately determine the effectiveness of the workshop and whether my training content was performing as expected.
The open-ended question was relatively bland. I asked “What else would you like to share about your experience during the webinar today?” and received twelve specific, illuminating responses, such as:
“Loved the examples shown from other sites. Highly useful!”
“It validated some of the meetings I have had with my manager about user engagement and communication about our new site structure. It will be valuable for upcoming projects about asset distribution throughout the company.”
“I think the emphasis on planning the plan is helpful. I think I lack confidence in designing desk drops for Design teams. Also - I'm heavily engaged with my users now as it is - I am reached out to multiple times per day...but I think some of these suggestions will be valuable for more precision in those engagements.”
Even questions that didn’t give me direct feedback on the workshop, like “Still implementing our site, so a lot of today's content isn't yet relevant”, gave me information about my audience.
Clearly, I’m thrilled with the kind of information I am getting from using Dr. Thalheimer’s methods. I get useful, rich data from respondents that helps me better evaluate my content and understand my audience.
There is one positive aspect of using the new method that might have skewed the data. I designed the second web workshop after I read the book, and Dr. Thalheimer’s Training Effectiveness Taxonomy influenced the design. I thought more about the goals for the workshop, provided cognitive supports, repeated key messages, and did some situation-action triggering.
Based on those changes, the second web workshop was probably better than the first and it’s possible that the high-quality, engaging workshop contributed to the robust responses to open-ended questions I saw.
Either way, my evaluations (and learner experiences) are revolutionized. Has anyone seen a similar improvement in open-ended response rates since implementing performance-focused smile sheets?
This has been a great year for the Performance-Focused Smile Sheet approach. Not only did the book, Performance-Focused Smile Sheets: A Radical Rethinking of a Dangerous Art Form, win a prestigious Award of Excellence from the International Society of Performance Improvement, but people are flocking to workshops, conference sessions, and webinars to learn about this revolutionary new method of gathering learner feedback.
Now there's even more reason to learn about this method. In the July 2017 issue of TD (Talent Development), it was reported that the Human Capital Institute (HCI) issued a report that said that measurement/evaluation is the top skill needed by learning and development professionals!
Go to SmileSheets.com to get the book.
Mark Jenkins, a long-time technical trainer and forward-thinking learning professional, now providing concierge service on learning technologies, audio-video, and OneNote at inforivers, recently used a performance-focused smile-sheet question at the end of one of his public training sessions. He used just one question! And one follow-up open-ended question.
Mark loves the results he's getting. Now he gets very clear feedback on whether his workshop helps people actually do what he wants them to be able to do. And, he is able to judge their interest in another session on the same subject matter, all on a one-page smile sheet.
"I was surprised the liberation I felt not being shackled down by Likert scales, while still getting good and easily understandable analytics. The results are less ambiguous than a Likert scale. It also helps me to figure out how to follow up with each person that took the smile sheet."
His feedback form, shared with his permission:
Is elearning effective? As effective as classroom instruction -- more or less effective? What about blended learning -- when elearning and classroom learning are combined?
In this research review, I looked at meta-analyses and individual research studies, and was able to derive clear conclusions. The report is available for free, it includes an executive summary, and research jargon is kept to a minimum.
Note that the August 10, 2017 version of this report incorrectly cited the Rowland (2014) study in a footnote and omitted it from the list of research citations. These issues were fixed on August 11, 2017. Special thanks to Elizabeth Dalton who notified me of the issues.
As professionals in the learning field, memory is central to our work. If we don't help our learners preserve their memories (of what they learned), we have not really done our job. I'm oversimplifying here -- sometimes we want to guide our learners toward external memory aids instead of memory. But mostly, we aim to support learning and memory.
You might have learned that people who take photographs will remember less than those who did not take photographs. Several research studies showed this (see for example, Henkel, 2014).
The internet buzzed with this information a few years ago:
- The Telegraph -- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10507146/Taking-photographs-ruins-the-memory-research-finds.html
- NPR -- http://www.npr.org/2014/05/22/314592247/overexposed-camera-phones-could-be-washing-out-our-memories
- Slate -- http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/12/09/a_new_study_finds_taking_photos_hurts_memory_of_the_thing_you_were_trying.html
- CNN -- http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/10/health/memory-photos-psychology/index.html
- Fox News -- http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/12/11/taking-pictures-may-impair-memories-study-shows.html
Well, that was then. This is now.
There are CRITICAL LESSONS to be learned here -- about using science intelligently... with wisdom.
Science is a self-correcting system that, with the arc of time, bends toward the truth. So, at any point in time, when we ask science for its conclusions, it tells us what it knows, while it apologizes for not knowing everything. Scientists can be wrong. Science can take wrong turns on the long road toward better understanding.
Does this mean we should reject scientific conclusions because they can't guarantee omniscience; they can't guarantee truth? I've written about this in more depth elsewhere, but I'll say it here briefly -- recommendations from science are better than our own intuitions; especially in regards to learning, given all the ways we humans are blind to how learning works.
Memory With Photography
Earlier studies showed that people who photographed images were less able to remember them than people who simply examined the images. Researchers surmised that people who off-loaded their memories to an external memory aid -- to the photographs -- freed up memory for other things.
We can look back at this now and see that this was a time of innocence; that science had kept some confidences hidden. New research by Barasch, Diehl, Silverman, and Zauberman (2017), found that people "who could freely take photographs during an experience recognized more of what they saw" and that those "with a camera had better recognition of aspects of the scene that they photographed than of aspects they did not photograph."
Of course, this is just one set of studies... we must be patient with science. More research will be done, and you and will benefit in knowing more than we know now and with more confidence... but this will take time.
What is the difference between the earlier studies and this latest set of studies? As argued by Barasch, Diehl, Silverman, and Zauberman (2017), the older studies did not give people the choice of which objects to photograph. In the words of the researchers, people did not have volitional control of their photographing experience. They didn't go through the normal process we might go through in our real-world situations, where we must decide what to photograph and determine how to photograph the objects we target (i.e., the angles, borders, focus, etc.).
In a series of four experiments, the new research showed that attention was at the center of the memory effect. Indeed, people taking photographs "recognized more of what they saw and less of what they heard, compared with those who could not take any photographs (I added the bold underlines).
Interestingly, some of the same researchers, just the year before had found that taking photographs actually improved people's enjoyment of their experiences (Diehl, Zauberman, & Barasch, 2016).
Practical Considerations for Learning Professionals
You might be asking yourself, "How should I handle the research-based recommendations I encounter?" Here is my advice:
- Be skeptical, but not too skeptical.
- Determine whether the research comes from a trusted source. Best sources are top-tier refereed scientific journals -- especially where many studies find the same results. Worst sources are survey-based compilations of opinions. Beware of recommendations based on one scientific article. Beware of vendor-sponsored research. Beware of research that is not refereed; that is, not vetted by other researchers.
- Find yourself a trusted research translator. These people -- and I count myself among them -- have spent enough substantial time exploring the practical aspects of the research that they are liable to have wisdom about what the research means -- and what its boundary conditions might be.
- Pay your research translators -- so they can continue doing their work.
- Be good and prosper. Use the research in your learning programs and test it. Do good evaluation so you can get valid feedback to make your learning initiatives maximally effective.
Inscribed in My High School Yearbook in 1976
Time it was, and what a time it was, it was
A time of innocence, A time of confidences
Long ago, it must be, I have a photograph
Preserve your memories; They're all that's left you
Written by Paul Simon
The Photograph Above
Taken in Glacier National Park, Montana, USA; July 1, 2017
And incidentally, the glaciers are shrinking permanently.
Barasch, A., Diehl, K., Silverman, J., & Zauberman, G. (2017). Photographic Memory: The Effects of Volitional Photo Taking on Memory for Visual and Auditory Aspects of an Experience. Psychological Science, early online publication.
Diehl, K., Zauberman, G., & Barasch, A. (2016). How taking photos increases enjoyment of experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 119–140.
Henkel, L. A. (2014). Point-and-shoot memories: The influence of taking photos on memory for a museum tour. Psychological Science, 25, 396–402.
In honor of April as "Smile-Sheet Awareness Month," I am releasing a brand new smile-sheet diagnostic.
Available by clicking here:
This diagnostic is based on wisdom from my award-winning book, Performance-Focused Smile Sheets: A Radical Rethinking of a Dangerous Art Form, plus the experience I've gained helping top companies implement new measurement practices.
The diagnostic is free and asks you 20 questions about your organization's current practices. It then provides instant feedback.
Another research brief. Answer the question and only then read what the research says:
In a recent study with teenagers playing a game to learn history, adding the learning instructions hurt learning outcomes for questions that assessed transfer, but NOT recall. The first choice hurt transfer but not recall. Give yourself some credit if you chose the second or third choices.
- This is only one study.
- It was done using only one type of learner.
- It was done using only one type of learning method.
- It was done with teenagers.
- Don't assume that adding instructions to encourage learning will facilitate learning.
Hawlitschek, A., & Joeckel, S. (2017). Increasing the effectiveness of digital educational games: The effects of a learning instruction on students’ learning, motivation and cognitive load. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 79-86.
The learning profession has been blessed in recent years with a steady stream of scientific research that points to practical recommendations for designers of learning. If you or your organization are NOT hooked into the learning research, find yourself a research translator to help you! Call me, for example!
That's the good news, but I have bad news for you too. In the old days, it wasn't hard to create a competitive advantage for your company by staying abreast of the research and using it to design your learning products and services. Pretty soon, that won't be enough. As the research becomes more widely known, you'll have to do more to get a competitive advantage. Vendors especially will have to differentiate their products -- NOT just by basing them on the research -- but also by conducting research (A-B testing at a minimum) on your own products.
I know of at least a few companies right now who are conducting research on their own products. They aren't advertising their research, because they want to get a jumpstart on the competition. But eventually, they'll begin sharing what they've done.
Do you need an example of a company who's had their product tested? Check out this page. Scroll down to the bottom and look at the 20 or so research studies that have been done using the product. Looks pretty impressive right?
To summarize, there are at least five benefits to doing research on your own products:
- Gain a competitive advantage by learning to make your product better.
- Gain a competitive advantage by supporting a high-quality brand image.
- Gain a competitive advantage by enabling the creation of unique and potent content marketing.
- Gain a competitive advantage by supporting creativity and innovation within your team.
- Gain a competitive advantage by creating an engaging and learning-oriented team environment.