Archives for October 2024

What L&D resources do we use?

29 October 2024 by Clark 1 Comment

This isn’t a rhetorical question. I truly do want to hear your thoughts on the necessary resources needed to successfully execute our L&D responsibilities. Note that by resources in this particular case, I’m not talking: courses, e.g. skill development, nor community. I’m specifically asking about the information resources, such as overviews, and in particular tools, we use to do our job. So I’m asking: what L&D resources do we need?

I’m not going to ask this cold, of course. I’ve thought about it a bit myself, creating an initial framework (click on the image to see it larger). Ironically, considering my stance, it’s based around ADDIE. That’s because I believe the elements are right, just that it’s not a good basis for a design process. However, I do think we may need different tools for the stages of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation, even if don’t invoke them in a waterfall process. I also have categories for overarching strategy, and for specific learning topics. These are spaces in which resources can reside.

There are also several different types of resources I’ve created categories for. One is an overview of the particular spaces I indicate above. Another are for information resources, that drill into a particular approach or more. These can be in any format: text or video typically. Because I’m weird for diagrams, I have them separately, but they’d likely be a type of info resource. Importantly, one is tools. Here I’m thinking performance support tools we use: templates, checklists, decision trees, lookup tables. These are the things I’m a bit focused on.

Of course, this is for evidence-based practices. There are plenty of extant frameworks that are convenient, and cited, but not well-grounded. I am looking for those tools you use to accomplish meaningful solutions to real problems that you trust. I’m looking for the ones you use. The ones that provide support for excellent execution. In addition to the things listed above, how about processes? Frameworks? Models? What enables you to be successful?

Obviously, but importantly, this isn”t done! That is, I put my first best thoughts out there, but I know that there’s much more. More will come to me (already has, I’ve already revised the diagram a couple of times), but I’m hoping more will come from you too. That includes the types of resources, spaces, as well as particular instances.

The goal is to think about the resources we have and use. I welcome you putting in, via comments on the blog or wherever you see this post, and let me know which ones you find to be essential to successful execution. I’d really like to know what L&D resources do we use. Please take a minute or two and weigh in with your top and essential tools. Thanks!

A busy few weeks

22 October 2024 by Clark 1 Comment

Things always seem to come in fits and spurts. It may be relatively quiet (that is, lots to do but can schedule as suits) and then boom. What’s coming up are a busy a few weeks, and I thought I’d share. Because, of course, some may be relevant to you.

Next week isn’t. Relevant to you, that is. I’ll be off for a couple of days guiding a client strategy. I was just supposed to do a keynote, but…when I heard it was a strategy session I offered to help facilitate it. That said, I do think we’ve created a good plan. Fingers crossed.

The week after that is DevLearn, arguably my favorite F2F L&D conference. I’ll be speaking at 3PM on Thursday, 7 November on achieving impact with your interventions. Then I’ll be signing books at 9:30 AM on Friday the 8th near the conference bookstore. I’m coming in for the full thing, arriving Tuesday and leaving Saturday, but it won’t be my usual visit. I’ll be around, saying hi to old friends and meeting new, of course. I’ll also be introducing a colleague new to L&D around.

Then, and this is exciting, I’ll be spending the subsequent week (11-15 November) either participating in or presenting in sessions for our Learning Science conference. I’m doing a couple (informal/social learning, and making learning ‘stick’) of our curated sessions on my own. Then I’m doing one on myths with my LDA co-director, Matt Richter. The rest of the conference, as mentioned is great folks and important topics. Content’s up front, and no conflicting sessions when we discuss the topics live.

I’ll have a week after that to recover, and then of course Thanksgiving week. I hope to see you live around LV, or online the subsequent week. I’ll try to keep posting here once a week, but things may be a wee bit more random what with a busy few weeks until mid-November. By December, somewhat back to normal except of course the holidays. In the meantime, as I say to my family: be good, stay safe, and have fun!

Learning Science Conference 2024

15 October 2024 by Clark Leave a Comment

I believe, quite strongly, that the most important foundation anyone in L&D can have is understanding how learning really works. If you’re going to intervene to improve people’s ability to perform, you ought to know how learning actually happens! Which is why we’ve created the Learning Science Conference 2024.

We have some of the most respected translators of learning science research to practice. Presenters are Ruth Clark, Paul Kirschner, Will Thalheimer, Patti Shank, Nidhi Sachdeva, as well as Matt Richter and myself. They’ll be providing a curated curriculum of sessions. These are admittedly some of our advisors to the Learning Development Accelerator, but that’s because they’ve reliably demonstrated the ability to do the research, and then to communicate the results of theirs and others’ work in terms of the implications for practice. They know what’s right and real, and make that clear.

The conference is a hybrid model; we present the necessary concepts asynchronously, starting later this month. Then from 11- 15 November, we’ll have live online sessions led by the presenters. These are at two different times to accommodate as much of the globe as we can! In these live sessions we’ll discuss the implications and workshop issues raised by attendees. We will record the sessions in case you can’t make it. I’ll note, however, that participating is a chance to get your particular questions answered! Of course, we’ll have discussion forums too.

We’ve worked hard to make this the most valuable grounding you can get, as we’ve deliberately chosen the topics that we think everyone needs to comprehend. I suggest there’s something there for everyone, regardless of level. We’re covering the research and implications around the foundations of learning, practices for design and evaluation, issues of emotion and motivation, barriers and myths, even informal and social learning. It’s the content you need to do right by your stakeholders.

Our intent is that you’ll leave equipped to be the evidence-based L&D practitioner our industry needs. I hope you’ll take advantage of this opportunity, and hope to see you at the Learning Science Conference 2024.

Simple Models and Complex Problems

8 October 2024 by Clark Leave a Comment

I’m a fan of models. Good models that are causal or explanatory can provide guidance for making the right decisions. However, there are some approaches that are, I suggest, less than helpful. What makes a good or bad model? My problem is about distinguishing when to talk about each: simple models and complex problems.

A colleague of ours sent me an issue of a newsletter (it included the phrase ‘make it meaningful‘ ;). In it, the author was touting a four letter acronym-based model. And, to be fair, there was nothing wrong with what the model stipulated. Chunking, maintaining attention, elaboration, and emotion are all good things. What bothered me was that these elements weren’t sufficient! They covered important elements, but only some. If you just took this model’s advice, you’d have somewhat more memorable learning, but you’d fall short on the real potential impact. For instance, there wasn’t anything there about the importance of contextualized practice nor feedback. Nor models, for that matter!

I’m not allergic to n letter acronym models. For instance, I keep the coaster I was given for Michael Allen’s CCAF on my desk. (It’s a nice memento.) His Context-Challenge-Activity-Feedback model is pretty comprehensive for the elements that a practice has to have (not surprisingly). However, learning experiences need more than just practice, they need introductions, and models, and examples and closings as well as practice. And while the aforementioned elements are necessary, they’re not sufficient. Heck, Gagné talked about nine elements.

What I realize as I reflect is that I like models that have the appropriate amount of complexity for the level of description they’re talking about. Yet I’ve seen far too many models that are cute (some actually spell words) and include some important ideas but they’re not comprehensive for what they cover. The problem, of course, is that you need to understand enough to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. I’ll suggest to look to vetted models, that are supported by folks who know, and there are criticisms and accolades to accompany them. Read the criticisms, and see if they’re valid. Otherwise, the model may be useful.

Ok, one other thing bothered me. This model supposedly has support from neuroscience. However, as I’ve expressed before, there have yet to be results that aren’t already made from cognitive science research. This, to me, is just marketing, with no real reason to include it except to try to make it more trendy and appealing. A warning sign, to me at least.

Look, designing for learners is complex. Good models help us handle this complexity well. Bad ones, however, can mislead us into only paying attention to particular bits and create insufficient solutions. When you’re looking at simple models and complex problems, you need to keep an eye out for help, but maybe it needs to be a jaundiced eye.

Short term thinking versus long term benefits

1 October 2024 by Clark Leave a Comment

I was thinking about a particular issue, and I realized it’s symptomatic of a bigger problem. The issue is that too often I see folks indulging in short term thinking versus long term benefits. I understand, but I think it’s problematic, regardless. Of course, making a change is also liable to be a struggle. Still, it’s worth talking about.

The problem is that organizations have a structure that is largely to meet short-term needs. For instance, there are pressures to return short-term shareholder benefits, at least in publicly traded companies. Even private organizations are liable to want to reward the founder. There are few enough examples of folks that are taking a bigger perspective.

And, to be clear, I’m not denying the need for efficiencies. That’s a given. The issue instead, to me, is one of whether those efficiencies generate short-term returns, or instead will yield long-term benefits.

For example, when the pandemic hit, lots of orgs were struggling to find ways to continue operations when suddenly everyone had to stay remote. I argued that if you’re going through a digital transformation, you should start with an organizational transformation. My reasoning was that digitizing an old way of doing things was only going to be a short-term fix. What I saw was that this big upheaval was an opportunity for redesign. Not surprisingly, this wasn’t an effective pitch. People needed to fix things now! Yet, the orgs that survived the pandemic best were the ones that had a good culture to survive the enforced digital operation.

Similarly, I see many orgs focusing on ‘leadership development. That’s not a bad thing, mind you. Well, if you get past the Leadership BS (thought I’d written about this, but I can’t find it ;). Yet, most of what we see is expensive and highly interactive. Which sounds great, but it doesn’t scale. Our colleague JD Dillon is starting a book for frontline workers, which I laud. Yet there’s an intermediate level we’re guilty of neglecting. Again, a short term perspective.

Managers, data says, are the biggest reason people leave. Als0, most managers are promoted from the front line, and yet pretty much all of them are novices when it comes to management. Yet, our management training is idiosyncratic. More, our colleague Will Thalheimer recently suggested in an LDA event, that little in leadership development covers how to facilitate learning for your folks. Yet, hat’s one of the best things to help employees think their managers actually care for them (c.f. Self-Determination Theory). Moreover, there are so many managers that can benefit from training (and increasingly, leadership is viewed as something that needs to be present throughout the organization).

There are problems trying to deliver manager training at scale. We see demand, but it’s hard to deliver, particularly cost-effectively. Technology is part of the solution, but to make it work takes (wait for it) a long term perspective. These are only two examples, from the area of learning and development that I largely work and play in. I’d argue that, for instance, the shift to a learning organization would be one of the best investments you could make. Well, for the long term ;). That’s the type of transformation that would be greatly augmented by a subsequent digital enablement. But without that initial refocus, the digitization will continue to support hierarchy, lack of transparency, and other factors that interfere with ongoing innovation and success.

I’d welcome hearing that most organizations are working on both the short- and long-term, but I’m skeptical. And more than willing to be wrong! I’ll merely reiterate the point the late Jay Cross would make; investing in your people’s ability to learn is probably the best one you can make. In the tradeoff of short term thinking versus long term benefits, it seems obvious to me that playing the long game is the right way. That, at least, makes sense to me. What am I missing?