I’m working on my next plan for global domination. And as I do, I’ve been developing my thinking, and there are some interesting outcomes. Including a realization that I wasn’t doing what I usually recommend. And I also believe that you should ‘show your work‘. So here I’m practicing the preach.

First, I’m developing my understanding, getting concrete about it. I usually use Omnigraffle as a diagramming tool, to represent my conceptual understandings. And I started doing that as part of the ‘developing thinking’ part. But I started with a diagram, and took the elements out and mindmapped them, and threw in other bits. In short, the ‘diagram’ has become a visual place to store bits and pieces of different diagrams, representations, mindmap, prose, or more. As well as outlining elsewhere. But it’s working out for me, so I thought I’d share.

The overall visualization gives me a place, like a business canvas, to drop stuff on and rearrange. It’s a ‘thinking tool’. I’m also copying part of the the activity map and linking things together to capture the actual flow between content and activities. Etc. A virtual whiteboard, I guess.

Second, one of the things to represent was how this would be communicated. Whether a course, or interactive ebook, or whatever, I want to create a flow. And I realized an activity map might make sense. I haven’t done this before (I’ve used storyboards and diagrams), but I find it interesting. Here’s the current status.

Across the top are the various stages (Introduction, the Principles, the resulting learning Elements, the associated Process, and the Closing). Your stages may vary.  Along the side are the different components (the Content topics, the associated practice Activities, the Emotions I to be evoked, the Stories to tell, and the Tools). I think putting in ’emotion’ is an important step! And then I can drop text bits into the intersections.

Finally, as I started developing the associated content, I realized one thing I advocate is backwards design. That is, envision the performance and how it’s distributed across tools and brains. Then, I realized I hadn’t designed the tools first! I’m going back and doing that. So it’s now in the activity map as well ;).

Just thought I’d share this, practicing the preach, and hope that you find it interesting, if not useful. Feedback welcome!

On twitter the other day, I was asked how I could on one hand rail against myths, and on the other work with orgs who either sell or promote DiSC and MBTI. The problem, it appears, was a perception that I’m deeply involved with orgs that perpetuate the problem. I thought I’d try to clarify all this, and make sense of myths, publishers and confusion.

The dialog started as a reaction to an article I pointed to on twitter. This article made what I thought was a pretty good case against tools like MBTI and DiSC. And that matters. The arguments raised in the article were legitimate, and even didn’t go far enough. For instance, MBTI is based on Jungian archetypes, which Jung just made up!   So, one question raised is why ask practitioners to change, why aren’t we challenging the businesses?

For one response, I don’t call out the practitioners. I sympathize!   In the myths book, I deliberately addressed the appeal before pointing out it’s wrong (and, importantly, point to better alternatives). Instead, I rail against the tools. That, to me, is where the problem lies, and implicitly indicts the vendors. Now, the org that now owns DiSC was my first publisher. However, they bought it after I was locked into a contract with them. And when I heard, I complained about the choice to them. But they didn’t consult me on it ;).   And yes, they published my first 3.5 books. I dissociated from them on other reasons, but I’m no longer engaged.

Was there any relationship between DiSC and what I wrote? I was able to complain about learning styles in my fourth book with them. It’s a huge company, with many different divisions. There’s no provision to not say things that are contrary to their business interests. They publish and sell what they can sell. They can publish what’s right, and sell stuff that’s not. That’s their confusion, I reckon, not mine.

I’m now publishing with another org, who had, in the past, had learning styles in their competency model. When I found out, I asked and was told it was not in the latest version of the model. They also do make money selling exhibit space to folks with these tools. Note that the folks I work with may not agree, but also have to work in their part of the org and have little contact with the other entity (that makes much money). Yet, to their credit, they asked me to write the myths book. In fact, after I gave a myths talk to launch the the book, an anonymous audience member complained that they shouldn’t have speakers that disparage vendor products. And, they’ve continued to have me write and speak. Again, I suggest that’s their issue, not mine. I’m not responsible for that relationship between myths, publishers, and confusion.

And, yes, there are voices that cry out  for the tools. For instance a TD article claimed that such tools are popular. (Under the guise of saying they’re effective.) Which is problematic. Asking folks for their assessments of tools they’ve invested in introduces a clear source of bias. We know that people’s judgments of effectiveness may not match reality. So it’s a problem. But not one I’m in a position to change (though I quietly try).   It does muddy the water. Which, to me, speaks even more to talk about how to review science and what science already says.

I try to be a consistent voice for science in our practice. My publisher gave me a forum to speak that to an audience that needs to hear the message. There are others who echo that voice (see Mythbusters here). I’d welcome having the opportunity to address those who are making the decisions to buy these tools. I don’t have reliable access (I welcome any assistance ;). Instead, now they can give the book to those leaders to bolster the resistance.

So, are my publisher activities part of the business end, or the education end? Do you really concern yourselves with my previous relationship or current publisher? I note that it’s pretty much a hands-off relationship: “if you propose a valuable offering, we’ll publish it.”

I‘m saying “here‘s what Quinnovation has to say” and the orgs are endorsing it. Not the other way around. Is that accurate? Do you see that as a conflict? I’m perfectly willing to be wrong, and if so I welcome ideas how to be more clear about what and how it’s wrong.

I think I’m fighting a good fight, for the right reasons, and pretty much in the right way. But it’s not my perspective that matters. So I ask you, am I off the mark here? Am I helping or hurting the issues in myths, publishers, and confusion?

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.