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

People love to say “games make learning better,” but Moe Ash has a more grounded take. In this episode, Sofie Willox sits down with Moe to explore what makes a learning game effective, and what makes it feel like play with no purpose.

Moe introduces the idea of “hard fun”: learning experiences that are enjoyable, but still tied to clear outcomes, tangible behaviours, and real performance goals. Together, Sofie and Moe walk through where L&D professionals should actually start when designing a learning game or card deck, especially when we are not “commercial game designers,” but practitioners trying to build capability and drive behaviour change.

The conversation is practical, structured, and refreshingly honest. If you have ever wanted to build a learning game but felt overwhelmed by mechanics, format choices, or where to begin, this episode gives you a clear entry point and a design process you can reuse.

_____________________________________

Moe Ash

Moe is currently looking into acquiring his degree in business psychology, aiming to blend gamification and performance management in a tight cohesive mold.

Find Moe on LinkedIn here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/moeash7/

Also, here are the mentioned links:

SHOW NOTES:

In this episode of the LDA Podcast, Matt and Clark are joined by longtime friend of the show Kat Koppett for a thoughtful and lively conversation about how we think, learn, and make sense of the world.

The discussion opens with a substantive exchange on whether critical thinking can be taught as a general skill. Matt argues that critical thinking depends on deep domain knowledge rather than generic techniques. Clark challenges this view by drawing on research by Peter Ellerton and earlier work by Valerie Shute and Jeffrey Bonar, exploring the limits and possibilities of instruction and transfer.

To clarify the debate, Matt introduces a shared definition of critical thinking based on Peter Facione’s framework. Kat reinforces the point by noting that people struggle to think critically without relevant information, echoing ideas popularized in The Invisible Gorilla by Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons.

The conversation then turns to generational differences in thinking. Clark introduces Harold Jarche’s Personal Knowledge Mastery model, which leads to a broader discussion of experience, learning, and whether “digital natives” actually think differently. Hint... they don't exist. They push back on generational myths by highlighting research showing little difference in search strategies across age groups.

The episode closes with Matt reflecting on the enduring influence of developmental psychologist Richard Lerner and his work on human development.

Selected References

Facione, P. A. (2011). Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts.

Ellerton, P. (2022). Thinking Skills and Creativity.

Shute, V., & Bonar, J. (1986).

Chabris, C., & Simons, D. The Invisible Gorilla.

Lerner, R. M. (1976). Concepts and Theories of Human Development.

Jarche, H. Personal Knowledge Mastery: https://jarche.com/pkm/ 

Clark and Matt decided to share a special episode from our sister cast, YOU OUGHTA KNOW: THE MOTIVATION SERIES. In this special episode, Matt is joined by the co-developer of Self-Determination Theory (SDT), Richard M. Ryan, to talk about all things motivation. Think of it as a primer on SDT. We hit the basics…

During our discussion on mindfulness, Rich refers to a recently published meta-analysis. 

The reference is:

Donald, James N., Helena Nguyen, James H. Conigrave, Anya Johnson, Inmaculada Adarves-Yorno, Ryan Cheng, Anya Bedi, Kevin B. Lowe, Jessica L. Lyons, Emma K. Devine, Georg B. Tamm and Richard M. Ryan (2025). ‘ Does Leaders’ Mindfulness Benefit Followers? A Meta-analytic Review and Research Agenda.’ British Journal of Management, 11111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.70009 

Matt refers to a 1999 meta-analysis on the impact of rewards. That reference is:

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627

Three references about the cultural generalizability of SDT are:

Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.97

Chirkov, V. I. (2009). A cross-cultural analysis of autonomy in education: A self-determination theory perspective. Theory and Research in Education, 7, 253-262. https://doi.org/

Chirkov, V. I. (2017). Culture and autonomy. The Praeger handbook of personality across cultures, 2, 91-119. https://doi.org/

Rich is a clinical psychologist and is currently a Professorial Fellow at the Australian Catholic University’s Institute for Positive Psychology & Education in North Sydney; he’s also Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Rochester, where he helped spark one of the most enduring frameworks of human motivation in the last half-century. 

In this episode, Clark and Matt return to the topic of Leadership Development. Is traditional leadership development a worthy endeavor for most organizations? Well, the research, or lack thereof, indicates that at best, it is questionable, and at worst, it may actually undermine or act at cross purposes to what the company strives to attain. 

Of course, in the end, they propose what they think might work more effectively. It’s about context!

Matt and Clark discuss four inherent issues with traditional leadership development, based on Matt’s booklet on the topic, available for free download here: https://members.ldaccelerator.com/c/what-is-lda-press/leadership-development-the-four-issues-that-undermine-traditional-leadership-development-programs-3f451f4a-a52a-4ebe-9561-3d4e32cc23ba

The Lacerenza, et. al. meta-analysis is below in the references. 

Matt makes the case for a definition problem. In other words, we are rarely clear or consistent in our use of the word leadership. Because of this lack of agreement on what the term means, and more importantly, what knowledge, skills, abilities, and values embody effective leadership, it is very difficult to design effective learning. 

They highlight the misalignment between what gets espoused by the "experts," the stakeholders in the organization, and the learning team, with how leadership actually shows up behaviorally in practice. Also, there is a tendency for all parties to idealize the factors that make up leadership and ignore, or sweep under the rug, some of the more nefarious behaviors that support leader outcomes. 

Next, there is validity and reliability. When the learning team decides what to teach, is the model, the process, or the tools supported by research and experience? Do they work consistently over time? Matt uses Servant Leadership as an example. Of course, given the next problem of context, we know they are not consistent. But we make matters worse when we also use models unsupported by evidence and research… or, we use models that work once or twice in practice… but not in all circumstances.

Finally, Clark and Matt explore the problem of the said context. Shifting situations, people, crises, opportunities, technology, and more make the environment in which one leads always unique and difficult to predict. What works today tends not to work tomorrow. What didn't work yesterday may work today. 

Matt raises the Keith Grint model of leadership based on wicked, tame, and critical problems.

Throughout the discussion, they reference lots of leadership and leadership development researchers and thought leaders (references below). They mention Jeffrey Pfeffer, Barbara Kellerman, Ronald Riggio, John Kotter, Warren Bennis, Bert Nanus, and David Grad. 

Clark mentions the Cynefin framework by Dave Snowden as an alternative to the Grint framework. You can learn about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework 

At one point, Matt refers to the hypocrisy of many corporate CEOs about Black Lives Matter. A good article on this was written by the BBC way back in 2020. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200612-black-lives-matter-do-companies-really-support-the-cause 

Clark refers to The Gervais Principle by Venkatesh Rao when the two talk about psychopathy, or sociopathy, in leadership. Clark also calls back to a Matt favorite, Brian Klaas’ Corruptible. 

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership (1st ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership: A new pursuit of happiness. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.

Grint, K. (2005). Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of ‘leadership.’ Human Relations. 58 (11), 1467-1494.

Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of leadership (1st ed.). New York: Harper Business, An Imprint of Harper Collins Publishers.

Kellerman, B. (2015). Hard times : leadership in America. Stanford, California: Stanford Business Books, an imprint of Stanford University Press.

Lacerenza, C.N., Reyes, D.L., Marlowe, S.L., and Joseph, D.L. (2017). Leadership Training Design, Delivery, and Implementation: A Meta Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1686-1718. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-32276-001 

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership : theory and practice (Eighth Edition. ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Pfeffer, J. (2015). Leadership BS : fixing workplaces and careers one truth at a time (First edition. ed.). New York, NY: Harper Business, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers.

Riggio, R. E. (Ed.) (2018). What’s Wrong with Leadership? New York: Routledge.

Rittel, H.W.J. and Webber, M.M.. (1973) Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences. 4, pp. 155-169.

Toor, S.-u.-R. (2011). Differentiating Leadership from Management: An Empirical Investigation of Leaders and Managers. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 11(4), 310-320. doi:doi:10.1061/(ASCE)LM.1943-5630.0000138 

Toor, S.U.R. & Ofori, G. (2008). Leadership versus Management: How They Are Different, and Why. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 8(2), 61-71. doi:doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2008)8:2(61) 

Young, M., & Dulewicz, V. (2007). Similarities and Differences between Leadership and Management: High-Performance Competencies in the British Royal Navy. British Journal of Management, 19(1), 17-32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00534.x 

Welcome back! Sorry for our long hiatus. In this episode, Clark and Matt explore GENERATIVE LEARNING.

Early on, Clark brings up Craik and Lockhart's research about how information is processed on different levels (Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal behavior, 11, 671-684.) The paper can be found here.

Throughout the podcast we talk about our colleagues and friends, John Sweller and Paul Kirschner several times. Some of the references we allude to are:

LDA Podcast. (2024, January 25). The “What the Skills” Episode. Interview with Paul Kirschner by Matthew Richter. https://ldaccelerator.com/podcast.

Sweller, J. (2016). Cognitive Load Theory: What We Learn and How We Learn. In M. Spector, B. Lockee, & M. Childress (Eds.), Learning, design, and technology (pp. 1–28). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_50-1

Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J.J.G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.

Another hero of ours is Richard Mayer. A favorite source from Rich, along with his long-time colleague and our LDA friend, Ruth Clark, is:

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2024). E‑Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning (5th ed.). Wiley.

Clark relays a story of working with Kathy Fisher during his time as a graduate student, discussing her use of semantic networking with biology students to help them represent their understandings:

Fisher, K. (1992). Semantic networking: the new kid on the block. In P. A. M. Kommers, D. H. Jonassen, & J. T. Mayes (Eds.) Mindtools: Cognitive Technologies for Modelling Knowledge. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

At one point we discuss the human information processing loop. While Sweller (and Kirschner) are super explainers of the Loop– as John refers to it, a part of the cognitive architecture, others have come before...

Atkinson, R.C.; Shiffrin, R.M. (1968). Human Memory: A Proposed System and its Control Processes. Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Vol. 2. pp. 89–195. doi:10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60422-3

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working Memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47-89). New York: Academic Press. 

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158 

Sweller and Kishner soon come up again, but this time with their co-author, Richard Clark, during a heated discussion of their groundbreaking (and Matt favorite) paper about the issues with constructivist learning called “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching” which can be found here:

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

Next, we discuss how to confirm whether the learners are able to retrieve the information being conveyed to them. Clark shares the work of teacher and cognitive scientist, Pooja Aggerwal:

Agarwal, P.K. (2019). Retrieval Practice & Bloom’s Taxonomy: Do Students Need Fact Knowledge Before Higher Order Learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 111 (2), 189–209.

We hope you enjoy!

SHOW ME HOW YOU DO IT is the new LDA VLOG and podcast brought to you by our friend, Sofie Willox. In each episode Sofie will interview an expert. These experts come from various domains within and surrounding L&D. Sofie interviews them on video. The videos will reside within the LDA community, but we wanted to nonetheless still share them and decided to post them here in the podcast feed. We hope you enjoy!

This first interview is with another LDA friend, Charles-Louis de Maere.  The following are his own words about his work.

"Bringing people together is something that lives on through my workshops and training. Whether they take place online or on-premise, I facilitate workshops and learning experiences that focus on high participation, on learning by doing and verifying that the concepts are integrated. I use Live Online Learning Activities to ensure people get a chance to practice their understanding of the new concepts.  

"What better way is there to give meaning to what we say than to draw to make our thoughts explicit? When we add visual information to what we’re saying, suddenly our intention becomes much more precise, and we can begin to work on shared understanding. This is why I love bringing people in contact with the power of Visual Thinking, of getting back to our roots and using pen and paper to bring people closer together."

The best place to find Charles-Louis is LinkedIn. He is prolific there and always finding ways to add value.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/charleslouisdemaere/

Clark and Matt are delighted to be joined by Paige Bradbury… an expert on using LLMs— specifically for those of us novices. She is particularly expert at developing the right prompts to get useful, and more importantly, accurate responses from the LLM.

We learn about things like hallucinations… prompt drift… context windows…  explainable AI... xAI… and more! We talk about the work, time, and money that go into writing good and effective prompts, let alone using AI in general. And Paige shares plenty of examples along the way. We talk about different LLM options and LLM databases.

We connect to previous LDA Podcast episodes and discuss IP and ethical usage of AI and LLMs. And we end the episode with a survey of the current and future state of AI-- at a very high level.

You can learn more about Paige’s upcoming March 19, 2025, LDA program here: https://ldaccelerator.com/sessions#calendar-3caaa5f3-7151-409b-b39d-16b86bfe5253-event-m5u16n4b 

You can learn more about Paige… and connect with her here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/id-by-paige/.

In this episode of AI and L&D Insights, Markus Bernhardt speaks with Sarah Mercier, CEO of Build Capable, about her patented innovations in learning technology. Sarah challenges outdated LMS models, introduces her groundbreaking XCL tool for decentralized content delivery and tracking, and reveals how AI can unlock powerful insights—provided the data is meaningful. With decades of expertise and a vision for the future, Sarah’s approach is a game-changer for modern learning.

You can find more about Sarah, here:

Linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarahcmercier/