The Smackdown Learning Model

What happens to your brain when you're forced to choose between two different--and potentially conficting--points of view? Learning. That's what makes the smackdown model such an effective approach to teaching, training, and most other forms of communication.

Whether you're writing user instructions, teaching a class, writing a non-fiction book, or giving a conference presentation, consider including at least some aspect of the smackdown model. It's one of the most engaging ways to cause people's brains to both feel and think -- the two elements you need for attention, understanding, retention, and recall.

How does it work?

By presenting different perspectives or views of the topic, the learner's brain is forced into making a decision about which one they most agree with. And as long as the learner is paying attention, you won't even have to ask. In other words, it doesn't have to be a formal exercise where the learner must physically make a choice between multiple things; simply by giving their brain the conflicting message, their brain has no choice. Brains cannot simply leave the conflicts out there without at least trying to make an evaluation.

And making an evaluation puts it at the most advanced end of Bloom's Taxonomy. (The further along the hierarchy you go, the more cognitive brainpower is harnessed).

Why is this better than a single consistent message?

More brain flexing = more learning. (Yes, there's a big assumption here that the learner already understands the fundamentals behind the different viewpoints.)

When the learner is given a single message, and led through the topic step-by-step with no apparent alternatives, the learner's brain doesn't have to think as much. And since a single message is often less interesting, the material is less engaging and the learner isn't paying as much attention.

And the more intense the smackdown (i.e. the heat/fight of the opposing views) the more likely it is that the learner will feel something. And remember, we learn and remember that which we feel, not that which we merely hear or read.

But this is stupid... what about things for which there is only ONE right way?

Ah yes. Multiple points of view works great when it's a browser or web framework war, but what about something like the the speed of light? Or multiplication tables? 4 x 6 is 24. End of story. A fight over that would just be distracting and get in the way.

Right?

Maybe not. It's true that there are subjects for which there is no alternative point of view that makes any sense at all... so nothing to evaluate. But in that case, you can still use a smackdown approach by having the information taught from multiple perspectives. For example, if one teacher uses a rote approach, and another thinks an understanding approach is better, then one of the most powerful learning experiences would offer the learner both, with perhaps discussions amongst the learners over the relative tradeoffs of the two approaches. That means the smackdown isn't about the actual content being learned, but about the way in which it's learned. The more you get the learners thinking (about the right things), the better the learning outcome.

How do you use it?

There are an infinite number of ways in which you could implement a smackdown, but here are a few favorites:

1) Presentation Smackdown

One of my favorite sessions at OSCON was Matt Raible's Spring vs. WebWork Smackdown. Two presenters, two frameworks, one guy with the big bell. The room was packed and everybody was paying attention. The presenters kept taking turns, and when a comment was deemed "below the belt" (a cheap shot), the bell guy kicked in.

Bonus benefit: this approach means you can get away with far fewer PowerPoint slides ; )
and you get a lot more audience participation.

Two other examples of a conference presentation smackdown are the Web Standards Smackdown and the JavaOne '04 Web Framework Smackdown. Another Web Frameworks Smackdown was held at JavaOne 2005, and discussed on this server side thread.

And Rick Ross considered a Java IDE smackdown in his Javalobby blog.

2) Head-to-head Review Smackdown

One example of a written comparison review is Ed Bott's TiVo vs. Windows Media Center smackdown. Another written example is a write-up that actually captured a conference panel smackdown on (this is old) J2EE vs. .NET.

Almost any decent and detailed multi-product or multi-perspective review can be considered a smackdown candidate, but really, if there's no heat and controversy and, well, fighting, then I wouldn't call it a smackdown.

What makes it an actual emotion-inducing learning experience is when the learner is at least wondering whether things could get a little rough. And in many cases, the rougher the better.

3) Anthropomorphized Debates

Head First readers might recognize this from some of our books. The implication of a smackdown is that two or more people are in a fight. A fight to win (even if no clear winner emerges). We make our smackdowns a little more personal in our books by breathing life into whatever it is being debated, and let that thing speak for itself. In Head First Java, for example, the compiler and the JVM argue over which of them is more important. Arrays go one-on-one with ArrayLists. And so on... with each "character" attacking or defending itself according to that character's personality and attributes.

Another benefit of anthropomorhpizing the objects of the debate is that the learner can look at things from the perspective of that entity. We want learners, for example, to know what the compiler's motivation is (no actor jokes here ; ). Who better to describe that than the compiler?

Variants

The Celebrity Death Match is quite popular. You could do your own version of this with a little Flash work.

And you'll just have to evaluate this one for yourself: Modified Living Sorority Smackdown.

Finally, if you haven't yet spent some time with Googlefight, here's a fun way to kill your productivity.