Learnlets

I’ve written about writing before, but I don’t think I’ve talked about designing a workshop. Yet, that’s what I’m doing right now, and so I’m also reflecting. Which, of course, is very ‘meta’, because reflection is one of the topics of the workshop! Still, I’m pondering what’s different about designing a workshop versus writing, whether book or article or… So here’re some thoughts.

First, as is the case with writing a book (at least for me) is the process of creating the structure. I outline what I’m doing (even both outlined it and separately created a mindmap, to see what overlaps and gaps I found). For instance, I initially saw this as five separate events, spaced out. When I got into it, putting meat onto the bones as the saying goes, I realized that I wanted to combine three and four. So now there are four separate bits.

Then, as is the case with writing, too, I realize I’m alternating between top-down and bottom-up. Which is demonstrably what designers do, but…it’s interesting to break the myth of the waterfall design. I generate low-level elements, which makes me rethink and restructure bits, which means I need to go down into the details some more.

It’s also the case that I can disappear into design for too long (fortunately, the ribs came out ok). I personally go in bursts. I will get going and time will fly by, and then I hit a wall and just have to stop and take a break. It also is mentally taxing, and I find my thoughts become difficult until I take some time off.

And, I recognize it will take several passes. Already I’ve made ‘todo’s for two specific post-hoc passes. First, I’m getting the ideas and the structure right. Then, I want to go back and make sure I’ve put in all the good ideas, hints/tips/tricks, and all that ensures there’s real value in what I’m doing. Finally, I want to make a third pass that ensures I’m helping the audience process the content successfully. That is, getting them to rephrase the ideas into their own words (a form of reflection).

The latter of which is, specifically, what’s at least partly unique to a workshop versus a book. Yes, I’m making it interactive in the first pass by asking an opening question for each section to get folks creating their own thoughts before I present mine, so as to activate and also to generate any improvements that can come from them. While I think I have plenty of relevant background, I’ve not enough hubris to think that there won’t be ideas that are better than mine. I learn when I run workshops, too!

One of the important things here is to develop real new abilities, not just to present ideas. Learning science tells us we need repeated practice, and that’s definitely got to be part of what this workshop does. So, not only do I want some scaffolded practice in the session, but there’s also ‘homework’ where attendees apply the current idea to their own work and share the learnings therefrom in between sessions. (Research emerging from our work at Elevator 9 suggests that when this is done – and it’s hard to do – the results are better.)

The goal is a workshop that delivers real learning, and real value. I don’t want to just make money selling ideas and good feelings. That’s too frequently what we see (*cough* leadership development *cough*), but that’s not what will lead to long term benefit. And I do care about that (perhaps too much! ;). So, there are some thoughts on designing a workshop. What haven’t I made clear? What am I missing?

(And no thanks to Apple for losing my templates and making me create them anew. Ahem.)

I was thinking through the process of bridging, via prompts, and stumbled upon an a framing. It’s pretty simple, so too then is this post. I”m talking about the three R’s, in this case reactivation, reflection, and results. Still, this isn’t a bad way to think about extending the process of learning.

So, as context, bridging is about going from the course to actual impact on the organization. In the LDA, we talk about the chain, from information, through knowledge, performance, schemas, etc, to impact. Generative activities to reprocess the information, and retreival practice to draw it out and apply it. From my perspective, we start with models and examples and practice. That’s to start; ideally we’d go from simulated practice to real application with feedback, and ultimately to assess how it’s going.  But our resources are limited (and sometimes our imaginations), and so we stop short of developing a full solution. What can we do to bridge that gap?

I was thinking about that, and reflecting on the necessary elements. That’s how I came to the three R’s, and I thought I’d least lay them out here. So let’s go through each of the elements.

First, we have reactivation. As I’ve noted previously, this includes elaborated models (reconceptualization), where we build from simple to full models, or present other ways of thinking about the topic. Then there’re new examples (recontextualization), where we expand the space of transfer and complexity. Finally, there are new practice situations (reapplication), where we add in complexity (increasing challenge) and of course new contexts for transfer. That’s to cement our understanding in safe ways.

Then, we should reflect. That carries multiple meanings, and really we’re taking here about reflect ing on application. This includes your planning, what happens when you face reality, adjustments, barriers, and more. Ideally, we’d get feedback from others, but at minimum we can provide model answers. This extends from the formal to the real, helping learners maintain focus, apply, and provide opportunities to improve.

Finally, we should look at results. What are we seeing? It could be self-report, but that’s still data. Others evaluations of impact are still subjective, but triangulating is better. Of course, the ideal would be real data, but that can be difficult. Still, it’s data, and it can be indicative.

Thus, we’re moving from classroom to actual performance. I’ve talked about this before, but I’m still trying to reflect on my own model, and improve it.  The three r’s is one way I’ve thought to frame it, but it might not be as useful as I hope. Still, I do think it’s important enough to keep working on it. I’m keen to hear what you’re thinking and doing, too! Do let me know.

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!