Archives for February 2017

Revisiting the Ecosystem

28 February 2017 by Clark 6 Comments

One of the keys to the L&D revolution is recognizing the full performance ecosystem and the ways technology can support performance and development. I’ve tried to represent and share my thinking via diagrams (including here, here, and here). Prompted by a recent conversation, it was time to revisit the representation.

Here, I’m layering on several different ways to think about the goals, elements, etc. (Given that this is an initial version, I’m kind of haphazard about labels like mechanisms, components, etc.) To start, as I continually argue, at the bottom it’s about coupling optimal execution with continual innovation. We need to do well those things we know we need to do, and then we need to continually improve. I think that more and more of the optimal execution is getting automated.

On top of that, we have components – content and people – and the tactics to leverage them. We create or curate content (curation over creation!), and we develop relationships through community or find appropriate expertise through recommendations or search. The goal is to have the right content and the right people ‘to hand’ to work with.

We develop content elements like performance support to support performing in the moment, and learning resources for self-directed learning over time. We also use courses, whether individual or collaborative, to develop people (particularly when they’re novices). I’d put courses to the left and performance support to the right (above content) if we were talking about developing people (as I have here). So, for novices we first use courses, then practitioners need resources and coaching, and experts need interaction. However, performance support is on one side on a continuum of mechanisms from performing, to developing, to innovation. That’s what I’ve captured here.

Similarly, we use social elements like coaching, mentoring, and informal learning to develop ourselves and our organizations over time. We use processes like consuming and completing to execute. Then we develop our ability to execute and the continue to learn through communicating and collaborating.

There are lots of ways to represent the ecosystem, and given that elaboration theory tells us multiple representations help, here’s another stab. There are lots of elements to consider and fine tune, but I like to share my thinking to help it develop! Overall, however, the opportunity is the chance to be contributing to organizational success in systematic and valuable ways. And that, I’ll suggest, is valuable. I welcome your thoughts.

Another model for support

22 February 2017 by Clark Leave a Comment

I was thinking about today’s post, wherein I was talking about a couple of packages that might help organizations move forward. I was reflecting back on some previous posts about engagement models, and was reminded of a more recent one. And I realized this has played out in a couple of ways. And these approaches did provide away to develop the organization’s abilities to develop better learning. So this is another model for support for developing at least the learning side of the equation.

In a couple of instances , I’ve worked with organizations on a specific project, but in a particular way. For each, my role was to lead the design. In one case, it was for a series of elearning modules. My role was to develop the initial template that the rest of the content fit. Note that this isn’t a template for tarting it up, but instead a template about what the necessary elements and details around them were to ensure that the elements (e.g. intro, concept, practice, etc) both fit together and reflected the best learning science. In a more recent instance, it was on a specific focus, but there were several modules that used a similar structure.

What happens, importantly, is that by working collaboratively, we learn together. Each of these organizations was in the business of developing content, but they were looking to raise their game. So, for instance, through leading the Workplace of the Future project but sharing the thinking behind it, by working out loud in that sense, it’s possible to develop a shared understanding. And in the latter case, though they’d read the Deeper eLearning series, they got a lot more out of working it through with me. (And, I’ll suggest, more than also reading the subsequent blog posts I wrote about the project.)

In each case, we created an overall template for the learning, and then detailed what the elements for the template were, and the critical components. When we applied it, usually with me doing it first, and then handing off. It’s really a Cognitive Apprenticeship approach.

So, it’s a slightly more involved approach, with a much more variable scope, but in conjunction with other approaches I’ve mentioned like critiquing content or design processes, it’s one way to get a jump on deeper learning science. Just trying to think of models that can support improvement, and that’s what I’m trying to push.

Support for moving forward

21 February 2017 by Clark 2 Comments

I have to admit I’ve been a bit surprised to see that movements towards improving elearning and learning strategy haven’t had more impact. On the learning design side, e.g. the Serious eLearning Manifesto and our Future of Work project, it still seems there’s a focus on content presentation. And similarly with learning strategy, so despite the Revolution, it doesn’t appear that there’s any big move in L&D to take a bigger perspective. And my question is: “why not?”

So I’ve been trying to think what might be the barriers to move forward. What could keep folks from at least taking initial steps? Maybe folks are making moves, but I haven’t seen much indication. So naturally I wondered what sort of support could be needed to move forward.

Perhaps it seems too overwhelming? In the manifesto we did say we don’t expect people taking it all on at once, but we know folks sometimes have trouble breaking it down. Similarly, there’re a lot of components to the full performance ecosystem. One possibility is that folks don’t know where to start. I wrote sometime shortly after the manifesto’s release that the best place to start was with practice. And I’ve similarly argued that perhaps the best revolution catalyst is measurement. But maybe that’s too general?

So I wondered if perhaps some specific support would assist. And so I’ve put together a package for each that’s an initial assessment to identify what’s working, what’s not, and from which to give some initial recommendations. And I’ve tried to price them so that they’re not too dear, too hard to get approval for, but provide maximum value for minimal investment. Both are based upon the structure of previous successful engagements. (The learning strategy one is a little more because it’s a wee bit more complex. ;) Both are also based upon frameworks I’ve developed for each:

elearning design is based upon deeper elearning and the leverage points in the design process

elearning strategy is based upon the performance ecosystem model and the implications for developing and delivering solutions.

In each I’m spending time beforehand reviewing materials, and then just two days on site to have some very targeted interviews and meetings. The process involves talking to representative stakeholders and then working with a core team to work through the possibilities and prioritize them. It also includes an overview of the frameworks for each as a basis for a shared understanding.

The goal is to use an intensive investigation to identify what’s the current status, and the specific leverage points for immediate improvement and longer-term shifts. The output is a recommendation document that documents what’s working and where there are opportunities for improvement and what the likely benefits and costs are.

This isn’t available directly from the Quinnovation site: I’m starting here to talk to those who’ve been tracking the arguments. Maybe that’s the wrong starting point, but I’ve got to start somewhere. I welcome feedback on what else you might expect or want or what would help.

If you’d like to check out the two packages and start moving forward, have a look here and feel free to followup through the contact link. You’ve got to have the 3 Rs: responsibility, resources, and resolve. If I can help, glad to hear it. If not, but there’s something else, let me know. But I really do want to help move this industry forward, and I’ll continue to try to find ways to make that happen. I invite you to join me!

Tackling the tough stuff

16 February 2017 by Clark Leave a Comment

I was reflecting a wee bit on my books (and writings in general), and realized that there’s somewhat of a gap when I talk about games, and mobile, and more. And it’s not unconscious, but instead principled, even if it arises somewhat implicitly. So I thought I’d talk briefly about why I tend to focus on the design, and not the practical implementations. Briefly, I think the places we fall short are not in executing, but in conceptualizing. And so I focus on tackling what I think is the tough stuff. I think we need to address the things that are more complex. My claim is that if we understand them, we have a better chance of achieving our goals and delivering the necessary outcomes.

I have stated before that I think we can implement most anything we can conceive, the problem is that our conceptions are limited. So, I talk about design based on knowing how we think, work, and learn. I think we need these foundations if we’re truly going to realign what we do to actually work. Frankly, I think we’re working under some misapprehensions (read: myths) that are limiting our ability to succeed.

When I talk about thinking, the myth is that it’s all in our head and logically principled. It turns out that, instead, our thinking is very biased by circumstance and pre-existing beliefs, and we avoid effortful work. We trust our instincts in far more circumstances than we should! Similarly, we distribute our thinking across the world: our tools and representations assist us, and yet we don’t focus enough effort on ensuing that those are effectively designed. There’s a real possibility for a valuable shift here.

My focus in working is to recognize that it’s not as individual as our business processes would assume. The ‘individual innovator’ myth is busted, and the empirical results are that we get better outputs when we work together. Certainly for innovation and creative work. Yet we isolate our work, assigning individual resources. Similarly, people work best when given meaningful goals, but instead we micromanage too often. Again, there are big opportunities to improve our outcomes by reviewing our approaches.

And on learning, I’ve railed time and again about what’s not working, and been joined by colleagues in opposition. We learn through designed action and guided reflection, not information dump and knowledge test. Yet that’s not what we see. And again I suggest only small changes are needed to have a substantial impact.

So, in my books, I don’t talk about so much about how to build a game, or the ways to implement mobile learning, or social learning tools. These will change. What you want to get your mind around is about our minds. Then you can design solutions that can be implemented in any number of ways. I may not be successful at communicating the solutions, but in general when I speak, run workshops, or yes write, people seem to convey that I’ve had some effect on helping them get a handle on these new approaches. In addition, figuring out how to apply them is why I’m here.

What I’ve been able to do, successfully across years and organizations, is help align processes, products, services, and more with how our brains work. And then work within the available resources to create solutions that reflect those insights in innovative and yet practical solutions. It takes time to develop the type of thinking I want organizations to adopt, but it’s doable, and I’ve worked with a number of organizations to do just that. Taking the time to address the tough stuff is a bit of an effort. I think it’s an investment in success. It’s doable, so the only real open question is whether you’re ready to make a shift in thinking, that leads to a shift in doing, that leads to a better impact for your organization. And only you can answer that.

Meta-Learning Tools?

14 February 2017 by Clark 6 Comments

I wrote an article for Jane Hart’s Modern Workplace Learning magazine, triggered by my thought that in her tools survey, I didn’t see a lot about a certain set of reflection (c.f. last weeks posts on diagramming) and experimentation tools: meta-learning tools. In particular, for the latter, I wondered about what there was to track your own learnings. And Jane commented to me that she knew of one, and I was reminded of more.

Now, I don’t know much about any of these, but she mentioned PebblePad, and I noted that I’ve talked with Degreed before, and saw that HT2 has a tool called Red Panda. And I think this could become an interesting area. Coupled with tools that support learning streams, personal learning could be boosted.

So tools like Axonify, Anders Pink, and EdCast all have varying models about making knowledge available and streaming bits and pieces over time. They’re pull as well, but for one definition of microlearning (that of streaming small bits over time to develop, e.g. slow learning), they could be a valuable part of personal development.

If we then track our learnings (and not just what’s through the tool, but other things we do such as attending events, interviewing people, etc), we can maintain ourselves on a path to efficacy. That is, if we’ve registered goals, and broken it up into steps, and track our progress (and reward ourselves), we have a higher likelihood of continuing our improvement.

What I haven’t seen, as yet, and think could be an important part of this, is layering on additional support for learning itself, meta-learning. For each type of learning activity, there could be support for doing that well, including setting and reviewing learning paths.

There’s more pressure for individuals to take responsibility for their own learning (as well as for enlightened organizations that want to support learning). So we need to be getting systematic about not only support for the content, but also for the process. This provides the opportunity is to accelerate the process. And our success.

Diagramming

9 February 2017 by Clark Leave a Comment

So yesterday I talked about the value of diagrams, but I thought I’d add a bit about the process of actually creating diagrams. Naturally, I created a diagram about it.

I created this diagram for a session I ran on diagramming a number of years ago. In that session I talked about our cognitive architecture, why we need models, how diagrams work, properties and design issues, and more. At the end, I proposed a potential process for it. It captures an ideal picture of how diagramming could work.

So, you need to know the elements of the model you want to relate, identify the relationships, and any dimensions that characterize differences between the elements. Then you have to choose how you’re going to represent them: shape, color, weight, font, and more.

With your elements, you can then place them, connect them, and add the visual coding. Then, of course, you tune.

This is an ideal process, but in reality it’s much more flexible, at least when I’m creating a model as a way of understanding. I typically iterate, creating placeholder elements, and moving them around until I think I have the right ones. Then I go about connecting them to make sure I have the relationships right. Then I work on adding dimensions, and colors, and aligning them, and grouping them, and… Except that I might add some elements, then group, or connect, then add more, and… it’s a very iterative process. It’s a creative process that involves lots of experimentation, revision, and more.

Sometimes, I even use a diagram and then realize it’s not working and revise it. So, for instance, I blogged about a representation of social process. I got some feedback that it wasn’t very clear. So, I made a second stab at it, and I think it worked better. Certainly, I continue to use it without complaints.

And I’m the first to admit that my diagrams may not look as good as the ones that professional graphic designers could create, but they’re good enough (and OmniGraffle does a good job of making it easy for me to make them up to a standard I think is at least acceptable and useful; it’s probably overkill but I’ve stuck with it for years now). And that’s the point. If they help you think better, it’s good enough. If it helps you communicate effectively with someone else, even better. Diagrams are cognitive tools, offloading conceptual complexity to graphic relationships and visual processing. And with the complex problems we increasingly face, I reckon the more tools the better.

Diagram!

8 February 2017 by Clark Leave a Comment

One of the things that I feel is a really useful tool in my ongoing learning, in my ‘making sense of the world’ is diagramming. I find diagrams to be a really powerful way to understand not just elements, but relationships. And yet it doesn’t feel like diagramming gets enough respect. So I want to make a case for the diagram.

Language is good. Our brains have evolved to use it. But it has trouble communicating complex relationships. For an example, once I wrote this:

They found that while subjects would rate the analogies, from best to worst, as literally similar, true analogy, mere appearance, and false analogy, their recall for stories, from best to worst, was literally similar, mere appearance, true analogy, and false analogy.

Try discerning the important difference! My PhD advisor kindly pointed out that actually parsing this was hard, and recommended a diagram instead. Here’s a rendition of what resulted:

In this case it’s much easier to see how the two differed. (If you want to find out what’s important in the diagram, I’m happy to talk about analogical reasoning for as long as you can stand it! ;)

The point I’m making is that there are times when diagrams are very useful for communicating. And, if you’ve followed this blog for a fair amount of time, you’ve seen I use diagrams a lot. I use them to think ‘out loud’, and I think it’s important. As Larkin & Simon argued in their Cognitive Science article, Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words, diagrams let us map conceptual relationships to spatial ones. And so if I want to understand the conceptual relationships, I start laying out spatially, and adjust until they make sense to me.

And my concern is that we aren’t using this powerful visual tool enough. Sketchnotes are really nice ways to capture presentations, and depending on the skill of the noter, they may communicate it all, or help recall if you’ve seen it. Similarly, my mindmaps of keynotes capture the flow of the discussion and the relationships (at least as I parsed it), but may only make sense if you heard the talk.

But representing things with diagrams is not only a personal thinking tool, it can be a powerful way to communicate concepts, and that’s an important component of a good learning experience design, providing a conceptual model to guide performance.

So I’m surprised we don’t talk about diagrams more. It may seem hard (certainly trying to create an infographic is harder than it seems, from my experience ;), but there’s some systematicity to it. There are principles, and types of diagrams, and more to explore. And tools that make it easier (though even Powerpoint or Keynote can be used to make diagrams). Diagrams aren’t the only visuals that help (c.f. graphs and tables), but they’re an important tool in your thinking toolbox. I encourage you, as part of your meta-learning toolkit, to play around and get your mind around diagrams. Your thinking, and your learning design, can be better as a consequence.

Reordering the Serious eLearning Manifesto

2 February 2017 by Clark 7 Comments

So, as you may know (and if you don’t, you should), almost three years ago now I teamed up with colleagues Michael Allen, Julie Dirksen, & Will Thalheimer (all worth knowing about) and put together the Serious eLearning Manifesto. And I believe it’s a good thing. But it needs an update.

So, we were (and are) frustrated with what was and is happening under the rubric of eLearning. Michael was intrigued by the concept of Serious Games, and wondered why we didn’t treat elearning seriously as well. (A rant I’ve made before ;). He came up with the idea of a manifesto, and we agreed to work with him on it. And we finalized a list of 8 ways in which typical elearning differed from what we call Serious eLearning, and 22 research concepts behind it (drawn from work across decades and around the world, we don’t claim to own it). And we put it out there for free (Michael graciously sponsored it through his company with no attribution).

We don’t claim that these are the only ways that good elearning differs from what’s typically seen, of course, we just feel that these are the eight most serious ones that, if followed, have the biggest impact on your learning outcomes. It wasn’t easy getting the four of us to agree, and we’ve received quite a few suggestions of how it could be expanded or improved, but we’re comfortable that this is a reasonable stance to take.

And it’s gotten a reasonable amount of attention. We had 30+ ‘trustees’ who put their names to it (and many more worthies would have), as well as sponsorship by the appropriate societies. We’ve been given opportunities to speak and present about it. And we’ve got an ever-growing list of signatories. People recognize that it’s right, even if it hasn’t gotten the traction we’d like (e.g. everyone making a concerted effort to shift to it since it’s release).

HOWEVER…

When I explain it to others, I realize that I have a trouble with the ordering. Most of it’s great, but one element somehow slipped out of position, in my mind. So I’ve made an attempt to remedy that, reordering the list. I’ve made this as similar to the original graphic as possible, except that I’m not using the right fonts. So sue me.

What’s different is that I’ve grouped Real-World Consequences with Authentic Contexts and Realistic Decisions. The consequences naturally follow from realistic decisions made in authentic contexts. Then we can talk about Spaced Practice and Individualized Challenges. The latter of which, by the way, is the only thing that is (mostly) specific to elearning, otherwise it’s applicable to learning in general. The rest is the same.

So this is the version that I’ll be using, going forward. I still hope you’ll visit the site, sign on, and work towards it. No one expects you to get all the way right away, but it is the right way to go. If you need help, I’m happy to assist.

Other writings

1 February 2017 by Clark Leave a Comment

It occurs to me to mention some of the other places you can find my writings besides here (and how they differ ;). My blog posts are pretty regular (my aim is 2/week), but tend to have ideas that are embryonic or a bit ‘evangelical’. First, I’ve written four books; you can check them out and get sample chapters at their respective sites:

Engaging Learning: Designing e-Learning Simulation Games

Designing mLearning: Tapping Into the Mobile Revolution for Organizational Performance

The Mobile Academy: mLearning For Higher Education

Revolutionize Learning & Development: Performance and Information Strategy for the Information Age

They’re designed to be the definitive word on the topic, at least at the moment.

I’ve also written or co-written a number of chapters in a variety of books. The books include The Really Useful eLearning Instruction Manual, Creating a Learning Culture, Michael Allen’s eLearning Annual 2009, and a bunch of academic handbooks (Mobile Learning, Experiential Learning, Wiley Learning Technology ;). These tend to be longer than an article, with a pretty thorough coverage of whatever topic is on tap.

Then there are articles in a variety of magazines. These tend to be aggregated thoughts that are longer than a blog post, but not as through as a chapter. In particular, they are things I think need to be heard (or read). So, my writing has shown up in:

eLearnMag

Learning Solutions

CLO

The topics vary. (For the eLearnMag ones, you’ll have to search for my name owing to their interface, and they tend to be more like editorials.)

And then there are blog posts for others that are a bit longer than my usual blog post, and close to an article in focus:

The Deeper eLearning series for Learnnovators

A monthly article for Litmos.

These, too, are more like articles in that they’re focused, and deeper than my usual blog post. For the latter I cover a lot of different topics, so you’re likely to find something relevant there in many different areas.

I’m proud of it all, but for a quick update on a topic, you might be best seeing if there’s a Litmos post on it first. That’s likely to be relatively short and focused if there is one. And, of course, if it’s a topic you’re interested in advancing in and I can help, do let me know.