Why do we value some learning experiences more than others?

Not always because they were enjoyable. And certainly not because they were easy.

Sometimes, it’s because we had to work through them.

Think about assembling a piece of furniture, solving a difficult problem after several failed attempts, or creating something from scratch. The end result may not be perfect… but it feels different when you’ve had a hand in building it. More personal. More meaningful.

Psychologists call this the IKEA Effect… the tendency to place greater value on something we have actively contributed to creating.

The same thing happens in learning.

When people are simply given answers, the experience often remains external. But when they have to think through something, contribute ideas, make decisions, or struggle a little before arriving at an answer… the learning starts to feel like their own.

Not because effort automatically makes learning better… but because involvement changes our relationship with what we’re learning.

You can see this in everyday moments… solving a problem without immediately searching for the answer, participating in a discussion instead of just listening, building a framework rather than reading one, or explaining an idea to someone else and realising you understand it more deeply in the process.

The moment people start contributing, the learning becomes more personal. They stop feeling like observers and start feeling invested.

In many learning experiences, the instinct is to remove as much effort as possible. To simplify everything, provide every answer, and make the process completely frictionless.

And yes… clarity matters. But when too much of the thinking is done for the learner, the experience can become passive. Easy to consume in the moment… easy to forget afterwards.

Because learning is not just about receiving information. It’s also about participation.

And often, the things we work through ourselves stay with us longer than the things handed to us fully formed.

That’s why effort matters.

Not unnecessary complexity. Not frustration disguised as learning.

Just meaningful involvement.

So perhaps the real question is not, “How do I make this easier?” but, “How do I make people part of the process?”

Because when people help build the learning… they’re far more likely to remember it, value it, and use it.

If you’d like to explore this idea a little more, you can check out this article from Learnnovators®: https://lnkd.in/gZuXA9sq

~~~~~~~~~
📌 Follow me for reflections on learning, leadership, and life.

What do we actually lose when Google starts answering our questions rather than pointing us toward answers?

Google I/O recently announced the most significant change to search in nearly three decades. The shift from search engine to answer machine sounds like progress. In some ways, it is. But the research emerging around this transformation points to something we would be unwise to dismiss.

My new post covers the cognitive, economic, and social dimensions of this shift — and what I think the response needs to be. It is not to reject AI tools. It is to invest, seriously, in the critical thinking skills people bring to them.

Read the full post at linkinglearning.com.au

#linkinglearning #linkinglearningadvisory #informationliteracy #AIinEducation #criticalthinking #digitalliteracy #AISearch #GoogleAI #digitaldivide #educationalleadership

Les soumissions scientifiques s'emballent depuis 2022. Ce que dix ans de données révèlent à l'heure de l'IA.
 
4,2 millions. C’est le nombre d’articles soumis à Elsevier en 2025. Ils étaient 2,7 millions en 2022, l’année où ChatGPT est apparu. En trois ans, les soumissions ont progressé de +56 %, soit un rythme annuel de +16 %, contre +10 % sur les six années précédentes.

Social media is increasingly anti-social

Only 7% of Instagram time & 17% of Facebook time is spent on content from friends or followed accounts. The rest is algorithmic video from strangers.

This is what happens when you condition algorithms on looking time rather than real social engagement. TikTok set the template; everyone copied it.

And over half of the long posts on Meta are written by AI. People are not engaging, or even creating the content on those platforms anymore.

Real human content and conversation has migrated away from these platforms to substack, discord, etc. https://lnkd.in/evg7GB-i| 39 commentaires sur LinkedIn

Jean-Pierre Armand, MD Henri Tsiang

Google just rebuilt Search to answer you instead of pointing you somewhere — the biggest change to the search box in 25 years. It now picks which handful of sources its answer rests on, before you ever see the links.
If your work depends on knowing whether an answer is true — journalists, academics, analysts, lawyers, fact-checkers, students — that should worry you. The good news: you can take the choice back.
I spent this week writing down how. What changed at I/O, and the toolkit I fall back on: the seven search operators that cut sharper now than ever (site:, filetype:, intext: and friends), and the &udm=14 trick that strips the AI off the page.
None of it requires being technical. It's all in the post. What's your move when the answer comes pre-chewed?


https://lnkd.in/eDXg3nkT

What "sample size is needed" for 10 different types of qualitative research -- new article by Wutich et al. Useful overview for those who value guidelines for saturation.
Wutich, A., Beresford, M., & Bernard, H. R. (2024). Sample sizes for 10 types of qualitative data analysis: an integrative review, empirical guidance, and next steps. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23, 16094069241296206.
Open-access article available here. https://lnkd.in/gmQd3RTJ | 70 comments on LinkedIn

An interesting opinion piece in the NYTimes.

Helen Ouyang is an ER doctor and Columbia professor. She typed her lab results into ChatGPT because her physician told her a phone call would require another appointment. That's what she wrote!

She is not a credulous patient who doesn't know better. She knows exactly what a chatbot can and cannot do. She used it anyway, and it worked. Her numbers improved. She credits the sustained back-and-forth, the patience, the absence of judgment.

She writes: "With low expectations, I typed my lab results into ChatGPT.
As both a physician and a patient, I found the experience startling. Not because ChatGPT dazzled me with its scientific knowledge, but because it behaved the way I wish modern medicine, and its practitioners, still would."

These last few words should stop every physician who reads them.

The usual framing treats patients using AI as a problem to manage, a liability to disclaim, a behavior to correct with the right guardrails. Ouyang's piece quietly dismantles that. The chatbot did not win because it knew more. It won because it had time. It asked follow-up questions. It remembered what she said five exchanges ago. It never seemed annoyed.

Those are not AI capabilities. Those are human capabilities that the current system has systematically squeezed out of clinical encounters.

There is a structural argument buried in her essay that she does not quite surface: patients are not going to AI because AI is good. They are going to AI because the alternative has been stripped of the things that make medicine work. Availability. Continuity. The permission to ask the same question twice.

Her proposed response is cautious and right as far as it goes: figure out how to support patients using AI tools, with clear guardrails.

For me, this is the judgment layer argument made visible from the physician side. Ouyang knows when to override the chatbot. Most patients do not. That asymmetry is not a reason to condemn AI use, it is the exact design problem we need to solve. The question is not whether patients will use AI. They will. The question is whether they will use it with enough contextual grounding to know what to do when it gets something wrong.

The Ouyang piece will be cited as evidence that AI is replacing doctors. That is the wrong read. It is evidence that something in medicine stopped working long before AI arrived, and AI is filling the vacuum.

Her last paragraph tells the whole story: "My experience with the chatbot has already shifted how I interact with patients in the E.R., with only minutes to piece together fragments of their circumstances. When a patient asks the same question repeatedly, I try to listen for what’s behind it. Maybe she’s not after more medical facts."

Dave deBronkart Hugo Campos Sara Riggare Jane Sarasohn-Kahn

#PatientsUseAI #CriticalAIHealthLiteracy
| 10 comments on LinkedIn

Across 31 studies, and 2,600+ medical students, AI tools made no statistically significant difference to clinical knowledge or skills for medicine students.

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis published this week in BMC Medical Education by colleagues across three Chinese medical institutions. They searched eleven databases, pooled every controlled study they could find comparing AI tools against traditional teaching for medical undergraduates, and came back with a standardised mean difference of 0.22 and a p-value of 0.22.

In plain terms, the effect is small and it is statistically indistinguishable from chance.

The overall evidence quality, the authors say, is “low”. That phrase appears in a peer-reviewed meta-analysis of thirty-one studies, and the quality is still low.
The universities buying AI tools for clinical education are not going to circulate this paper. The vendor is not going to send it round.

This paper is really helpful evidence for why we need to stop treating AI as a panacea for pedagogy, and perhaps think about investing that money elsewhere...

Link to article: https://lnkd.in/dnCb2fAy

#AI #Education #GenAI #HigherEd #SlowAI #Teaching| 15 commentaires sur LinkedIn

Je constate depuis longtemps un phénomène : une grande partie des événements franco-chinois organisés à Paris ou ailleurs en France à l'initiative d'acteurs venus de #Chine — qu'ils visent à promouvoir la culture chinoise, à encourager les investissements en Chine ou à renforcer les échanges économiques ou culturels — peinent encore à dépasser un cercle franco-chinois relativement restreint, avec une participation française souvent limitée et un impact local qui pourrait être davantage renforcé.

Par ailleurs, la communication autour de ces initiatives est majoritairement diffusée dans les médias chinois ou sur les réseaux sociaux chinois, avec relativement peu de relais dans les médias et réseaux français.

Les choses évoluent peut-être, mais à mes yeux, pas suffisamment vite.
Pourquoi en est-il ainsi ?

1️⃣ Une approche différente dans l'organisation des événements
En Chine, on retrouve souvent dans ce type d'événements un format réunissant de nombreux intervenants aux titres prestigieux ou occupant des fonctions importantes, chacun prenant la parole quelques minutes avant de céder la place au suivant.

L'accent est souvent davantage mis sur la présence de personnalités reconnues et sur la communication autour de l'événement que sur l'approfondissement des sujets ou les échanges de fond.

Ce modèle est compréhensible dans son contexte culturel.

Les attentes du public français sont néanmoins souvent différentes. Il recherche généralement davantage de contenu et d'échanges approfondis. Les événements de ce type comportent souvent moins d'intervenants, mais chacun dispose de davantage de temps pour développer ses idées et répondre aux questions.

2️⃣ Une forte cohésion culturelle
La taille et la longue histoire de l’Empire du Milieu ainsi que la richesse de son écosystème favorisent naturellement une forte cohésion culturelle.

Cette cohésion culturelle constitue un atout considérable, mais elle ne favorise pas toujours une prise en compte suffisante des spécificités locales à l'étranger. Certaines personnes peuvent même percevoir l'adaptation locale comme un risque de dilution de leur propre identité culturelle.

On observe parfois un phénomène comparable chez certaines entreprises chinoises qui s'implantent à l'international. Celles qui prennent pleinement conscience de l'importance de l'adaptation locale et la mettent en pratique — qu'il s'agisse des produits, des services, du management, de la communication ou encore des relations institutionnelles — ne sont pas encore assez nombreuses, à mon avis.

Certains ont tendance à penser que des modèles ayant fait leurs preuves en Chine peuvent être reproduits presque à l'identique sur les marchés internationaux afin d'y rencontrer le même succès.

Bien sûr, il ne faut pas généraliser ; cela dépend aussi de chaque individu, institution ou entreprise.

Comment concilier alors identité culturelle et adaptation locale ? Votre avis ?

(Image générée par ChatGPT, à titre illustratif)
#culture #business | 17 comments on LinkedIn

CartaGen est un générateur de cartes IA gratuit. Le principe est simple : vous écrivez une description en langage naturel, et l’outil génère une carte interactive à partir de votre demande, directement dans le navigateur. https://lnkd.in/eURJKjr4

💬 Viewpoint by Canio Martinelli, MD, MSc, Vincenzo Carnevale, PhD, MSc, Alfredo Ercoli, MD, PhD, and Antonio Giordano, MD, PhD: High empathy scores for #AI chatbots do not translate to bedside care, as algorithms lack the capacity for embodied examination or direct patient connection.

AI can reduce administrative workload and support—rather than substitute—clinical judgment and oversight.

True progress depends on maintaining clinician governance, redesigning work around patient care, and deploying AI to enhance time and presence at the bedside.

https://ja.ma/3RUN9Tk | 15 comments on LinkedIn

12% avec IA vs 89% sans IA.

C’est la différence de mémorisation entre deux groupes d’adultes lors de la rédaction d’une note, comme on peut en faire au quotidien pour argumenter auprès de nos collègues, partenaires, clients...

Le groupe qui a utilisé l’IA a retenu seulement 12% du contenu alors que celui qui n’a pas utilisé l’IA en a retenu 89%, selon une étude du MIT (2026).

🧠 Et ce résultat confirme précisément ce que les sciences cognitives disent depuis longtemps : l'effort mental que vous investissez pour produire un contenu est exactement ce qui l'inscrit en mémoire. Les chercheurs appellent cela la "difficulté désirable".
Quand l'IA prend en charge cet effort, l'information ne s'ancre plus dans notre cerveau.
L'OCDE appelle ce phénomène le "mirage de fausse maîtrise" : vous produisez à un bon niveau ce que vous êtes incapable de faire seul·e. Sans en avoir conscience, sans maîtrise du sujet.

Pour les organisations, vos équipes performent de plus en plus… mais apprennent de moins en moins. À quelle vitesse cela devient contre-productif ?
Alors la vraie question qui devrait être sur la table de toutes les organisations n'est plus "comment adopter l'IA ?" mais plutôt : “Que refusons-nous de ne plus savoir faire ?”

Nous abordons ce sujet avec Alice Latimier - spécialiste des sujets d'apprentissage au sein de Cog'X- et Gaetan de Lavilleon dans notre dernière chronique Les Echos

Et vous, quelles compétences refusez-vous de déléguer à l’IA ? | 95 comments on LinkedIn

☕ 𝗟'𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼 𝟴.𝟭𝟱 : L’homme vraiment imaginatif n’est jamais autre chose qu’un analyste (Edgar Allan Poe)

On range l'imagination du côté des enfants et des poètes. Rarement du côté des analystes. Or c'est une de leurs qualités-clés.

🔸 Face à un fait qui surprend, l'analyste commence par imaginer des explications possibles avant de les éprouver. La réflexion franchit alors ce que Peirce nommait un seuil vertical : elle change de niveau explicatif. (rien n'est prouvé, mais une piste s'ouvre)

🔸 Encore faut-il rationaliser cette imagination. Adopter le regard d'un observateur extérieur, formuler des « et si ? », puis confronter le tout à des indicateurs observables et stables. C'est ce qui donne prise sur le réel.

⚡ 𝗠𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗲 : Dans bien des organisations, ce n'est pas l'imagination qui manque. C'est l'espace pour l'exprimer sans que l'hypothèse dérangeante passe pour de la déloyauté.

💡 𝗟'𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗲𝗹 : L'imagination ouvre le champ des possibles, les indicateurs aident à les prioriser.
···
😉 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 : Quand une hypothèse vous surprend, vous la creusez, ou vous la rangez parce qu'elle « ne fait pas sérieux » ?


📖 Extrait de ma thèse de doctorat en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication. Lien en commentaire 👇

#VeilleStratégique #IntelligenceÉconomique #Analyse #EspritCritique