Quinnovating

Infrastructure and integration

13 October 2016 by Clark Leave a Comment

When I wrote the L&D Revolution book, I created a chart that documented the different stages that L&D could go through on the way. I look at it again, and I see that I got (at least) one thing slightly off, as I talked about content and it’s more, it’s about integration and infrastructure. And I reckon I should share my thinking, then and now.

The premise of the chart was that there are stages of maturity across the major categories of areas L&D should be aware of. The categories were Culture, Formal Learning, Performance Support, eCommunity, Metrics, and Infrastructure. And for each of those, I had two subcategories. And I mapped each at four stages of maturity.
Let me be clear, these were made up. I stuck to consistency in having two sub areas, and mapping to four stages of maturity. I don’t think I was wrong, but this was an effort to raise awareness rather than be definitive. That said, I believed then and still now that the chart I created was roughly right. With one caveat.

prethinkinginfrastructure In the area of infrastructure, I focused largely on two sub categories, content models and semantics. I’ve been big on the ways that content could be used, from early work I did on content models that led to flexible delivery in an adaptive learning system, a context-sensitive performance support system, and a flexible content publishing system. I’ve subsequently written about content in a variety of places, attended an intelligent content conference, and have been generally advocating it’s time to do content like the big boys (read: web marketers). And I think these areas are necessary, but not sufficient.

I realize, as I review the chart for my upcoming strategy workshop at DevLearn, that I focused too narrowly. Infrastructure is really about the technical sophistication (which includes content models & semantics, but also tracking and analytics) and integration of elements to create a true ecosystem. So there’s more to the picture than just the content models and semantics. Really, we want to be moving on both the sophistication of the model, and the technical underpinnings of the model.

We’ll be discussing this more in Las Vegas in November. And if you’re interested in beginning to offer a richer picture of learning and move L&D to be a strategic contributor to the organization, this is the chance for a jump-start!

Organizational Effectiveness for L&D?

11 October 2016 by Clark Leave a Comment

Last week included an interesting series of events and conversations. There was a formal event on innovation in learning technology (that was only partly so), and a presentation by a colleague. I also had a couple of conversations, one with said colleague following his more formal event, and another with another colleague before the initial event. And from that latter conversation came an interesting revelation. The concept was Organizational Effectiveness, and the question is the relevance to L&D.

Now my colleague in the conversation that preceded the innovation event is wise, with a broad experience across HR. And I was mentioning that it was hard to see a real sense of urgency in L&D around the problems I can’t help but notice. So, for instance, I see much elearning that doesn’t reflect serious design. And similarly, I see too many L&D organizations not looking beyond the course as their responsibility.

My colleague’s perspective was interesting. He opined that by and large, he saw the need for formal learning shrinking, and that more and more HR was focusing on providing self-learning resources instead of course. While this doesn’t explain L&D complacency, it certainly would explain the lack of interest in investment in improvement. And while it should drive an interest in a broader performance ecosystem, that was seen as the responsibility from other areas.

In particularly, he talked about OD and OE. Now, I’ve heard of Organizational Development, but have always seen it to be about change management (rightly or wrongly). However, OE was new to me. He explained it was Organizational Effectiveness, and that intrigued me. Effectiveness would certainly include the typical L&D role of learning, but also performance support. It’s the ‘optimal execution’ side of my call for organizational success. If we remapped OD to be about continual innovation, and OE to be about optimal execution, we could have a value footing.

Interestingly, I see that the areas covered as components (not the first four, but these: Decision Making, Change & Learning, Group Effectiveness, & Self-Organizing & Adaptive Systems) seem to be intrinsic to the work I think organizations need (and have been arguing for L&D to take on). The point is, it doesn’t have to be L&D (and given the lack of awareness and urgency, maybe it can’t be). Maybe I need to look more closely at OE (and hope that it’s not just another rebranding).

The focus seems to be on not-for-profits, and achieving outcomes, not redefining them, so perhaps it’s too limited, but somehow I’d like to get a framing that starts generating action. It’s time to start looking at working smarter and organizational meta-learning, because it appears to me that the need and opportunity are huge. What are the leverage points? I welcome any pointers, feedback, ideas, etc.!

Because quality matters

6 October 2016 by Clark Leave a Comment

I was reflecting on some of the actions my colleagues and I take. These are, in particular, colleagues that have been contributing to the field for a long time, ones who know what they’re talking about and that I therefore respect. I retweeted one who called for being careful of the source in message. I’ve supported another who has been on a crusade against myths. And I joined with some others to promote quality elearning. And it led me to wonder why. Why care? Why take risks and potentially upset people? And I realized that it’s because I care; because quality matters.

So what do I mean? For one, it’s about money. To the extent that people are misled by claims, they can misinvest their money. They might be persuaded to buy products that can’t really deliver what’s promised. They might pursue programs that aren’t going to have a real effect. We see this a lot, initiatives that don’t achieve the desired outcome. There are lots of ways to fail, but we do know lots about how to do it right. Yet we still see strategies limited to courses, and courses designed poorly, and thus money being wasted that could be doing good.

Yet really, it’s about people. It’s about giving them the right tools to do their job, whether in their heads or in the world. In particular, I think that a field that’s about learning is about helping people improve, and that’s a noble pursuit. Yet, too much of what’s done is under-informed, if not outright misled. We need to do better.

And it’s about us. If we’re to be professional, if we’re going to hold our heads high, if we’re going to have a meaningful impact, we have to do what’s right. And if we don’t know what that is, it’s incumbent on us to find out. And be smart about it. Be critical in our investigation of messages (including this one ;). We need to have enough background to be able to sift the wheat from the chaff. And we need to continue to educate ourselves on the science that is behind what we do. We need to be responsible.

We need to recognize that changing what is arguably the most complex thing in the known universe (the mind) in persistent and predictable ways is not simple. And simple solutions, while appealing, are not going to do the job. They might meet one particular metric, but when you look at the big picture, aligning improvement with respect, you need to have a rich solution.

And I think awareness is growing. We are seeing more people interested in improving their learning designs despite considerable budget and time pressures. And we’re seeing folks looking beyond the course, seeking to create an approach that’s broader and yet more focused on success. Finally, we’re seeing people interested in improving. Which is the first step.

So you can continue to expect me to work for quality, and back up those who do likewise. Together, we might make this field one to be proud of. I don’t think we’re quite there yet, but it’s within our reach. We can do this, and we should. Are you with me?

If you’re interested in getting started, and would like some help to get going faster and further, get in touch!

Site Learnings

4 October 2016 by Clark Leave a Comment

So I was talking with a colleague, who pointed out that my site wasn’t as optimized for finding as it could be, and he recommended a solution. Which led to an ongoing series of activities that have some learnings both at the technical and learning side. So I thought I’d share my learnings about sites.

This being a WordPress site, I use plugins, and my colleague pointed me to a plugin that would guide me through steps to improve my site. And so I installed it. And it led me through several steps. One being improving some elements about each post. And some of these had some ramifications. The steps included:

adding a focus word or phrase
adding a meta-description
post recommendations for including focus word in the first paragraph
adding images
and more

I reckon these are good things to be consistent, but while I sometimes include diagrams, I haven’t been rabid about including images. Which I will probably do more, but not ubiquitously (e.g. this post ;). The other things I’ll work on. BTW, I am also getting advice on readability, but I’m less likely to change. This is my blog, after all!

One other change was to move from posts by number (e.g. ?p=#), to having a meaningful title. Which is all well and good, but it conflicted with another situation. See, one of the other recommendations was to be more closely tied to Google’s tools for tracking sites, specifically Search Console. Which had other ramifications.

So, I’ve put Google tracking code into all of my sites, but the code on Learnlets was old. I’d put it in, and then my ISP changed the settings on my blog so I couldn’t use the built-in editor to edit the header and footer of the site pages (for security). Which meant I had to find the old code and replace it with FTP. Except, in all the myriad files in a WordPress site, I had no idea where.

Now, I’d try to do this once I’d gotten all my sites tied into Google Analytics, including searching the WP file folders, and browsing a number, to no avail. And I’d searched for guidance, similarly to no avail. I tried again this time, still to no avail. I even found a recommended plugin that would allow you to add code into the header, but it didn’t work.

Specifically, even though my site was registering in Google Analytics, it wasn’t validated with the Search Console. I tried a number of their recommended steps, like adding a generated .html file into the site and putting a special txt message in my DNS record via my domain name host. (And if you don’t know what this means, it’s not really essential except to note that it’s clearly at the very edge of my deteriorating tech skills. ;)

I finally got on the phone to my ISP, and he gave me the clue I needed to find the right file with the header. Then I could download the file, edit it, and re upload it. Which is always nervous to me: changing a core and ubiquitous file for your site that could totally stuff things up!

Well, long story short, it worked. I’m now registered with the Search Console, with current Analytics code. Though, in the process of changing my url style for my blog, it is now generating 404 errors on pages that use the old mechanism (it seemed to work okay on some newer ones, but apparently is falling apart on some older ones). It’s always something.

So, the important thing: tech stuff ends up being complicated, but what helps are the same innovation (aka informal learning) steps as always. Persistence, a willingness to experiment, a suite of approaches, and a network to fall back on. And also, if you’re using one of my old URLs, it may be a problem to track down! This may well be a problem in my own referring sites (e.g. the Quinnovation News page). Two steps forward, one step back. Here’s to change!

Workshopping what’s needed: going deep on elearning

29 September 2016 by Clark Leave a Comment

Are you ready to really try to make a change in what you’re doing? It’s past time, both at the level of our elearning design, and at the level of elearning strategy. And now you have the chance to do something about it, because I’m holding workshops addressing each. In different places with different goals, but each is a way to proceed on going deep on elearning.

If you’re interested in the Revolution, in looking at what L&D can, and should, be, you should join me in Las Vegas at the DevLearn conference and sign up for my pre-conference workshop. On Monday, Nov 14th, we’re going to spend the day getting seriously into opportunities of the performance ecosystem and the strategy to get there. We’ll look at the need for not only optimal execution but also continual innovation, what is required, and how the elements work together. Then we’re going to work through assessing where you’re at, where you’d like to be, and give you the opportunity to pull together your own strategic plan. You’ll leave with a roadmap forward for your organization. This is your chance to get a jump on the future of L&D.

If getting serious about elearning design is your thing, you should join us on Wednesday, Nov 30 at Online Educa in Berlin. It’s past time to stop producing elearning that’s ineffective. Here, my workshop is focused on going deep on elearning. We’re going to spend the day unpacking the details that make (e)learning really stick, and the design revisions that will accomplish it. We’ll dig into the cognitive, but also the emotional aspects that affect the outcomes. You’ll practice the skills, and then work on steps that you can practically incorporate into your practice.

If you want to really sink your teeth into either of these important topics, here’s your opportunity. I hope to see you at one or both!

Reflecting practice

28 September 2016 by Clark 1 Comment

Someone opined on yesterday’s post that it’s hard to find time for reflection, and I agree it’s hard. You need to find ways to make it systematic, as it’s hard to make persistent change. So I responded with three personal suggestions, and thought I’d share them here, and also think about what the organizational response could be.

Individual

So my first suggestion was to find times when the mind is free to roam. For example, I have used taking a shower, exercising, or driving. My approach has been to put a question in my mind before I start, and then ponder it. I typically end up with at least one idea how to proceed. Find a time that you are awake and doing something (relatively) mindless. It could be in the garden, or on a walk, or…

Another idea I suggested was to bake it into your schedule. Make it a habit. Put half an hour on your calendar (e.g. end of the day) that’s reflection time. Or at lunch, or morning break, or… A recurring reminder works well. The point is to set aside a time and stick to it.

Along the same lines, you could make a personal promise to publicly reflect (e.g. blog or podcast or…). Set a goal for some amount per week (e.g. my goal is 2 blog posts per week). If you commit to it (particularly publicly), you’ve a better chance. You could also ask someone to hold you accountable, have them expecting your output. The pressure to meet the output goal means you’ll be searching for things to think about, and that’s not a bad thing.

Organizational

Of course, organizations should be making this easier. They can do things like have you set aside a day a week for your own projects, or an hour of your day. Little firms like Google have instituted this. Of course, it helps if they require output so that you have to get concrete and there’s something to track isn’t a bad idea either.

Firms could also put in place tools and practices around Working out Loud (aka Show Your Work). Having your work be out there, particularly if you’re asked to ‘narrate’ it (e.g. annotate with the thinking behind it), causes you to do the thinking, and then you have the benefits of feedback.

And instituting systemic mentoring, where you regularly meet with someone who’s job it is to help you develop, and that would include asking questions that help you reflect. Thus, someone’s essentially scaffolding your reflection (and, ideally, helping you internalize it and become self-reflecting).

Reflection is valuable, and yet it can be hard to figure out when and how. Getting conscious about reflection and about instituting it are both valuable components of a practice. So, are you practicing?

How to learn and learn-to-learn

27 September 2016 by Clark 1 Comment

I was asked by a colleague to answer some questions for a project on how to learn. I naturally decided to answer in a blog post ;).

Q1. In your working life, how have you learnt effectively from experience, please provide an example if possible? (e.g. how have you used intentional practice, learnt from failure, learnt from ambitious projects and/or used reflection)

I try to look at feedback and reflect, specifically deciding how I will do things differently next time. So, I regularly read the feedback comments I get on my latest presentations (it really helps when that’s timely, hours or at most days, not weeks). While obviously reveling in the positive ones, I look for constructive feedback that I can try to improve upon. For example, the very first time I ran a workshop for the eLearning Guild, while most liked it two people asked for their money back. (I was really upset.) However, I looked at their rationale, and realized I’d made specific mistakes. The Guild was somewhat reluctant to try me again, but I documented the exact two things that were wrong, and gave them my specific changes and why those change would address the problems. I’ve been doing workshops at Guild events for around a decade now! (E.g. my Revolution/elearning strategy workshop at the upcoming DevLearn).

Q2. In your working life, how have you learnt effectively from people, please provide an example if possible? (e.g. how have you learnt from project teams, mentors, coaches and/or broader social networks)

I learn from folks in a variety of ways, but the key is asking questions. I’ve asked questions and gotten answers from my social networks. I’ve been very fortunate to have valuable mentors throughout my career. I’ve worked for smart and good people, and they’ve been willing to share. Most have given me some stretch assignments that required me to work in my ZoPD, and then feedback to learn from the outcomes. And I would ask them along the way. I’ve also learned from collaborative assignments, working and learning together. But mostly I’ve learned from my close colleagues. For example, with my ITA colleagues, we have a chat channel open, and we’re regularly pointing things out, asking each other questions, and in general staying linked both professionally and personally.

Q3. In your working life, how have you learnt effectively from courses, research or investigation, please provide an example if possible? (e.g. how have you learnt from reading on the web, reading books or attending courses)

I read, a lot. I’m not only reading things pointed to via my social network (both professional and personal interests), but I use the library. I seldom take courses any more, both having developed my own learning skills and from plain hubris, but when I do I try to follow the instructions, extend the implications to my own experience, and see if I think I can apply them or ask about the barriers I am anticipating. But I really try to alternate my pleasure reading with reading that advances my understanding (here are a Deeper eLearning reading list and a Revolution reading list). I write book reviews as a way to reflect on my learning (e.g. an article that points to two), but even for myself I try to take notes and look for the implications.

Q4. What‘s your top advice for someone who wishes to develop faster and learn complex skills in modern workplaces?

Stay curious, my friends. Seriously, as a general mindset I think that a continuing interest in what’s going on is essential. I strongly believe in personal responsibility for learning, and that means not only doing it, but reflecting. Meta-Learning, or Learning to Learn, is a crucial focus and area to track. Then, several specific steps. I like my colleague Harold Jarche’s Seek-Sense-Share model for Personal Knowledge Mastery. I think experimenting with different media, and working out how to manage the flow of information is critical. Given that learning is action and reflection, I think experimentation and reflection are a crucial part of self-learning. Experiment with different ways to represent your understanding: write, diagram, make an audio or video file. Look for links. And then share your reflections on your learning, and your learning to learn. Be concrete about what you think your learning processes are, and look at how others learn.

Ok, so that’s how I learn, how about you?

Collaborative Modelling in AR (and VR)

21 September 2016 by Clark Leave a Comment

A number of years ago, when we were at the height of the hype about Virtual Worlds (computer rendered 3D social worlds, e.g. Second Life), I was thinking about the affordances. And one that I thought was intriguing was co-creating, in particular collaboratively creating models that were explanatory and predictive. And in thinking again about Augmented Reality (AR), I realized we had this opportunity again.

Models are hard enough to capture in 2D, particularly if they’re complex. Having a 3rd dimension can be valuable. Similarly if we’re trying to match how the components are physically structured (think of a model of a refinery, for instance, or a power plant). Creating it can be challenging, particularly if you’re trying to map out a new understanding. And, we know that collaboration is more powerful than solo ideation. So, a real opportunity is to collaborate to create models.

And in the old Virtual Worlds, a number had ways to create 3D objects. It wasn’t easy, as you had to learn the interface commands to accomplish this task, but the worlds were configurable (e.g. you could build things) and you could build models. There was also the overall cognitive and processing overhead inherent to the worlds, but these were a given to use the worlds at all.

What I was thinking of, extending my thoughts about AR in general, that annotating the world is valuable, but how about collaboratively annotating the world? If we can provide mechanisms (e.g. gestures) for people to not just consume, but create the models ‘in world’ (e.g. while viewing, not offline), we can find some powerful learning opportunities, both formal and informal. Yes, there are issues in creating and developing abilities with a standard ‘model-building’ language, particularly if it needs to be aligned to the world, but the outcomes could be powerful.

For formal, imagine asking learners to express their understanding. Many years ago, I was working with Kathy Fisher on semantic networks, where she had learners express their understanding of the digestive system and was able to expose misconceptions. Imagine asking learners to represent their conceptions of causal and other relationships. They might even collaborate on doing that. They could also just build 3D models not aligned to the world (though that doesn’t necessarily require AR).

And for informal learning, having team or community members working to collaboratively annotate their environment or represent their understanding could solve problems and advance a community’s practices. Teams could be creating new products, trouble-shooting, or more, with their models. And communities could be representing their processes and frameworks.

This wouldn’t necessarily have to happen in the real world if the options weren’t aligned to external context, so perhaps VR could be used. At a client event last week, I was given the chance to use a VR headset (Google Cardboard), and immerse myself in the experience. It might not need to be virtual (instead collaboration could be just through networked computers, but there was data from research into virtual reality that suggests better learning outcomes.

Richer technology and research into cognition starts giving us powerful new ways to augment our intelligence and co-create richer futures. While in some sense this is an extension of existing practices, it’s leveraging core affordances to meet conceptually valuable needs. That’s my model, what’s yours?

Deeper Design: Working out Loud and the Future of Work

20 September 2016 by Clark 2 Comments

Over the past year, I’ve been working on a project. After I wrote the Deeper eLearning series of 6 posts with Learnnovators, we wondered what to do next. We decided to do a course together, free-to-air, and write about the process as well (a bit of Working Out Loud), with the intention was to try to do deep design on a pragmatic basis. And, just as a hint, the topic is the Future of Work, the choice of which is
part of the story. It’s a tribute to our late friend and colleague, Jay Cross, with the assistance of my colleagues in the Internet Time Alliance.

learnnovators course design example

Well, that goal was accomplished. First, there are four articles talking about the design, that Learning Solutions magazine was kind enough to host:

The first post talks about our initial plans, and how we settled on a topic.

The second post talks about our initial design decisions, scoping the overall course.

The third post talks about our detailed design decisions.

And the fourth post talks about our development process.

We intend a fifth post talking about what we learn after the release!

and now there’s also a press release that provides a link to the course. There’s an opportunity at the end of the course to leave some thoughts and comments, if you go through it (it’s designed for 20-30 minutes).

And, of course, if you do go through and want to talk about it, you can comment on the posts or here. I welcome your thoughts!

« Previous Page