Learnlets

The right tech for the job?

19 May 2026 by Clark Leave a Comment

Ok, so this blog is for my musings, and this is very much a musing. However, a couple recent things have prompted some thoughts. The issue is Large Language Models (LLMs). As I’ve said, I have no problem with the tech inherently. It’s really optimized for language roles (as the name implies). What is concerning to me is the hype, and so the use. And, it’s led me to wonder if it is, or what is, the right tech for the job.

So, up until LLMs, when you wanted something done, you built the appropriate tech. You put together specifications, and development teams built it. (And then they asked UI to fix the problems, as Don Norman talked about in The Invisible Computer. Probably then handed off to training folks to address the problems from the bad design outside the UI.). It took time, and money. And, if you didn’t use something like Watts Humphrey’s Personal & Team Software Processes, you likely took too long, and had too many errors.

You could use AI for more decision tasks. So, either symbolic if well-defined, or based upon training data and machine learning if ill-defined in principle. You, of course, still have to live with or address the biases in the rules or databases. And, of course, the brittleness at the edges of the decision space. Still, all told, we had approaches. Then, the world changed.

So, for one, my colleague Kevin Wheeler (a deep expert in the talent world), talked about how the tasks of the talent function are in flux. What he cited was that many of the rote tasks were being made redundant. Which is good, I opined, if we’re removing tasks that people aren’t good at (I’ve said before that we should be doing pattern-matching and meaning-making, and leaving rote to the machines). However, there’s the problem of developing the expertise. So, for instance, as Etienne Wenger and Jean Lave talk about in communities of practice, moving from peripheral tasks to central as you understand the domain, But you need those peripheral tasks!

Plus, we’re seeing people being laid off. Meta just announced another 8000 being laid off, for efficiencies, and there have been announcements from many of the big orgs (and small ones are making similar decisions). Cutting through the smoke, what we sees is that folks face increasing expectations to use AI to do things faster, and the expectations are increasing (without, mind you, an increase in rewards for same). But, increasingly we’re not working together as we used to.

What also showed up in a LinkedIn conversation is the expectation that we can ask LLMs to do the things that we used to do by writing software. And yes, such systems make mistakes, but so do humans, right? Yes, and…we can assign responsibilities with humans, and they’ll be corruptible and more, but we have compliance to deal with that. As Markus Bernhardt is pointing out, we’re not doing a good job on that with our systems. We, too often, haven’t worried about the necessary guardrails, and security, and responsibility, and governance, and….

What is concerning me, as folks like Mark Britz talk about, is that we’re losing the human connection. We’re losing:

the upward path for new folks
the continual development of our own capability
the necessary checks and balances that keep our systems secure

Really, we’re turning away from doing things together to maximize outcomes, and instead are working to be more expedient. In short, we’re trading off effectiveness to achieve efficiency. And ignoring ethics along the way.

In short, I fear we’re using the ease of doing things with LLMs to avoid the hard work of doing things the right way. Which I resist. I am seeing quite the backlash amongst the folks forced to use AI. Which includes the pressures by execs to use it, and the eagerness of those to promote it who stand to gain (whether vendors or consultants). We see research results showing that folks are thinking less, execs have unrealistic beliefs about how productive it makes people, and it’s pretty simple to recognize that the costs can’t stay as they are. The illusions from smoke and mirrors aren’t a good basis on which to plan.

Don’t get me wrong, I do see the benefits of LLMs. I just see them in context of the bigger picture of people, tech, and the broader picture of AI. And I could be wrong, it’s true. It’s just that there’re some reasons to believe that decades of immersion in the relevant fields have some basis for questioning whether we’re using the right tech for the job. I welcome your thoughts!

Thoughts on meta-coaching!

12 May 2026 by Clark 1 Comment

So, my last post, I talked about coaching, mostly domain-specific coaching. As I said then, I am thinking about ‘bridging’, crossing the chasm from instruction to application. It’s a chasm because we tend to not do anything post-instruction. Yet, we also know that what’s taught can dissipate quickly if we don’t reinforce. One of the debates has been around domain-specific and domain-independent coaching, and that prompts some further thoughts.

So, what I’ve heard is that coaching is, or at least can be, about guiding the learner to improve. The whole business model of a colleague’s coaching organization was to not match coaches to learning goals, but to deliberately steer away from any domain knowledge. Instead, the learner was asked what barriers were being faced, what could be done, where more knowledge could be found, making plans to take action, and monitoring the plan. Which is all good, to be clear. However, one things strikes me.

What that coaching is doing is supporting the learner in learning. And that’s not a bad thing, but what strikes me is that this is something learners could learn! We (can) do this in other areas. For instance, we can tell learners how to take better notes. Shute & Bonar built a tutor talking about good experimentation strategies. Kate Bielaczyc took Micki Chi’s results on self-explanation and found improvement through training. My own PhD thesis found improvement by instruction on analogical reasoning.

The sad fact is that we don’t teach learners how to be good at learning. Whether K12, higher ed, pr organizations, it’s just not there. I remember my child’s teacher talking about her approach – draft, feedback, revise – and me mentioning that it’d apply to other classes than writing: math, science, … She was amazed (and that’s what worried me)! Some folks say we can’t teach meta-learning except on a domain, but my take is that we could teach meta-learning across domains. And should.

So, I wonder about coaching where the coach is helping you not only do better, but also learn to do better on your own. Now, that’s not necessarily a good business model (if you wean people off your own services), but it’s the right thing to do. We should be doing it K12 and higher ed, so that it’s already there for people to be better able to improve. In lieu, we could (and should?) do it ourselves. As my late colleague Jay Cross used to opine, it could be the best investment an org could make. Let me extend that to a society. Imagine if everyone was an effective learner! Can we make it happen?

Thoughts on Coaching

5 May 2026 by Clark 1 Comment

When I’m developing my understanding of something, I try to research the underlying cognitive story. In this case, I’m thinking about coaching, and it’s not always easy to find handy books or articles. So, I’m relying on some cognitive storytelling here. (Feel free to lob same if you know some good guides to what the underlying mental aspects are!) It’s in the broader context of bridging, as I’m thinking about the different ways to accomplish.

To start, some terminology. There are, as I see it, two approaches. The first is where, as coach, you’re helping someone get on their feet in a domain you know. That’s the classic example of sports coaching, and that’s where my thinking normally goes. Then, I’ve found through conversations with Emma Weber, amongst others, that there’s ‘domain independent’ coaching. Here, we’re deliberately not experts in the game, and instead are focused on process. For some, that is what coaching is. If so, then what’s the label for the domain-dependent coaching? There’s also ‘mentoring’, but that always seemed more career-focused than domain-specific. So, I’ll try to be clear on what I’m talking about.

So, formal instruction typically, and for the sake of argument we’ll assume here, takes you to an initial state of capability. There’re models, examples, and simulated practice. Importantly, there’s feedback. Then, at some point, you are expected to take that ability, ideally determined to be at a certain measurable level, and start applying it in the workplace. What’s important is the feedback. Yes, the world will give you some, and that’s a slow way to develop. Can we accelerate that? That’s why we have coaching! It’s all about providing feedback on performance, in the real world.

However, we know that the learning typically can evaporate quickly if it’s not applied right away. So here’s where I suggest we still need domain-specific feedback. There is a line, and it probably falls on ‘when the learner is ready’, between when you provide directive feedback, and when you start asking the learner what they did right/wrong.That’s an important line, and we probably don’t talk enough about it: when do you stop telling folks what the right model is, and start asking?

Once they’ve mastered the nuances enough to start self-evaluating, we can move on to more domain-independent coaching. Though here’s where I wonder…I’m thinking of sports. There’s coaching for beginners, but once you move to a certain level, there’s a need for more advanced coaches. Top athlete coaching is very different than the coaching for new players. Really, for most sports there’re levels of capability and competency. If you’re going deep, you need deeper support. In orgs, maybe most of the time we just need people to be competent, and can develop the expertise over time (or not at all). However, if we want expertise, maybe we need more advanced domain-coaching?

I also have thoughts on domain-independent coaching, but I think that’s suitable for another post. Stay tuned!

Another Book?

30 April 2026 by Clark Leave a Comment

So, I did a thing. Yes, I wrote yet another book! Well, it’s shorter than my (already short; I’m either terse or lazy ;) existing books. So, it’s an ebook only. But why? Well, that’s worth a small story.

When we (Learning Development Accelerator; LDA) run our Learning Science conference, we regularly get plaudits and requests for more detail on putting learning into practice. It’s also the reason we run the Learning & Development as Ecosystem conference (going now, next week are the live sessions; not too late. but time’s running out). Which covers everything else besides learning design.

But what I didn’t feel existed properly was a book addressing the pragmatics of doing L&D. There are strategic books, and process books, but not just the nuts and bolts. So I wrote it.

So that’s why I have put out the ebook Designing for Learning in the Real World. It’s my personal take on the things I’ve seen, from my perspective as a sort of ‘outsider’ to L&D. That is, it’s about how to do all the things L&D should be doing. It’s learning, of course, but also the performance ecosystem – job aids, resources, community – and all the other things: tech infrastructure, culture, etc.

It’s short, it’s focused, and it’s now available ;). There are lots of ways to find out my thinking, e.g. this blog, previous books, etc. This is just a very condensed look at everything I have seen about how to do a good job. My thoughts, encapsulated. We now return you to your regularly scheduled blog, already in progress…

Bridging

28 April 2026 by Clark 1 Comment

Of late, I’ve increasingly been convinced that what too much of formal education does is prepare you to perform. That may not sound like a bad thing, but…I want to suggest that it stops short. What do I mean? I’m referring to bridging the gap, the one between learning and doing. So what am I talking about?

So, I’ve argued before that we need different things as we move from learning to doing. First, of course, we need reactivation. That’s typically more models, examples, and most importantly, more practice. But that’s still about learning, not doing. Even the practice is about sample problems, not real life.

Of course, we can (and should) start bringing in real life. We can start having folks applying the knowledge to real problems. But then we need contextualized feedback, about how the particulars suggested a course of action, and how the learners’ choices reflected that, or not. Ideally, we’d have someone in the loop providing this feedback, but that’s not always possible for a variety of reasons: scale, cost, availability, etc. We can move to asking the learner to remedy it themselves, and maybe have a backstop.

So, we have coaching, we have spaced learning solutions (*cough* Elevator 9 *cough*), we have certification (the particular type where people submit applications to their own work/life and get feedback). All these facilitate the bridging. Circumstances will dictate which makes sense (factors like cost of errors, frequency of practice, availability of supervision, etc). But, the thing that occurs to me is, this is too often left to chance. The fact that I was inspired to hear about how an org wouldn’t release a learning solution until they’d planned how it’d be persistent tells me that it’s too rare.

This goes on to actual impact. What results are you seeing? This is, quite simply, moving up the evaluation chain, but it’s also moving up the chain from just offering a course to achieving an outcome that positively affects your organization. We can ask, we can tie into systems, but we shouldn’t just offer a course and exhort the gods that something good will happen. “Spray and pray” isn’t an effective strategy.

So, what I want to do is implore you to not ignore bridging. Instead, figure out how your learning is going to sustain impact. It can, and should. That’s what we’re here for, after all. Despite any beliefs to the contrary, if we’re not moving needles, we’re wasting effort (and that’s not a professional stance). We can do better, We know how, and it may require bucking some trends and beliefs, but we really shouldn’t settle for complacency. We can do good. Let’s.

Learning culture = design culture?

21 April 2026 by Clark Leave a Comment

I”m reading Don Norman’s Design for a Better World (recommended; more after I finish). One of the things mentioned is ‘design culture’. Now, I’ve been a big fan of ‘learning culture’, and so was triggered. What’s the relationship? Some thoughts.

So, to start, I think of learning culture as a determinant of performance ecosystem success. I’ve regularly touted Garvin, Edmondson, & Gino’s model as a grounded approach that identifies major factors. The issue is creating an environment where people contribute their best ideas, and folks are learning ‘together’. Practices such as Jane Bozarth’s Show Your Work are components, as is Amy Edmonson’s The Fearless Organization about psychological safety.

So what is a ‘design culture’? Don doesn’t define it, but Wikipedia says “approaches that improve customer experiences through design.” Of course, the customers may be internal, I’d suggest. More importantly, it’s about design being a core component of the way things are done. Yet, isn’t design ‘learning’?

I’d suggest that, indeed, design is learning. I’ve suggested in the past (e.g. here) that design, research, and trouble-shooting are informal learning, as you don’t know the answer when you start. Design is creating a solution where one doesn’t exist. It’s part of learning: you design, test and measure, and iterate until the metrics meet your needs. Thus, I’d argue that for a successful design culture, you’d need a successful learning culture, or you can’t get the best solutions.

The bigger argument of Don’s book is about how things have gone south, societally/globally, and the role of design in causing and remedying that. I’m sympathetic, I admit. I do feel chuffed that he’s mentioning participatory design, something I just talked about for the UX part of the Learning & Development as Ecosystem conference. But his overall message is important, particularly in light of his previous works on design, notably Design of Everyday Things. If he’s now saying he got it wrong, I’ll suggest we probably should take note of what he’s now thinking.

So, I might take design culture as a subset of a learning culture, or an integral part. However, if SDT (c.f. Matt Richter’s forthcoming The Motivation Blueprint, and Stephen Johnson’s previous Drive) is right, considering our purpose may need to go beyond not just doing harm, and look at remedying what’s wrong. My quibble about culture is relatively small potatoes in the bigger picture. Still, worth pondering.

Ethics, science process, and disagreements

14 April 2026 by Clark Leave a Comment

Recently, one of our LDA members provided a link to this argument, as a follow-on to a book club discussion. The book we covered in this meeting was David McRaney’s How Minds Change (a worthwhile read), and the article raises an issue that links science process, discussions, and society. Hence, it’s extremely interesting. This argument covers science process in a particular instance of theorizing, so it’s worth thinking about.

To start, the article talks about two theories of foundational disagreement. He cites the prominent theory of Jonathan Haidt’s about five (or six, or?) foundational moral values. I was sold on that theory after reading Haidt’s The Righteous Mind (as recommended by my late mother!). So, to see an alternative was of interest. And, I have to say, that the evidence makes sense. The article does a good job of laying out the competing approaches, which is interesting in and of itself. There are questions of methodology, allowing for some divergence. In short, why do we agree and disagree?

Of equal, if not more interest, however, is the discussion of the process of the debate. That is, as Naomi Oreskses points out in Why Trust Science, science is about consensus. And Haidt’s been a good popularizer of his model. When a challenger to the entrenched theory arises, we end up with a battle of ideas, ala Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The better explanation takes a while to establish the data, and the acolytes of the previous approach mount a defensive action, but ultimately we accept the new story. If, and this is important, it continues to demonstrate superior explanatory power.

The article lays out, in interesting prose, the nature of the arguments, but also the nature of the process of argumentation. There’s presentation, and attacks, and in short a riveting story of science in action. Yet, it’s happening (largely) as science, with the arguments based on data, not on personal attacks.

It also raises issues of the overall ethics of the science process. This is relatively personal, as it’s a debate I’m having with a family member. In short, is the scientific process to be trusted, or is it too biased and we need an alternative? This gets into Science Denial, as Gale Sinatra & Barbara Hofer’s book discusses, That’s what I’m faced with, sadly.

As with some other things, I suggest that while science isn’t perfect, it’s better than any other approach. Sure, there continue to be misuses, as have the products that science provides us. I’ve got bias, as I’ve had science training and have been an active participant as well as translator. So take what I say with the proverbial boulder of salt. However, if you want to quibble, you may have to travel by horse to talk to me in person; you’re reading this via the benefits of the science process, and you wouldn’t want to be hypocritical, right?

Presentation Process

7 April 2026 by Clark Leave a Comment

What is my process for creating a presentation? I realize that it’s at least two parts, that interact. First, there’s a story needing telling. What is it? What is the goal, and what story will get us there? Then, there’s the question of communicating the story. What are the important points to communicate? Together, it prompts some thinking on how to put it all together. It’s also to establish that creating a presentation is much different than just fronting up to an interview or conversation; there’s work! So, this is a reflection on the presentation process.

So, first, there needs to be a story. It typically comes from something I want to talk about. There are a number of things that I talk about, being old and having ideas (strong opinions loosely held ;). That includes learning science, meaningful engagement, design processes, the performance ecosystem, and more (most of which I’ve written books on). Lately, that includes AI, though no book. Still, there’s an audience, and I confer with the organizing body about what’s the right topic.

From there, there’re two parts. One is figuring out what story to tell. In one sense, it’s reaching back to what I’ve said on it before, but…it’s also influenced by new thoughts. The world isn’t static, and so too my presentations generate afresh. I do start anew, unless I’m deliberately asked to redo a previous topic (and even then, I revisit). The main question is where do I want to end, and how do I want to get there.

The second part are the steps along the way. This means, basically, what points do I want to make, and how to make those points? I resort to two typical mechanisms, I confess. I’ll use images (read: photos) to communicate ideas (rather than bullet points). This is deliberate, as I believe (and I welcome research pro/con) that the lack of implicit connection opens up the attendees thoughts prior to me making the link. Then there are diagrams to communicate the underlying models. These, I’ve been led to know requires me to build them. Most are complex enough that it helps to start with a core and then elaborate.

Sometimes I provide some examples, usually in my discussion, but occasionally with screen captures. That’s a good thing, and I should do it more! Of course, there’s a small problem that sometimes I’m talking about things that are proprietary. Or, that are far enough ahead that they haven’t yet seen the light of day.

It’s important to recognize that this doesn’t happen linearly. I move forward, and backward, multiple times as I create a presentation. I move chunks around, change representations, etc. Really, presentations are a chance to reflect, and have even led to me changing my thinking (and so, my diagrams!). Research on design actually shows people cycling between bottom-up and top-down behaviors, and I resemble that remark! BTW, I could use AI in parts of this, except for the fact that the AI runs on stolen IP, amongst other problems, so not yet.

Also, I practice delivery. I do not shoot for an exact presentation, because those inevitably feel canned. I confess, I like TedTalks and good keynotes, but if they’re word-perfect, I do note that as well, negatively. What I want to ensure is that the message stays consistent, even though my presentation varies each time. That’s ok, and makes for a more natural presentation (and also allows for audience participation, so questions can be addressed). That’s not necessarily true for keynotes, which I do, but there’s evidence I do tell engaging and meaningful stories for those as well! So, some thoughts on presentation process. What did I miss? How does this reflect your process?

Going it alone?

31 March 2026 by Clark Leave a Comment

I’ve been an independent consultant for the past quarter century. Which would make you think I go it alone. And, occasionally, I do. I’ve written my books myself. I’ve gone into consulting engagements on my own. I typically do my presentations on my own. Yet, not really. And, it’s not what I recommend. So, why do we think we should be going it alone?

It’s easy to think I’ve done much of my activities alone (and sometimes it feels like it). Yet, when you think about it, it’s really not. I’ve had publishers and editors on books. Also, of course, I’m building on the work of others (that I cite; academic holdover). Plus, I’ve had folks provide feedback that has improved my thinking. That includes on presentations and articles, which tend to have editors as well, or at least program managers. And, then there’s the feedback by the victims, er, audience. And even consulting I’m engaging with the clients and having them help me understand the context and review drafts of reports before acceptance. It’s essentially not alone!

Folks thinking about social, like Mark Britz (co-author of Social By Design) or Harold Jarche (of Personal Knowledge Mastery fame) remind us that we’re better together. That can be what is determined either authoritatively or collectively, and then there’s what’s offered freely. Still, the benefits of working together, of social cognitive processing, are that we are highly likely to get better when we get others’ feedback.

Which is why I feel bad when I hear about the lone L&D practitioner in an org, or someone doing a course by themselves. Ok, for the former, ideally they’re interacting with the SMEs at least, but hopefully they’re also getting support in connecting with peers at events like conferences or chapter meetings. For the latter, there at least could be checkpoints where your work gets review and feedback. Heck Watts Humphrey noted this in software engineering, we should likewise worry about it. We need feedback to improve, and that comes from others. (In a tighter loop than quarterly.)

I also worry as people more and more seem to be choosing, or being ‘voluntold’, to use tools that minimize interaction. It’s already been seen that this diminishes personal development. It’s also concerning for building culture, and more. In short, we don’t want people not collaborating; that’s where new ideas come from! While some of the tools may help the less-than-average person be better in the moment, they’re not developing over time. That’s not a long-term path to success.

You simply shouldn’t be going it alone. You should continually be learning, and that means getting feedback. And, of course, learning to learn from that feedback in all forms, and reading or watching something can be that. It can be challenging (says the introvert) to work with others, but when it happens the outcome is almost always better. At least if you follow good process! So please, find someone to be your partner in your endeavors. I’m trying, I hope you will too!

Why aren’t things changing?

24 March 2026 by Clark Leave a Comment

Change is everywhere. We’ve heard again and again that the pace of change is increasing. Certainly we’re seeing more chaos in our society. Yet, some things don’t seem to change, L&D in particular. Why is that? Why aren’t things changing?

For one, I’m not alone in advocating for more. Jay Cross was promoting Informal Learning, and Marc Rosenberg was talking Beyond eLearning before I came out with Revolutionize L&D. Since then, (and, of course, before) there’s been a growing number of people talking about how we need to stop being ‘order takers’ and start being strategic about our energy and use of technology. Guy Wallace and the whole Performance Consulting industry is one facet. We see books from the likes of Lori Niles-Hoffman, Jess Almlie, and even Keith Keating, amongst others. We hear from folks as wise as Jane Bozarth, David Kelly, Connie Malamed, Ruth Clark, Will Thalheimer, Julie Dirksen, Don Taylor, Michael Allen, Nigel Paine, Megan Torrance, Matt Richter, and more (the list goes on). The message is pretty clear: only do courses when they make sense, and then do them well.

So why do we continue to see companies producing and consuming ‘info dump’ elearning? Training that’s just bullet points? Why do we have tools that continue to make it easy to put up content and add a knowledge test, let alone having ‘click to see more’? Why are there ice-breakers and ‘team-building’ activities that have no meaningful relation to the topic? Where’s the spaced learning? How come we continue to have learning experiences that are engaging, but not effective?

On reason, of course, is the industry. The vendors do tend to focus on producing ‘content’; even their touted uses of AI are to make content faster and cheaper (but the missing leg of the engineering stool is ‘better’, why is that?). Let’s track completions, rather than impact, eh? We don’t have to talk across silos that way, so it’s easier. And, it’s less work to make content tools than to engineer learning experiences. But…isn’t that our real mission?

Another reason, of course, is stakeholder awareness. There are expectations that we should build courses quickly, and that information leads to behavior change. Both are wrong, of course. But why do these beliefs persist? Aren’t we, and shouldn’t we be, extinguishing them? It’s more than a quarter century into the 21st one, you’d think folks would know better. Particularly when it affects their ability to succeed!

Our own awareness may be a barrier too. That is, there are lots of folks who come into ID without preparation. As Cammy Bean noted, folks are starting as the Accidental Instructional Designer. It’s also hard to buck the hierarchy when you’re new. And it’s rewarding to get high scores on our courses by attendees. Particularly if we don’t know better. Still, it’s painful to bear.

Now, I do believe, and see, gradual change. It is getting better. Yet, while I’m not known for patience, it’s still taking way too long! We have the opportunity to be making our orgs so much better. We could be extending learning, developing learning-to-learn skills, fostering innovation, and meeting real needs, instead of dumping information worthlessly. We’re wasting money! So, yes, I’m frustrated. Are you? Why aren’t things changing? What am I missing?