Quinnovating

The full story?

7 October 2025 by Clark Leave a Comment

As I continue exploring learning, I’m beginning to realize that the picture’s incomplete. Which shouldn’t be a surprise, but it’s a bit of a concern. Of course, I don’t have the answers, but if I point out some of the elements, maybe we’ll identify the gaps. And, I’m sure, there are likely initiatives and results I’m unaware of, and hopefully folks will help fill in the full story.

So, our endeavor is to start with people, with whatever experience and abilities they bring to the table. Then, ultimately (after our ministrations) have them capable of dealing with the situations we’ve identified are important. That includes what needs to be in long-term memory, and having responses aligned to triggers that activate the appropriate actions. Along the way, we have the analysis, the learning science, the coaching, and …?

I talked earlier about how most of our focus has been on getting folks up to some level of initial speed. But we do want folks to ultimately acquire the full range. And, I think, we too often abandon our efforts before getting the full way.

That makes sense for organizational learning, where we have to balance the costs with the value. When lives are on the line (aviation, medicine, military), we probably need to go a very long way. When it’s just inventory, we may allow some checks along the way to catch mistakes, and hope that people will eventually internalize the elements. (There are practices we spend on that are entirely worthless, of course.) For education, when we have kids in schools for years, it is clear that our pedagogy, driven by a wrong curriculum and values, falls far short of actually applying knowledge. But that’s another rant ;).

And we have pretty good guidance for many elements. We know about retrieval practice, with spacing, deliberate choices of next steps, desirable difficulty. We also know about generative activities. I’m not sure we’ve reconciled, however, how much of each. We also have cognitive load theory, which guides us in many ways, but doesn’t necessarily talk about acquisition versus application. The power law of learning suggests that we go from conscious to unconscious, but it assumes doing the right practice. The list goes on: multimedia learning, four component ID, cognitive apprenticeship, …; we have lots of pieces.

And yet, that’s still getting people up to a certain beginning level. How do we go beyond? The aforementioned is all about formal learning, and not about moving on. So we kind of have a hiccup between learning and coaching. How do they segue? We also have the issue of assessment. I have suggested that maybe we need to consider our commitment to apply as well as our ability. And that’s still before actually starting, yet we’re not done then.

Folks are talking about dispositions, I note, but when I look at it, it’s about the broader picture of persistence, etc, not specific to the particular outcome. Happy to be wrong here. But we really want to understand what we do initially, for instruction, for reactivation and continuation, to the final picture. My intuition is that there’s a more systematic structure that we’re not applying.

I don’t have an answer. Certainly not yet! I just think it’s time that we start thinking about it. Well, I guess that’s an open question: do we need an overarching approach? If so, what do we have. Can we extend something like Cognitive Apprenticeship to coaching on the job, and link to community to continue and ultimately own the final development? I welcome feedback!

Creativity and rigor

30 September 2025 by Clark Leave a Comment

As I’m wont to do, I was thinking in the middle of the night. About creativity, in this case. Specifically, that I have repeatedly demonstrated the ability to integrate creativity and learning science. And, I tend to forget about it. (Which means you may, too!) Of course, I push the rigor of the cognitive and learning sciences, and advocate for the integration of emotion. However, it’s been decades since I’ve really emphasized my portfolio of work on games and engagement. Maybe since my first book on engagement? So, maybe it’s time to talk about creativity and rigor.

To be clear, I believe it’s important to get both learning and engagement right. Sure, pure computer games are fun (heck, I play them!). And, many have stories that are actually relevant, too. But serious games, ones that actually achieve an outcome, require integrating learning science with engagement. Which isn’t necessarily easy! But, it’s something I’ve reliably done, and I don’t want to forget it!

So, fresh out of college, my first real job was designing and programming educational computer games. (This was for Jim Schuyler at DesignWare.) I created Micro Discovery, a set of games based upon the Computer Discovery series but with my own little set. I then went on to FaceMaker for Spinnaker, before coding Spellicopter and Creature Creator for ourselves. (All before I headed off to grad school.) They weren’t great, as we only had 48K and were targeting the home market, but they were notable. Both FaceMaker and Creature Creator had graphic designers who assisted my lack of visual design capability!

From my graduate work on analogical reasoning, during my post-doc I built a game that required using the stories to solve problems, with a coherent theme. I even published a paper about Voodoo Adventure! This was all on my own, and the graphics weren’t great, but they were ‘good enough’. Hey, two kids at an open house played it all the way through and won (many others tried it out and gave up, to be fair).

At my first teaching position post-grad, I was asked to build a game that helps kids survive on the streets. Quest achieved many things: it achieved the goal of engaging the audience and driving them to important conversations with their counselors; it made it onto the local science program; it sparked a journal article that’s led to my subsequent books, Engaging Learning and then Make It Meaningful; and it’s still arguably the most rewarding professional thing I’ve ever done. It was assisted first by a talented student in programming, and then by graphic talents who addressed the look and feel.

I went on to build first a linear scenario and then a full game on project management (for non-project managers) for a major government organization. This was in conjunction with a team of graphic artists and a software engineer (a bit of that story is also here). I also led design of scenarios for psychiatric nursing. Then I went on and designed a demo game to go with textbooks.

Ok, so I also designed a course that used comics to start off each section, ran a web competition for school kids, did a compelling demo of how to do a good course on the cheap with Learnovators, created mobile games for a NASA test, and…have designed workshops on game design and more. I’m sure there’s more, but that’s off the top of my head. I have regularly combined creativity and rigor, it’s just hard to remember sometimes. And, if you can think of a useful way for me to continue, I welcome hearing!

Is assessment of capability enough?

23 September 2025 by Clark Leave a Comment

In a conversation with a colleague (a few weeks ago as I write this), I had a thought. She’s contemplating an evaluation book, and I was talking about evaluating competencies. It occurred to me that there may be more than just the ability needed. Which leads me to ask, is assessment of capability enough?

So, we should be looking at competencies. Ideally, we’re stepping away from norm-referenced assessment, that is comparing to others. We should have an absolute criteria which says that they now can do this. For instance, Mager-style objectives: what they need to be able to do, in what context, and to what level of capability. This is part of the shift away from roles, since orgs break up tasks differently. That is, some orgs have folks who do analysis separate from those who do design, and those who develop. Others have people do the whole thing go to whoa.

However, is competency enough? That was the question that occurred to me. I was thinking that maybe the only thing that really mattered was that they felt confident enough to give it a go after the learning experience. That is, folks have to feel like they are ready to give it a go.

I realized, thinking more about it, that it’s not just confident. Taking Dunning-Kruger into account, we don’t want folks who are confident but aren’t really ready. That’s not a recipe for success! So…I am thinking that it’s willing and able! So, you probably need to indicate readiness to give it a go as well as the competence. So how do we assess that? We can ask, but folks might say they’re ready, but they’re not. I’m wondering if them actually having a plan for how and when they’ll apply makes sense. As a complement to a skill demonstration as well.

I’m not fully convinced, but I do believe that just competence isn’t enough. Folks may know how to do something, but they may not intend to do it. There are lots of reasons why folks don’t actually do what they’ve learned! Of course, the best test is if they are doing it sometime later. E.g. they’ve learned, did, and persisted. But we may want a gateway test first, and I think it’s more than just competence. At any rate, that’s my answer to the question of whether assessment of capability is enough. What’s yours?

After writing this, and before it’s published, I came across IBSTPI’s Competency-Based Education webinar slides, and realized that they’re talking about dispositions in this role. Interesting…though really the proof is what happens when they can apply it, not what they say beforehand. However, if we track that, we might start getting criteria about what other clues we need.

Transforming from knowledge to performance

16 September 2025 by Clark Leave a Comment

As I’ve mentioned, I’m working with a startup looking at extending training through small LIFTs. The problem is that most training is ‘event’ based, where learning is in a concentrated time. Which is fine for performing right after. However, much of what we train for are things that may or may not happen soon. What we want is to go from the knowledge after the event to actually performing in new ways after the event, possibly a long time. We need retention from the learning to the situation, and transfer to all appropriate (and no inappropriate) situations. Thus, we need to think differently. And, as I suggested, we’re looking at supporting people not just with formal learning, but beyond, to developing their ability over time. We really want to be transforming from knowledge to performance. So, what’s that look like?

As usual, when I’m supposed to be sleeping is one of the times I end up noodling things over. And, so it was some nights ago. I was thinking about (as I’m wont to do) the cognitive roles that we need. I talk about practice, and models, and examples, and more recently, generative activities. But that’s formal learning, and we have a good evidence base for that. But what about going forward? What sorts of activities make sense?

Here I’m going out of my comfort zone. Yes, I’ve been doing some reading about coaching, particularly domain-independent vs domain-specific coaching. Now, here I don’t necessarily know what the research says specifically, but I do see the convergence of a variety of different models. So, I can make inferences. And post them here to get corrected!

As you might expect, I made a diagram to help me understand. So, I reckon there’s an early, mid, and late stage of development of capability. Formal learning should really be about getting you ready to apply.

That is the early phase which includes reflection (really, a generative activity), which can be personal (ala scripts) or conceptual (schemas). Also, reactivation. That is, seeing different ways of looking at it (new models), more examples in context, and of course more practice. (Retrieval practice, of course, where you’re applying the knowledge.)

Then, in mid-phase, your learners are applying, but to real situations, not simulations. Their initial plan on how to apply the knowledge might be part of the end of the early stage, but then it’s time to apply. Which could (should?) lead to revisions of the plan, and on reflecting on any barriers. Those barriers could be internal (their own understanding or hangups), or external (lack of resources, situations, tools, etc). The former are grounds for discussion, the latter for action on the part of the org!

Then, at the late stage, learners should be looking at the impact. They can reflect on the impact on them, which could also be a mid-phase action, but ultimately you want to see if they’re having an impact overall. Then, of course, you could want to survey about the learning experience itself. While it’s all data, the org impact is useful data to evaluate what’s going on and how it’s going, and the survey can help you continue to improve either this or your next initiative.

Those’re my initial thoughts on transforming from knowledge to performance. There’s some overlap, no doubt, e.g. you could continue sending reapplications if there aren’t frequent opportunities in the real world. Likewise, your learners should be assessing impact in the need to revise a plan. Still, this seems to make sense in the first instance, at least to me. (Addressing the ‘when’, how much and what spacing, is what I’ll be talking about at DevLearn. ;) Now, it’s over to you. What have I got wrong, am missing, …?

Learning science on tap

11 September 2025 by Clark Leave a Comment

In the interest of the continuation of Quinnovation, Learnlets, and me, this is a solicitation post. If it’s not for you, kindly ignore. However, it may be for your boss; if so, please pass it on!

Do you run an L&D department, or make L&D decisions, and don’t have sufficient learning science background? You know, you get asked to make decisions that involve learning – responding to vendors, stakeholders asking “why”, etc – and you’re not sure how to respond. That’s not uncommon! While you know how to select technologies, design solutions, create strategies, etc in other areas, you don’t necessarily know how to do that with an enlightened view of how we think, work, and learn. L&D is unique because it deals with learning – skills, social, informal, and more. And your school experience is not a good guide. How do you cope? Learning science on tap!

Let me offer this solution, specifically Clark Quinn, Ph.D., on tap. There are reasons why: I’ve been recognized for my depth of knowledge and breadth of experience in translating learning science into practical terms. That includes writing books, keynoting, awards, and, of course, consulting. I’ve applied that background for literally decades in the design of solutions: games, mobile, strategy, processes, policies, and more. So, that’s available. For instance, you could send me something that needs a learning science perspective – an RFP, a memo, an organizational initiative, and I’ll break it down from a learning science perspective, and provide you with same. Or we can talk on a call. What’s more, as I’m wont to do, I’ll provide the underlying thinking. That is, you learn as you go, too! (Just how I roll.)

Of course, you don’t have to take my advice. You’ll have it, and can factor it into your thinking. And, I can adapt my thinking to specific constraints. I am known to come up with better ideas than had been proposed initially. But it’s up to you. I’ll give you my feedback, and you can do with it as you will. This service is for those that can’t come up with that advice on their own, and it’s an important perspective. What I’ll suggest as recommendations will be grounded in evidence-based approaches. I’ll research anything I need to know and don’t (no extra charge), so I learn too. But I have been involved in thinking at most levels and areas of an organization, in a multitude of roles.

I won’t be an employee (nor want to become one). And, I’m not generating new things (that’s a different engagement, we can talk about it), but I’ll review and opine, to your needs. So, I won’t write an RFP or a whitepaper for you; I won’t design a learning experience; nor will I read an article and summarize it for you. Those’d be different engagements. But I’ll review an RFP or whitepaper (incoming or outgoing) for the necessary learning science. I will review the rules and practices around such a design. If someone sends you an article and asks your opinion, I’ll give you the perspective on that. In particular, I’ll help evaluate any claims that you’re faced with, again either coming from inside or outside.

In short, I’m your learning science advisor. Anything you need. Of course you’ll also get any other thoughts my experience provides: how to deal with issues or people, possible solutions, and more. Comes with the territory.

I also know to respect confidentiality. Heck, my IP has been used to train LLMs, and that doesn’t sit well with me. I will also likely want to write up any learning I attain. I can anonymize it or profile you, your choice. Obviously, I won’t share anything proprietary. And my advice is yours, and you can choose to acknowledge me or keep my participation out of it; I really don’t care.

I’ve, over time, learned to be efficient. One of the benefits of knowing how our minds work is that I know what we’re not good at, and have developed practices to ensure that I don’t fall down on commitments. I have my own project management approach, which, coupled with my natural “just do it” inclination, means that you won’t be waiting weeks for a response. I’ll commit to 48 hours max on anything less than ebook length, and as folks who are using me in other ways (*cough* LDA and Elevator 9 *cough*) will tell you, I tend to do things in a matter of hours if it’s not too long.

So, what would such an engagement entail? I’d like to keep it simple and fair. I reckon there’s anywhere from 3 to 10 such things a month. Some will be short, some will be longer. Some months more, some less. My initial ask is $1K per month, and an initial $500 retainer (just to make sure payment systems work, and that’ll cover a call to set the context). If you want to sign up for a year, it’s $10K (9999.99 if necessary to stay under a cutoff ;). Either of us can terminate at any time; in the case of a year purchase, I’ll prorate. What I do for you is yours, what I know and learn is mine. I’ll prod you weekly to remind you to take advantage, and you don’t have to. (Heck, you can always think of it as supporting your friendly neighborhood research translator!)

This may not be you, but if it is, think through the tradeoffs. No overhead – taxes, benefits, etc – the cost is the cost. What you get is yours and your department’s. It’s an investment in learning, for that matter, because you will have the opportunity to improve your understanding as we go. My goal in this (and every) engagement is to remove the need for me in the loop, and learning about learning isn’t just for those developing learning, it’s a good practice for everyone. It’s even a competitive advantage.

Oh, one other thing. I reckon, what with my other commitments, I can only take on 10 such relationships. So, first come, first served. Learning science on tap. Your move! You can reach out here.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled day, already in progress.

Knowledge or ability?

9 September 2025 by Clark Leave a Comment

As in the last post, I’ve been judging the iSpring Course Contest (over, of course). And, having finished, one other thing I’ve noticed is a clear distinction between ‘knowing’ and ‘doing’. We’re seeing lots of interest in skills, yet the courses are, with one exception, really assuming that if you know about it, you’ll do it right. Which isn’t a safe assumption! Are you trying to develop knowledge or ability? I’ll suggest you want the latter. And, can do it!

So, in 9 of the 10 cases, the questions are essentially about knowing. Some of them better than others, e.g. some seem to follow Patti Shank’s advice about how to write better multiple choice questions. That is, for instance, reasonably balanced prose describing the alternatives, and only 3 options. Not all follow it, of course.

The problem is that knowing about something isn’t the same as knowing how to do it. So, for instance, knowing that you should calibrate after changing the reagent isn’t the same as remembering to do it. We’ve all probably experienced this ourselves. They pretty much all had quizzes, as required, but most were just testing if you recalled the elements of the course. Not good enough!

What the one course did that I laud was that the final quiz was basically you applying the knowledge in a situation. You weren’t asked what this situation was, but instead chose how to respond. They were linked, each continuing the story, so it was really a linear scenario. Which I realize can be just a series of mini-scenarios! Still, you dragged your response from a list of responses. They weren’t all that challenging to choose between, as the alternatives were pretty clearly wrong, but for good reasons, reflecting the common mistakes. This is the way!

I think some designers were aspiring to this, as they did put the learner into a situation. However, they then asked learners to classify the answer, rather than actually make a decision about action to take, e.g. a mini-scenario. There is an art to doing this well (hence my workshop in two days)! Putting people into a context to choose their actions like they’ll have to do in the real world is the important practice. Of course, mentored live performance is better. Or simulations (tuned to games, of course ;). Even branching scenarios. But mini-scenarios are easily doable within your existing practice.

The question of knowledge or ability is easily answered. In how many cases will the ability to recite knowledge versus make decisions be the defining success factor for your organization? I’ll suggest that making better decisions will be the differentiator your organization needs. The ability to write better mini-scenarios seems to me to be the best investment you can make to have your interventions actually achieve an impact. And if you’re not doing that, why bother?

What’s In It For Them?

2 September 2025 by Clark Leave a Comment

I’m judging some submissions from the iSpring conference, and noticing a trend. And, of course, it’s not in the requirements (which focus on using all the capabilities of their tool, not surprisingly). It’s also not in the evaluation criteria. Yet, it’s something I obviously care about. (I mean, I basically wrote a book that was about it as half of the whole picture!) I’m talking about addressing the ‘what’s in it for them’ for the learners.

So, two things to start with. For one, the evaluation does ask “Does the course maintain interest throughout?” So that’s the other half of the book, but…it doesn’t address the first half. Ok, many times you see the designers deal with it implicitly in the objectives, saying what you’ll be able to do. (Even, some times, in terms you will care about!) But that’s not enough.

What these courses seem to assume (and this is prevalent in much that I see) is that you’ve come to the course because you’ve interest in the topic. Which may be the case, if they’re already practitioners. Where it’s not appropriate is when it’s been assigned by someone else. And, overall, you probably shouldn’t assume the former. Unless you’re just hanging it out there for anyone who’s interested (and who can afford that?).

So, you should be addressing, up front, why the learner should care. What’s the context that makes this course of value and of interest? If you (as the learner) are a likely victim, er, audience for this course, what lets you know? Again, it’s not in the requirements, but I certainly wish it was pretty much habitual. There’s one case where it’s partly done, in that they start with the scenario and a question, but it takes some time to get there. This should be the very first thing learners see. Before objectives, before you say what the course will entail. Why should they pay attention to any of that? You haven’t made it visceral. And, motivation helps you learn better

So, please, make it a habit to hook your learners from the get-go. Show them the ‘what’s in it for them” up front. They’ll pay more attention to everything else you do, and that leads to better outcomes. Which is what we all want.

Announcing my mini-scenario workshop

28 August 2025 by Clark Leave a Comment

I try not to commercialize this blog. It doesn’t cost, you can get ad free updates in your email, and of course it’s really for me ;). Still, once in a while there’s something I do want to draw your attention to. And, of course, you can stop here. However, I’ll suggest you at least give this a look. What I’m talking about are the whys and whats of an upcoming mini-scenario workshop I’ll be running on 9/11 from 11-3:30 ET. (Yes, I know, that date, but really, we don’t want to let them win, right?) So, I’m announcing my mini-scenario workshop.

First, why? Well, I argue that there are strong reasons to lift our practice game. Retrieval practice is, I believe, the most important thing we can do help our learning actually develop skills. Such practice is really integral to, for instance, the Serious eLearning Manifesto. And it’s more than just better-written multiple choice questions (MCQs). Patti Shank has told us how to do that, and what I am talking about is a bit of that, but more focused. And we can go beyond, to branching scenarios. For that, you should pay attention to Christy Tucker. Instead, I’m talking the sweet spot in between. The one that’s well within our reach, but not our grasp.

Short of branching scenarios, but beyond good MCQs, are what I call mini-scenarios. They’re MCQs, but specifically written to be retrieval practice. What we’re doing is using the base capability of our authoring tools, but taking them to the best place they can be. And, previous experience tells me that you can get the idea, but you really need feedback to fine-tune your understanding. Not a surprise, really, it’s learning after all! Still, a strong argument.

And, being immodest, I have really sweated the details about how to make this workshop, well, work. First, a quick refresh on ‘why’. Then, we take apart the idea into the constituent parts, and talk about the essential criteria for each. We reinforce this by identifying bad examples. Then, we work through two different ways of doing these. In groups, you’ll work with the ideal: given good objectives. But we’ll also work through the likely real: working from knowledge questions. In addition, I’ve created a job aid: a checklist that uses the structure to help make sure you’re developing a useful mini-scenario. We’ll use it in the exercises.

While this is the first live run, I’ve iterated on it numerous times. I’ve even developed a follow-on just to refine the design (tho’ we may have it as an extra-value no-extra-cost option)! So, if you want to get serious about writing questions that will scaffold your learners to developing real new abilities, not just knowledge, this is the place to come. So that’s why I’m announcing my mini-scenario workshop. I hope to see you there!

Is ‘average’ good enough?

26 August 2025 by Clark Leave a Comment

As this is my place to ‘think out loud’, here’s yet another thought that occurred to me: is ‘average’ good enough? And, just what am I talking about? Well, LLMs are, by and large, trained on a vast corpora. Essentially, it’s averaging what is known. It’s creating summaries of what’s out there, based upon what’s out there. (Which, BTW, suggests that it’s going to get worse, as it processes its own summaries! ;) But, should we be looking to the ‘average’?

In certain instances, I think that’s right. If you’re below average in understanding, learning from the average is likely to lift you up. You can move from below average to, well, average. Can you go further? If you’re in well-defined spaces, like mathematics, or even programming, what LLMs know may well be better than average. Not as good as a real expert, but you can raise your game. Er, that is, if you really know how to learn.

Using these systems seems to become a mental crutch, if you don’t actually do the thinking. While above average people seem to be able to use the systems well, those below average don’t seem to learn. IF you used it to provide knowledge, and then put that knowledge into practice, and get feedback (so, for instance, experimenting), you could fine tune your performance (not as eloquently as having someone provide feedback, but perhaps sufficiently). However, this requires knowing how to learn, and the evidence here is also that we don’t do that well.

So, generative AI models give you average answers. Except, not always. They hallucinate (and always will, if this makes sense). For instance, they’ll happily support learning styles, because that’s a zombie idea that’s wrong but won’t die. They can even make stuff up, and don’t know and can’t admit to it. If you call them on it, they’ll go back and try again, and maybe get it right. Still, you really should have an ‘expert’ in the loop. Which may be you, of course.

Look, I get that they can facilitate speed. Though that would just seem to lead your employer to expect more from you. Would that be accompanied by more money? Ok, I’m getting a bit out of my lane here, but I’m not inclined. But is faster better?

Also, ‘average’ worries me. As I’ve written, Todd Rose wrote a book called The End of Average that is truly insightful. Indeed, one of those books that makes you see the world in a different way, and that’s high praise. The point being that average removes the quality. Averaging removes the nuances, the details, as does summarization. Ideally, you should be learning from the best, not the average, if learning is social (as Mark Britz likes to point out).

Sure, it can know the average of top thoughts, but what’s better is having those top thinkers. If they’re disagreeing, that’s better for dialog, but not summarization. In truth, I’d rather learn from a Wikipedia page put together by people than a Gen AI summary, because I don’t think we can trust GenAI summaries as much as socially constructed understanding. And it’s not the same thing.

So, I’ll suggest ‘average’ isn’t nearly good enough in most cases. We want people who know, and can do. I don’t mind if folks find GenAI useful, but I want them to use it as support, not as a solution. Hey, there’s a lot that can be done with regular AI in many instances, and Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) systems offer some promise of improvement for GenAI, but still not perfect outcomes. And, still, all the other problems (IP, business models, and…). So, where’ve I gone wrong?

Note, I should be putting references in here, but I’ve read a lot lately and not done a good job of saving the links. Mea culpa. Guess you’ll just have to trust me, or not.

Training Organization Fails

19 August 2025 by Clark Leave a Comment

I’ve worked with a lot of organizations that train others. I’ve consulted to them, spoken to them, and of course written and spoken for them. (And, of course, others!) And, I’ve seen that they have a reliable problem. Over the years, it occurs to me that these failures stem from a pattern that’s understandable, and also avoidable. So I want to talk about how a training organization fails. (And, realize, that most organizations should be learning organizations, so this is a bigger plea.)

The problem stems from the orgs’ offering. They offer training. Often, certification is linked. And folks need this, for continuing education needs. What folks are increasingly realizing is that much of the learning they’re offering is now findable on the web. For free. Which means that the companies not seeing the repeat business. Even if required, they’re not seeing loyalty. And I think there’s a simple reason why.

My explanation for this is that the orgs are focusing on training, not on performance solutions. People don’t want training for training’s sake, by and large. Sure, they need continuing education in some instances, so they’ll continue (until those requirements change, at least). Folks’ll take courses in the latest bizbuzz, in lieu of any other source, of course. (That’s currently Generative Artificial Intelligence, generically called AI; before that as an article aptly pointed out it was the metaverse, or crypto, or Web 3.0, …)

What would get people to do more than attend the necessary or trendy courses? The evidence is that folks persist when they find value. If you’re providing real value, they will come. So what does that take? I posit that a full solution would be comprised of three things: skill development, performance support, and community.

Part 1: Actual learning

The first problem, of course, could be their learning design. Too often, organizations are falling prey to the same problems that belabor other organizational learning; bad design. They offer information instead of practice. Sure, they get good reviews, but folks aren’t leaving capable of doing something new. That’s not true of all, of course (recently engaged with an organization with really good learning design), but event-based learning doesn’t work.

What should happen is that the orgs target specific competencies, have mental models, examples, and meaningful practice. I’ve talked a lot about good learning design, and have worked with others on the same (c.f. Serious eLearning Manifesto). Still, it seems to remain a surprise to many organizations.

Further, learning has to extend beyond the ‘event’ model. That is, we need to space out practice with feedback. That’s neglected, though there are solutions now, and soon to be available. (Elevator 9, cough cough. ;) Thus, what we’re talking about is real skill development. That’s something people would care about. While it’s nice to have folks say they like it, it’s better if you actually demonstrate impact.

Part 2: Performance support

Of course, equipping learners with skills isn’t a total solution to need. If you really want to support people succeeding, you need more than just the skills. Folks need tools, too. In fact, your skill development should be built to include the tools. Yet, too often when I ask, such orgs admit that this is an area they don’t address.

There are times when courses don’t make sense. There are cognitive limits to what we can do, and we’ve reliably built ways to support our flaws. This can range from things performed rarely (so courses can’t help), through information that’s too volatile or arbitrary, to things done so frequently that we may forget whether we’ve taken a step. There are many situations in pretty much any endeavor where tools make sense. And providing good ones to complement the training, and in fact using those tools as part of the training, is a great way to provide additional value.

You can even make these tools an additional revenue stream, separate from the courses, or of course as part of them. Still, folks want solutions, not just skill development. It’s not about what you do for them, but about who they become through you (see Kathy Sierra’s Badass!).

Part 3: Community

The final piece of the picture is connecting people with others. There are several reasons to do this. For one, folks can get answers that courses and tools are too coarse to address. For another, they can help one another. There’s a whole literature on communities of practice. Sure, there are societies in most areas of practice, but they’re frequently not fulfilling all these needs (and they’re targets of this strategic analysis too). These orgs can offer courses, conferences, and readings, but do they have tools for people? And are they finding ways for people to connect? It’s about learning together.

I’ve learned the hard way that it takes a certain set of skills to develop and maintain a community. Which doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it. When it reaches critical mass (that is, becomes self-correcting), the benefits to the members are great. Moreover, the dialog can point to the next offerings; your market’s right there!

There’s more, of course. Each of these areas drills down into considerable depth. Still, it’s worth addressing systematically. If you’re an org offering learning as a business, you need to consider this. Similarly, if you’re an L&D unit in an org, this is a roadmap for you as well. If you’re a startup and want to become a learning organization, this is the core of your strategy, too. It’s the revolution L&D needs ;). Not doing this is a suite of training organization fails.

My claim, and I’m willing to be wrong, is that you have to get all of this right. In this era of self-help available online, what matters is creating a full solution. Anything else and you’ll be a commodity. And that, I suggest, is not where you want to be. Look, this is true for L&D as a whole, but it’s particularly important, I suggest, for training companies that want to not just survive, but thrive in this era of internet capabilities.