Archives for May 2020

Where are we going most wrong…

26 May 2020 by Clark 4 Comments

…and what’s most important to fix? I was a co-conspirator on the Serious eLearning Manifesto, and we identified 8 values that separated typical elearning from serious elearning. However, I suspect that not all are as important, nor hard to fix. And, thinking about what my unique contribution could and should be, I wondered where best to target my efforts to avoid going most wrong. I have some thoughts, but…

First, I’d like to ask you two questions:

What are the best inflection points to improve learning?
Which would you most want to have help in addressing?

Note that they might be two completely different things.

Now, it could be a number of things. Any one of the eight could be problematic. And it might be another that’s where you most would like help.

Is it getting the right objectives in the first place? We might fail to do the proper performance consulting. Thus, we’d be developing learning solutions that aren’t going to meet the need.

Another possibility is that we’re not providing the right support. We’re not providing useful models and examples instead of a content dump with what’s to hand.

We might not be helping learners understand why they should care. Are we missing out on developing motivation? Making it meaningful?

Another problem might be giving them abstract concepts instead of concrete practice. Are we asking them to do things in situations they recognize?

Also, we could be asking for them to recite knowledge back to us instead of applying it. Are we asking them to make decisions like we need them to make after the learning experience?

And we might be giving them simple feedback like “right” and “wrong” instead of providing them first with the consequences of their actions. And, we could be ensuring that the alternatives represent some real ways people go wrong, and providing feedback that addresses those specific misconceptions.

There’s also the possibility (probability?) that we’re not spacing out the learning. We could still be using the ‘event’ model, not reactivating the knowledge as appropriate.

And, of course, we might not be individualizing the challenges. We could be adapting to demonstrated learner capability. Are we?

Not only might one or more of these be the biggest contributor to a lack of learning impact, but some might be more challenging than others to address. And, of course, which ones should I be focusing on? I do address all in a variety of ways (c.f. the learning science 101 session I’ll be doing for the Learning Development Conference), but I’m thinking of focusing in.

And I have an idea where we may be going most wrong. But first, I’d like to hear your ideas. I’ll weigh in next week. And, of course, I could be wrong. So let me know!

NOT Learning Engineering

19 May 2020 by Clark 2 Comments

I recently wrote about two different interpretations of the term ‘learning engineering’. So when I saw another article on the topic, I was keen to read it. Except, after reading it, I thought what it was talking about was not learning engineering, or, at least, not all of it. So what do I mean?

I think this article goes wrong right from the title: Learning Engineering Is Learning About Learning. We Need That Now More Than Ever. And I’m a big fan of learning about learning! Though, typically, learning about learning (or as I like to call it, meta-learning) is for learners to learn about learning to be more effective. But I certainly believe instructors/instructional designers need to learn about learning. But is that what learning engineering is?

The article actually makes a great point: most instructors don’t, and should, be reviewing their teaching and improving systematically. Absolutely! That’s an important point. It’s part of prototyping, development, and testing. It’s part of learning engineering, for that matter, in either interpretation. However, two flaws. One, it’s not all of learning engineering, and it’s not just ‘learning’ about learning, it’s about doing. As in, learning about it and then applying that learning.

The article goes further, citing the importance of using models and data. Interestingly, the claim is that using the data isn’t the hard part, but using models is. And, again, I’m a big fan of models and evidence. And I talked much about how we need to provide models for learners as well as use models to guide our design. That is, experimentation is driven by theory and theory fills in gaps. So I’m all for it.

It’s just that this article claims that systematically reviewing what you’re doing and improving is the sum total of learning engineering. Learning engineering is applying learning science to the design of learning experiences, but it’s the design as well as the review. It is iterative, but it’s broader than just the course too. It’s about the technology, infrastructure, culture, and more. In either interpretation of learning engineering, it’s more than just being a reflective practitioner.

So, while I agree with the sentiment and specifics of the paper, I don’t agree with their construal of the term. Reviewing and refining is great, but it’s not learning engineering, or at least not all of it. I think we’re not yet done with the term, but I hope we can be clearer about what’s at stake. And, yes, I’m a bit pedantic on it, but there’re reasons for clarity. We do need more professionalism, but that’s easier when we’re conceptually clear.

Experimenting with conference design

13 May 2020 by Clark 2 Comments

As part of coping in this time of upheaval, I’m trying different things. Which isn’t new, but there seem to be more innovations to tap into. In addition to teaching a course on mobile learning, I’m one of the speakers at a new online event. And, what’s nice, is that they’re experimenting with conference design, not just moving straight online.

To be fair, the Learning Guild has had a continual practice of trying different things at their conferences, and it’s been good. And, so too, was the most recent TK by ATD. But this is different. Two of my colleagues organized it as a response to our ‘new normal’, Will Thalheimer and Matt Richter. And their stated goal is changing the way we conference.

The key, of course, is to leverage what’s different, and possible, online. It’s running from June 22 – July 31. That’s not a typo, it’s all of July and the tail end of June. That’s a long time! They’ve recruited a suite of experts from around the world (they’re really trying to do this across boundaries include time and geography). And, to let you know, I’m one (so take my comments with the appropriate caveats ;).

They’re also tossing out traditional ideas and open to new ones. Speakers are expected to build an experience that’s spread out over the time. Yet also designed so that you can come in late, or early, and drill into what you want when you want. They’re also planing on having synchronous events – debates, panels, socializing – again using technology.

Note that it’s not free. There are some free conferences being put on, mostly webinars. And those are good. This is different. It’s deeper. It’s a stab at looking afresh. And I’m not sure it could even have come from any existing framework.

And, we won’t know if it all will work. We’re designing this in the time between now and launch. There’re bound to be hiccups. Which, of course, means there’re bound to be learnings. I know I want to talk about Learning Science 101. And something else. Lots I could (I welcome suggestions). I’m inclined to think it might be Emotion and Learning. But it could also be LXD. (There are all linked, of course.)

But it’s a high quality group (er, mostly…they did let me in). AND, importantly, it’s focused on evidence-based content. There may be sponsors, or even an exhibit hall, but every presenter is honor-bound not to push anything that’s not legit. Most importantly, there’s enough quality that overall it’s bound to be worth it.

I’m excited, frankly. I have to come up with some different ideas. And I like that. I’m glad that they’re experimenting with conference design. We all win, regardless! It’s part of learning, challenging yourself. So, do yourself a favor. Check it out. It may not be for you, but keep an open mind!

Will we still need L&D?

12 May 2020 by Clark Leave a Comment

In a document shared with me recently, there was this statement: “The assumption that there will always be a managed learning function”. I find that interesting to contemplate. If we ever get better about developing self-learning skills in school or university (ideally the former), could we eliminate the need for organizational courses? E.g. will we still need L&D?

The notion is that once folks are better at self-learning, the reason for organized courses could fade. If schools start developing learn-to-learn skills, wouldn’t everyone be able to take responsibility for their own learning? Alternatively, could the role of L&D ramp down?

David Geary has been identified as a proponent of a distinction between evolutionarily different levels of learning. The idea as I comprehend it is that we’ve evolved to learn certain types of things. The flip side is those don’t include man-made constructs like mathematics, economics, and such. Thus, our learning to learn first has to develop abilities in these new domains. But that could happen.

And then there’s the notion of bootstrapping in a new domain. We start as novices in new domains, and those may be some organizational proprietary material. The domain’s likely built upon some predecessor concepts that may be familiar, but can a motivated and self-effective learner get this in a reasonable amount of time, or will they benefit from a learning experience?

If, of course, we extend L&D to support informal learning (and I suggest we should), there’s another opportunity. Until schools also develop effective communication and collaboration skills, L&D would be useful. There’s the further issue of creating a learning culture, too, where people share and cooperate. The predisposition could and should again be developed in schools, but until then…

And one final opportunity is facilitating communities of practice to become responsible for development paths, resource curation and creation, and documenting and developing ongoing domain expertise. There’s the facilitation role here for L&D until that time, but it could become part and parcel of community practice.

So, conceivably, there’s a future without L&D. That is, individuals, teams, and communities are effective self-learners. That day, I fear, is a long way off. Moving in that direction isn’t a bad move for L&D, because worries about performing oneself out of existence are premature. Schools haven’t been effective in uptake of learning science, and pressures have reduced the curricula to a limited (and misguided) core. Until then, asking “will we still need L&D” is a far-fetched question.

So I think the demise of L&D is up to L&D. What I mean is that L&D can be just about (ineffective) courses, or it can move into a more valuable position to the organization. And, if we’re clever, we’ll have found our own continuing value proposition to the org before the demise of our existing role.

Ultimately, I believe that a unit in the organization responsible for maintaining alignment with how we think, work, and learn will always have a role. We just have to put ourselves in that position. Viva la revolution!

Points of inflection

5 May 2020 by Clark Leave a Comment

In a conversation the other day, I was asked about what’s needed, and what’s missing, in making the L&D revolution come to life. I’ve previously opined about the changes I think are necessary, but I realized that for folks making the change, there are hurdles. It occurred to me that there are some points of inflection that could make a difference.

As I had previously suggested, it’s idiosyncratic. I haven’t seen a systematic move towards a more enlightened L&D. You see one inspired individual either hired in, or promoted to have the opportunity. And it can be in any industry, anywhere. It’s one person who gets it. Sadly; as I fervently believe that we should be moving beyond ‘the course’ with some alacrity.

And, I do still believe that there are two necessary and linked steps. The first is for the L&D unit to practice what it preaches. It has to be optimal in operation and continually innovating. And evidence suggests that it’s not doing the former nor the latter. The other is to start measuring impact, not efficiency. Measurement should make clear that the approach isn’t effective, and drive the move.

But it occurs to me that the inspiration isn’t enough. For that inspired individual to succeed, they need support. That, of course, was what the book was about, but that’s not enough. Why? Because it’s complex, and it’s a lot to process and manage. Back to my old mantra: “the human brain is arguably the most complex thing in the known universe”! If that’s the case, thinking that simplistic steps will yield sustained change are potentially naive.

There are several points of inflection. Getting started with a strategic plan is one (how to move from here to there). Another is getting the buy-in of your team (“You want us to do what?”). Working successfully with your first biz partner. Getting buy-in (or forgiveness) from above.

When I look at learning design, innovation facilitation, and culture change I see a complex picture. And, I think it changes for each organization depending on their context in so many factors. So I’m inclined to worry that balancing all that and sequencing the right next steps while managing ‘up’ about the intent and process, while also transitioning to working out loud…you get the picture. Aligning with how we think, work, and learn is a process with many factors.

That’s why, I admit, I had hoped that folks who bought into the book’s story would also buy into getting some support. I’ve done some, but not as much as I expected. Idiosyncratically. Ok, so I didn’t set up some big think tank with high-powered marketing and a big sales pitch. That’s not my style (I undersell myself; it’s how I was raised ;). And, I do of course note that the rallying cry may still be ahead of its time.

Look, the revolution is still needed, and don’t assume it’s simple. If you’ve bought in, get help, wherever/however. I did point to some resources for moving to remote working, I reckon they’re also helpful here. And, of course, I’m still available to help as I’ve worked with others, whether providing workshops to help your team get on board, coaching you individually, or helping to do an environmental scan and strategic planning. But I hope you are moving in this direction regardless, and just be mindful of the points of inflection.