Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Archives for March 2024

Misplaced organizational focus?

by 3 Comments

Conjunctions are interesting learning opportunities. When two things provide different facets, particularly on something you’ve been thinking about, it’s serendipitous. In this case, two widely different readings triggered some reflections asking whether perhaps we’ve a misplaced organizational focus.

So, I’ve been a bit concerned about the rabid interest in generative AI. Not that I think it’s inherently bad, despite its flaws. Instead, my concern is the uses it’s put to. If you think about the classic engineering proposition – cheap, fast, or good; pick 2 – you know you can apply AI to any of the areas. Always, however, it seems that the focus is on cheap and fast. Which concerns me. There’s substantial evidence that our L&D efforts aren’t having an impact. Thus, doing bad faster and cheaper is still bad!

Part of this, it seemed to me, to stem from a rabid focus on short-term returns. I read The Japan That Can Say No many moons ago, and became convinced that a purely financial focus isn’t in the long-term interests of organizations. Now, there’re reinforcement!

First, in Australian news was a report about how a famous economist was rethinking the role of economics. While I didn’t agree with all of it, one aspect that resonated was captured in these bits:

“…we have largely stopped thinking about ethics and about what constitutes human well-being. We are technocrats who focus on efficiency…We often equate well-being with money or consumption, missing much of what matters to people.”

The juxtaposition happened with this quote aggregated by Learnnovators and posted to LinkedIn:

” The early signals of what A.I. can do should compel us to think differently about ourselves as a species. …Those skills are ones we all possess and can improve, yet they have never been properly valued in our economy or prioritized in our education and training…”
– Aneesh Raman, VP, Workforce Expert at LinkedIn & Maria Flynn, President & CEO of Jobs for the Future (JFF)

The overlap, to me, has to do with the undervaluing of what humans bring to the economic table. Efficiency isn’t the only good. Pushing L&D to do ‘box ticking’ learning design faster and cheaper isn’t consonant with recognizing what gives our work meaning. Besides undervaluing what learning design could and should be, it’s disrespectful to the learners and the organization.

I think that what’s driving organizations should be how they contribute to society as a whole. The means to that end is creating an internal environment conducive to supporting people, individually and collectively, to contribute their best in ways that respect what we offer. There are things technology can do that, frankly, we as people shouldn’t. Similarly, there are things we can do that we shouldn’t abrogate. To paraphrase the meme, I don’t want people doing menial tasks leaving the creativity to machines.

A holistic synergy, each doing what they do best to augment the other, alone and together, is optimal. Our economics should support that as well, and to the extent our structures don’t, it may be time to rethink them. Otherwise, it’s a misplaced organizational focus. Thoughts?

Engineering solutions

by 1 Comment

Every once in a while, I wonder what I’m doing (ok, not so infrequently ;). And it’s easy to think it’s about applying what’s known about learning to the design of solutions. However, it’s more. It is about applying science results to designing improvements, but, it’s broader than learning, and not just individual. Here are some reflections on engineering solutions.

As I’ve probably regaled you with before, I was designing and programming educational computer games, and asking questions like “should we use spacebar and return, or number keys to navigate through menus?” (This was a long time ago.) I came across an article that argued for ‘cognitive engineering’, applying what we knew about how we think to the design of systems. Innately I understood that this also applied to the design of learning. I ended up studying with the author of the article, getting a grounding in what was, effectively, ‘applied cognitive science’.

Now, my focus on games has been on them as learning solutions, and that includes scenarios and simulation-driven experiences. But, when looking for solutions, I realize that learning isn’t always the answer. Many times, for instance, we are better off with ‘distributed‘ cognition. That is, putting the answer in the world instead of in our heads. This is broader than learning, and invokes cognitive science. Also, quite frankly, many problems are just based in bad interface designs!  Thus, we can’t stop at learning. We truly are more about performance than learning.

In a sense, we’re engineers; applying learning and cognitive science to the design of solutions, (just as chemical engineering is about applying chemistry). Interestingly, the term learning engineering has another definition. This one talks about using the benefits of engineering approaches, such as data, and technology-at-scale, to design solutions. For instance, making adaptive systems requires integrating content management, artificial intelligence, learning design, and more.

Historically, our initial efforts in technology-facilitated learning did take teams. The technology wasn’t advanced enough, and it took learning designers, software engineers, interface designers and more to generate solutions like Plato, intelligent tutoring systems, and the like.  I’ve argued that Web 1.0 took the integration of the tech, content design, and more, which usually was more than one person could handle. Now, we’ve created powerful tools that allow anyone to create content. Which may be a problem! The teams used to ensure quality. Hopefully, the shift back comes with a focus on process.

We can apply cognitive science to our own design processes. We’ve evolved many tools to support not making reliable mistakes: design processes, tools like checklists, etc. I’ll suggest that moving to tools that make it easy to produce content haven’t been scaffolded with support to do the right thing. (In fact, good design makes it hard to do bad things, but our authoring tools have been almost the opposite!)  There’s some hope that the additional complexity will focus us back on quality instead of being a tool for quantity. I’m not completely optimistic in the short term, but eventually we may find that tools that let us focus on knowledge aren’t the answer.

I’m thinking we will start looking at how we can use tools to help us do good design. You know the old engineering mantra: good, fast, and cheap, pick 2. Well, I am always on about ‘good’. How do we make that an ongoing factor? Can we put in constraints so it’s hard to do bad design? Hmm… An interesting premise that I’ve just now resurrected for myself. (One more reason to blog!) What’re your thoughts?

 

Why DEI?

by 1 Comment

At the event I attended a bit ago, one of the discussions was on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). I attended, to hear what was up. There were discussions of how to instigate DEI, but one thing I felt was missing, so of course I chimed in at the end. Actually, I learned something else as well, so that’s worth reciting to. So, why DEI?

There are, of course, lots of good reasons. For one, the privileges I’ve had haven’t been shared. Folks often come from less opportune backgrounds than others have had the advantage of. Moreover, such advantage hasn’t been accounted for before they get to work. Unfortunately, schools and social welfare haven’t adequately addressed this We have racism, and misogyny, and other forms of discrimination to deal with. ‘Us against them’ isn’t a healthy perspective. However, perhaps you wonder, why should organizations be a source of remedy?

My argument it pretty simple, really. Research says that we get better results when we have diversity in looking for solutions. There’s a pretty simple explanation why, too. What we’re doing, when looking for answers (research, design, trouble-shooting) is searching a potential solution space. It’s easy to not explore thoroughly. I’ve talked about brainstorming, for instance, as something we can do badly or well. That’s about process. But there’s more.

Garvin, Edmondson, & Gino wrote about learning organization dimensions, and one of the four aspects of a supportive learning environment was “appreciation of differences”. I want to emphasize it’s not ‘tolerating diversity’, it’s valuing it! In exploring that space of solutions, the more diversity in the group, the more likely we are to cover a big range. (There’re caveats, of course, particularly that all have to share a commitment to finding an answer.) Homogeneity is the enemy here!

Of course, this means equity in treatment, and inclusion. If you’re excluding people, you’re not taking advantage of diversity. If you’re not promoting equity, the injustices perpetuate. The only good way to get people to feel good about diversity if it is equitable and inclusive.

Interestingly, one of the hosts mentioned that there’s separate evidence of value. This was something I hadn’t heard. Apparently, having more diversity in the room makes people more diverse in their thinking. That is, even before getting people to generate ideas, people’s attitudes are more diverse because of the observed variety. I haven’t been able to confirm this, but I have no reason not to believe it, and it’s an interesting (and valuable) result.

Now, as said, there are lots of good reasons. But one that is very pragmatic is that you get better solutions when different viewpoints are incorporated. We should be looking at complementary and varied viewpoints. That involves bringing different people together that have something to offer, and just being different is one! Celebrate that!

So, that’s why DEI in my mind; done right, the outcome is better!  Overall, we fare better when we work in the ways that align with how our brains operate. That’s alone and together. Let’s do the best for us and our organizations.

Domain-independent coaching?

by Leave a Comment

At an event this past week, I sat in on a discussion of coaching. Asking folks what coaching was, there were lots of responses about ‘establishing rapport’, ‘asking questions’, etc. I admit I was a wee bit curious amongst all this, thinking about specifics. Which prompted some reflections. My question is about whether there can be domain-independent coaching.

To start, I was thinking about how to develop people just after a learning ‘event’ or experience. They’ve been developed to a certain level, and then we’d like to continue their development. To do so, I thought feedback would be useful, and specifically tying the learning to any relevant task, and providing feedback to fine-tune their performance. Specifically, this requires knowing the domain they’re learning about, observing their performance (in some way), and identifying ways in which they went right, or wrong. That, in my mind, requires specific knowledge about how the mental models play out in context. This, for example, is what we see in sports coaching.

As context, I remember talking to a very smart individual who runs a business that does coaching as a service, at scale. To do this, they have to have folks who know coaching, but pragmatically can’t necessarily know the domain. I was curious how this could work, but empirically it does. Coupled with the responses of folks around the table, I had to reconcile my specifics with a more general approach.  How can this work?

Of course, I started thinking about the trajectory of learners. They start as novices in any particular domain, then proceed to become practitioners, and can become experts. As they progress, they need less specifics. If you look at situated leadership as a model, you go from providing direction and support, to eventually removing the (domain-specific) direction, then the support, as they become capable. Thus, coaching can move to asking about how they’re feeling about it, and to apply their own knowledge to the situation. That is, you can start asking about the process and their thoughts rather than focusing on specifics.

Of course, to me, if you apply the domain-independent coaching at the wrong time, you can delay (or extinguish) their development. On the other hand, continuing with micromanaging performance can be similarly restricting. So, I reckon you can shift to domain-independent coaching, after you have developed a minimum viable level of capability.  That’s my reconciliation; what’re your thoughts?