Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Big ‘L’ Learning

16 November 2010 by Clark 8 Comments

We’ve been wrestling for a while about how to deal with the labeling problem. The problem is that when you mention learning to anyone but the L&D team, they immediately hear ‘training’ (and, frankly, too often so to does the L&D team). And, of course, really the issue is performance, but too often that can mean machine throughput or semi-conductor yield or something other than the output of the human brain. This has continued to be a barrier for having meaningful conversations.

I also want to address the broader suite of human brain outcomes: research, creativity, design, etc., as you’ll have read here before. The answers aren’t known, and this is likely to be the important work. Other than creating a portmanteau, or making up a new word entirely, however, I’ve been at a loss for a label.

Recently, I’ve started talking about “big L learning”. ‘Inspired’ by the fact that the Liberal party in Australia is really the conservative party (leave it to the Aussies :), so they have to distinguish between big L and little l liberal, I’ve decided that perhaps we can distinguish between little ‘l’ learning and big ‘L’ learning. If nothing else, it might get someone to ask what I mean and provide an opportunity to open up the discussion.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m more than open to an alternate suggestion, but in the interim, I’m going to keep playing with this. I’ve been wrestling with this for years, and haven’t come up with anything better. I welcome your feedback.

Comments

  1. Dawn says

    17 November 2010 at 2:29 AM

    Hi Clark,

    That’s a great idea. I struggle with this not only in conversations but when writing proposals where I seem to be forced into talking about training (even my website says training when I don’t want it to!). I don’t have any better ideas but the fact you have come up with something helps – thanks!

    D

  2. Jennifer says

    17 November 2010 at 3:33 AM

    Having worked in the Call Centre for many years – I have observed this very issue many, many, many times. In one case – a directory assistance service – the required average call handle time (AHT) was 21 seconds – but it took 5 seconds to say the greeting, another 5-10 seconds for the client to express what they needed and another 5-10 seconds to find the number and answer the call. The solution? Yep, remove the greeting. This resulted in an additional 10-20 seconds of banter that went something along the lines of:

    Staff member: What number please?
    Client: Is this Directory Assistance?
    Staff member: Yes it is, how may I help you today?
    Client: Is this ACME Directory Assistance?
    Staff member: Yes it is, what number are you after?
    Client: Oh, that’s good, I wasn’t sure if I was speaking to the right people then.
    Staff member: Yes – you are, how can I help you today?

    Removing that greeting almost doubled the length of the AHT. We (L&D) were asked to ‘train-to-fix’. We conducted a Skills Gap Analysis (SGA) which included a judicious use of a stop-watch and found that the majority of staff required no additional training. The resolution turned out to be a pre-recording (which we recommended). Nothing to do with training – but it did take the skills of the L&D Department to do the analysis to support what the team leaders had been saying all along.

    I belive a good L&D Consultant worth their salt is like a detective. If you ask the right questions and do a proper TNA and SGA, then identifying what can and can’t be resolved by training is farily straight-forward.

    One challenge is getting management to recognise that the solution isn’t always ‘Big L’. Yep, I’m sooooo lovin’ this term…

    The other – as you point out – is trainers often lack skills that truly make L&D Specialists invaluable to an organisation. They so often agree to deliver ‘train-to-fix’ because they don’t understand the difference between TNA and SGA, or just don’t get that needs analysis is more than management telling you to train X, Y, Z.

    Cheers

  3. Allison Anderson says

    17 November 2010 at 8:55 AM

    You’ve realy pin-pointed a problem that rolls around in my brain. Totally agree that the L&D function rarely beyond “training.” I still see the word “learning” being taken as synonymous with “classroom” or if we are really lucky it will extend over to “job aid.” If we can’t see through that smoke-screen, then how can we expect anyone else to hear “learning” and think about something holistic? We can’t see through our own jargon!

    It is unfortunate that semantics play such a key role, but I guess words really do matter. If only we could make up an entirely new word that would evoke images of ongoing development (environmental, experiential, and incidental) that helps improve the quality of life, performance and impact of an employee……

    Until then, I am down with Big-L Learning. :-)

  4. virginia Yonkers says

    17 November 2010 at 9:04 AM

    A better example would be culture and Culture. Culture (big C) is used for the arts, a specific manifestation of a society’s culture, often used with “high” (ie. high culture). I always think of Culture as being available only to a small group that can appreciate it.

    The small c culture, however, is the study of a society’s values. It is the basis for every thing including our educational system, economic system, beliefs, communication structure, language, etc… Small c culture is much more difficult to describe or identify, but there are attributes that have been developed (e.g. Hofstede, Hall, anthropology) to help describe culture.

    I think the same could be used with Learning and learning. Big L learning is the formal learning we see in L&D departments, schools, etc… It is measurable and identifiable. Small l learning is the creation or understanding of knowledge upon which everything is based. Like culture, it is difficult to identify learning, but there are attributes that have been developed to describe learning.

  5. Clark says

    17 November 2010 at 10:13 AM

    Interesting reversal of how I intended it to be intended, sounds like a couple of you are thinking about the big L being put forward as formal, where I intended the reverse: save Big L label for when we’re beyond training. However, glad to hear that this may be a valuable interim approach.

  6. Dawn says

    17 November 2010 at 8:44 PM

    Jennifer – what a GREAT story! Perfectly illustrates the problem. Thanks.

  7. Mattias Kareld says

    18 November 2010 at 12:03 PM

    Hi Clark,

    I too have been struggling with this. I like your solution and I agree with you Big L Learning gives me the feeling of something beyond formal learning (little l learning).

    The girls and guys at Internet Time Alliance use the term Working Smarter instead of learning. I like this as it gives more punch when talking to a client to say that I want to help you to work smarter, instead of saying I want to help you create some learning activities.

    When I first came across that term I didn’t really understand it. But now I have tried it out a couple of times and it actually seems to work.

    Thanks for sharing your ideas!
    /Mattias

Trackbacks

  1. Internet Time Alliance | Beyond Execution says:
    18 April 2012 at 5:10 PM

    […] In a recent post, Harold Jarche talks eloquently about moving into the networked era, and practices of workscaping.  He points to this insightful model by Jane Hart, showing the bigger picture supporting performance in the workplace, or what I like to call Big L learning. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Clark Quinn

The Company

Search

Feedblitz (email) signup

Never miss a post
Your email address:*
Please wait...
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

Pages

  • About Learnlets and Quinnovation

The Serious eLearning Manifesto

Manifesto badge

Categories

  • design
  • games
  • meta-learning
  • mindmap
  • mobile
  • social
  • strategy
  • technology
  • Uncategorized
  • virtual worlds

Blogroll

  • Charles Jennings
  • Christy Tucker
  • Connie Malamed
  • Dave's Whiteboard
  • Donald Clark's Plan B
  • Donald Taylor
  • Harold Jarche
  • Julie Dirksen
  • Kevin Thorn
  • Mark Britz
  • Mirjam Neelen & Paul Kirschner
  • Stephen Downes' Half an Hour

License

Previous Posts

  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006

Amazon Affiliate

Required to announce that, as an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Mostly book links. Full disclosure.