Learnlets

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?

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!

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.

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?