Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Losing our collective minds?

by 3 Comments

microscopeSo, after that mess on Twitter, I next see on LinkedIn a recognized personage who proceeds to claim that learning styles are legit, and promises a post (see tomorrow’s review). And, the basis for this claim is fundamentally wrong. So I’m beginning to fear that we’re losing our collective minds!   Let me be clear about the claim, the problem, and a healthy approach.

The claim started like this:

I know there is a huge camp of folks who say no one has learning styles and they provide all types of links of others who concur. Then there are folks who say they do exist, and change of a period of time (as you age). And you may have more than one.

I admit I am in the latter group, because I have seen it first-hand as a Director of Training, and when I taught at the HS and University levels.

And, this is a problem, because it misrepresents what’s going on. My response was:

Sure, learners differ, no one who’s taught can say otherwise. But, identifying how they differ, reliably? Er, no. And that we should adapt to learning styles? Again, not what research says. And, to be clear about the ‘huge camp’ (why would that be?), we don’t post links to others who concur, we post links to the science that shows that the instruments to measure styles aren’t psychometrically valid and that the evidence shows no benefit to adapting to learning styles. A waste of time and money.

When called out, the response was similar:

You have perspective, I respectfully disagree.

What this response did was suggest that it’s about opinion. Which is not just irritating, but it’s  dangerously wrong. I’ve argued before about why myths matter. And, here, specifically, learning styles can cause you to waste money, but more importantly it may have people prematurely limit themselves. To their detriment.

But it’s also the refusal to acknowledge that it’s science, not opinion. Saying, basically, that the folks against learning styles support each other is very different, and wrong. We don’t point to each other, we point to the research!

It gets worse. The commentary on the post went sideways. Despite some apt questions about the legitimacy, there were counter opinions. One comment brought in neuro-linguistic programming! (Debunked, by the way.) It’d be funny if it weren’t so scary!

And, then, the followup, I have ‘perspective’. Sorry, but it’s not about your opinion versus mine. That may work for fashion, art, cinema. Not what we do in medicine, hazardous material, construction, flight, and the like. Even traffic! We follow what’s been demonstrated to save lives (or we should). When we get into the absurd situation of saying your anecdotal evidence is better than the weight of scientific evidence, we’re on a slippery slope to losing our collective minds.

Look, you can prefer vanilla to chocolate. You can like pineapple on your pizza. Or even put ketchup on your hotdog. (Quelle horreur!) I can differ. No one’s hurt. But if you yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre, or advise consuming disinfectant as a virus cure, or using nuclear waste as a skin lotion, you’re violating what’s known. And it’s wrong, if not outright illegal.

Please, be skeptical. Even of what I say! (The scientific method does have its flaws, but it’s better than everything else.) But please value controlled studies over anecdotes. There are lots of ways we can be misled by the latter. We don’t want to be losing our collective minds, we should be leveraging them. Please help!

ITA Jay Cross Award 2020

by Leave a Comment

The Internet Time Alliance Award, in memory of Jay Cross, is presented to a workplace learning professional who has contributed in positive ways to the field of Informal Learning and is reflective of Jay‘s lifetime of work.
Recipients champion workplace and social learning practices inside their organization and/or on the wider stage. They share their work in public and often challenge conventional wisdom. The Award is given to professionals who continuously welcome challenges at the cutting edge of their expertise and are convincing and effective advocates of a humanistic approach to workplace learning and performance.
We announce the award on 5 July, Jay‘s birthday.
Following his death in November 2015, the partners of the Internet Time Alliance (Jane Hart, Harold Jarche, Charles Jennings, and Clark Quinn) resolved to continue Jay‘s work. Jay Cross was a deep thinker and a man of many talents, never resting on his past accomplishments, and this award is one way to keep pushing our professional fields and industries to find new and better ways to learn and work.
The Internet Time Alliance Jay Cross Memorial Award for 2020 is presented to Andrew Jacobs.
Andrew is determined that learning and development should be an integral part of business activity. He is currently employed in a challenging position inside the UK government. But Andrew continues to blog at ‘Lost & Desperate’ [  https://lostanddesperate.com/  ] In 2013 his blog  was one the 50 most socially-shared learning and development blogs. In spite of his work demands, Andrew continues to share through his blog and on Twitter. He also speaks at industry events and shares what he has learned. In his previous work, Andrew became an expert at improving workplace learning with almost no budget.
Much in the spirit of Jay Cross, Andrew is constantly questioning the status quo. In his own words —
“If LnD help them learn, they won‘t need learning.
 
If they don‘t need learning, LnD aren‘t required.
 
Therefore, to be required, LnD shouldn‘t help them learn.
 
Why do LnD still market a once and done approach to learning?
 
Can‘t sell? Learn this.
 
Can‘t comply? Learn this.
 
Can‘t coach? Learn this.
 
Can‘t manage? Learn this.
 
Can‘t lead? Learn this.”
It is with great pleasure that we present the fifth annual Internet Time Alliance Jay Cross Memorial Award to Andrew Jacobs. Andrew will be presented with the award later this year in the city of London.

Myths, publishers, and confusion

by 5 Comments

Myths book coverOn 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?

Wanna talk meaning, learning science, and more…?

by Leave a Comment

The L&D conference, starting today, has a wide variety of things going on. I’m actually impressed, because in addition to the asynchronous and synchronous sessions I knew about, there are a number of other things going on. Including things I’m in. So, do you wanna talk meaning, learning science, and more…? Here’s when and how.

In addition to the presenters who have prepared asynchronous learning experiences, and the live presentations by the same and others, there are other things going on. There are panels on, for instance, on diversity & inclusion, state of learning, learning technology, women in learning, as just a few. There are also debates on games, evaluation, to e- or not to e-, at least. Lots of interesting topics. But wait, there’s more!

There are also networking sessions, a quiz show, roundtable breakouts, breakfast/cocktail (depending on timezone) networking, … There are also some interviews with prominent folks, both specifically for the conference and some legacy ones courtesy of Guy Wallace (HPT guru). And there’s either or both of more I don’t know about, and more to come.

A special mention for the CrowdThinking project, in collaboration with IBSTPI. My colleague, Fernando Senior, will be leading an event to understand the current and anticipated requirements for L&D roles. And there’s a survey you’re requested to fill out regardless of whether you’re attending the conference. Please help!

As for me, first, my asynchronous session is on Learning Science 101. I’ve created some short videos that talk about, and illustrate, a number of things our cognitive architecture has to account for. And, hint hint, it presages something hopefully to be announced soon.

My synchronous sessions (two different times; they’re making a serious effort to reach out globally) are 3PM ET (noon PT) Wed July 1, and 11AM ET (8AM PT) on July 8. Here, I’ll be talking about what I think is a huge missed opportunity and addressable (tho’ not simple) element of our learning design. I’ll also be part of the panel on learning science (The State of Learning) 8AM PT July 9 and 11 AM PT July 17. And, a reprise of the great debate on evaluating learning or impact (4PM PT 25 June).

And, importantly, I’ll be holding some office hours where we can truly talk about learning science, meaningfulness, and more! So will the other presenters. (They’re still to be set; I’ll update here when I know!)

Of course, there is a host of other really great speakers. Have a look at this lineup! Also, guests for a variety of things will include people like Charles Jennings & Jos Arets, Paul Kirschner, and many many more. Most of the live sessions have two times, so there’s a good chance you can catch them sometime. And there’s no overlap (so far ;), but things going on every day.

If, by the way, you are thinking about attending the  conference, but have some struggles with cost, get in  touch  with me. I may have a way to help out ;).   I hope to see you there, whether you want to be talking meaningful learning, or for any of the other myriad reasons.

As you can probably infer, I’m interested in this. It’s not surprising, but most online events have mimicked face-to-face events. Webinars, basically. Here there’s more going on. I don’t expect all of it to work (though it all sounds good), but I love that they’re experimenting to find ways to go beyond. We’ll all learn from this initiative. Hope to see you there if you wanna talk meaning, learning science, and more…

 

Getting Wiser

by Leave a Comment

I’ve been interested in wisdom as a stretch goal. That is, if what I (and, ideally, we) do is help people become smarter, could we go further? Could we help people get wiser? Let’s be clear, I am not claiming that I am wise. Rather, thinking about what wisdom is and trying to be wise would be more accurate ;). It’s led me to look at wisdom quietly, as a background task. And, two recent articles provide a little insight about getting wiser.

The University of Chicago established the Center for Practical Wisdom, which I think is a neat idea. And I receive their newsletter. And in this latest edition were two articles which resonated. They tackle different subjects, and they’re not perfect, but there were take-home messages in each.

In the first, they talk about how wisdom can be useful in trying times like these. This quote is worthwhile:

Could the gift of COVID-19 be that we are traumatized enough that we are finally willing to make long-lasting systemic and personal changes in race relations, inequality, and other ways we deal with one another and ourselves?

And there is a list of characteristics of wise people (my abridged list):

  • do not hyper-focus on the negative and all that is wrong
  • are pragmatic and work constructively for positive change
  • are measured
  • are open and receptive
  • are kind

Not a bad list, I reckon. In general. I like a closing line as well: “Evolution is mutuality.” Can we make changes?

The other talks a bit more philosophically about different approaches to life. My key quote here is:

No matter where I went on planet earth, all of the cultures I interacted with revered contentment as one of the highest states to cultivate in life.

That is, except the ‘west’. It’s claimed that we (er, the western world in general) focus on happiness, and there may be an alternative. That alternative is to aim to be ‘content’. In other words, instead of the ‘more’ strategy (acquiring more = happiness), the alternative is the ‘enough’ strategy. What’s enough to be content?

Not all’s perfect. The first recommended step is mindfulness, which is controversial. But the second, about identifying your contingencies (e.g. “when I know I can retire, then I’ll be happy”) seems relevant. Those sorts of goals can be harmful if they’ve got you on a continual treadmill doomed to dissatisfaction. The last step is to accept all emotions, and being safe to have emotions, without being controlled by them, helps.

I’m not anointing these as the end-all wisdom. Nope, they’re just part of the continual fodder that I process on my path to doing better. Yet, I do think we can be better as a society if we recognize that our approaches have alternatives and we consciously consider them. How we bake them into learning I’m still not sure, but for me it’s all part of getting wiser.

NOT Learning Engineering

by 2 Comments

wrenchI 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.

Experimenting with conference design

by 2 Comments

As part of coping in this time of upheaval, I’m trying different things. Which isn’t new, but there seem to be more innovations to tap into. In addition to teaching a course on mobile learning, I’m one of the speakers at a new online event. And, what’s nice, is that they’re experimenting with conference design, not just moving straight online.

To be fair, the Learning Guild has had a continual practice of trying different things at their conferences, and it’s been good. And, so too, was the most recent TK by ATD.   But this is different. Two of my colleagues organized it as a response to our ‘new normal’, Will Thalheimer and Matt Richter. And their stated goal is changing the way we conference.

The key, of course, is to leverage what’s different, and possible, online. It’s running from June 22 – July 31. That’s not a typo, it’s all of July and the tail end of June. That’s a long time!   They’ve recruited a suite of experts from around the world (they’re really trying to do this across boundaries include time and geography). And, to let you know, I’m one (so take my comments with the appropriate caveats ;).

They’re also tossing out traditional ideas and open to new ones. Speakers are expected to build an experience that’s spread out over the time. Yet also designed so that you can come in late, or early, and drill into what you want when you want. They’re also planing on having synchronous events – debates, panels, socializing – again using technology.

Note that it’s not free. There are some free conferences being put on, mostly webinars. And those are good. This is different. It’s deeper. It’s a stab at looking afresh. And I’m not sure it could even have come from any existing framework.

And, we won’t know if it all will work. We’re designing this in the time between now and launch. There’re bound to be hiccups. Which, of course, means there’re bound to be learnings. I know I want to talk about Learning Science 101. And something else. Lots I could (I welcome suggestions). I’m inclined to think it might be Emotion and Learning. But it could also be LXD. (There are all linked, of course.)

But it’s a high quality group (er, mostly…they did let me in). AND, importantly, it’s focused on evidence-based content. There may be sponsors, or even an exhibit hall, but every presenter is honor-bound not to push anything that’s not legit. Most importantly, there’s enough quality that overall it’s bound to be worth it.

I’m excited, frankly. I have to come up with some different ideas. And I like that. I’m glad that they’re experimenting with conference design. We all win, regardless! It’s part of learning, challenging yourself. So, do yourself a favor. Check it out. It may not be for you, but keep an open mind!

 

 

Points of inflection

by Leave a Comment

In a conversation the other day, I was asked about what’s needed, and what’s missing, in making the L&D revolution come to life.   I’ve previously opined about the changes I think are necessary, but I realized that for folks making the change, there are hurdles. It occurred to me that there are some points of inflection that could make a difference.

As I had previously suggested, it’s idiosyncratic. I haven’t seen a systematic move towards a more enlightened L&D. You see one inspired individual either hired in, or promoted to have the opportunity. And it can be in any industry, anywhere. It’s one person who gets  it. Sadly; as I fervently believe that we should be moving beyond ‘the course’ with some alacrity.

And, I do still believe that there are two necessary and linked steps. The first is for the L&D unit to practice what it preaches. It has to be optimal in operation and continually innovating. And evidence suggests that it’s not doing the former nor the latter. The other is to start measuring impact, not efficiency. Measurement should make clear that the approach isn’t effective, and drive the move.

But it occurs to me that the inspiration isn’t enough. For that inspired individual to succeed, they need support. That, of course, was what the book was about, but that’s not enough. Why? Because it’s complex, and it’s a lot to process  and  manage. Back to my old mantra: “the human brain is arguably the most complex thing in the known universe”!   If that’s the case, thinking that simplistic steps will yield sustained change are potentially naive.

There are several points of inflection. Getting started with a strategic plan is one (how to move from here to there). Another is getting the buy-in of your team (“You want us to do what?”). Working successfully with your first biz partner. Getting buy-in (or forgiveness) from above.

When I look at learning design, innovation facilitation, and culture change I see a complex picture.  And, I think it changes for each organization depending on their context in so many factors. So I’m inclined to worry that balancing all that and sequencing the right next steps while managing ‘up’ about the intent and process, while also transitioning to working out loud…you get the picture. Aligning with how we think, work, and learn is a process with many factors.

That’s why, I admit, I had hoped that folks who bought into the book’s story would also buy into getting some support. I’ve done some, but not as much as I expected. Idiosyncratically. Ok, so I didn’t set up some big think tank with high-powered marketing and a big sales pitch. That’s not my style (I undersell myself; it’s how I was raised ;). And, I do of course note that the rallying cry may still be ahead of its time.

Look, the revolution is still needed, and don’t assume it’s simple. If you’ve bought in, get help, wherever/however. I did point to some resources for moving to remote working, I reckon they’re also helpful here. And, of course, I’m still available to help as I’ve worked with others, whether providing workshops to help your team get on board, coaching you individually, or helping to do an environmental scan and strategic planning. But I hope you are moving in this direction regardless, and just be mindful of the points of inflection.

Adapting to change

by Leave a Comment

We live in interesting times. And, of course, that means many things have changed. Some for the worse, some for the better. I thought I’d just overview some of ways I’m adapting to change, so you can keep track and take advantage.

I was scheduled to do a number of things. One that wasn’t on the list was a trip to Brazil in May, also to give a talk (at least). And, of course, Boston, Brazil,  and Belgium have all been postponed. Understandably. And, sadly, my Quinnsights column had to cease. That might seem, then, to take away all opportunities for me to educate, but in the meantime, in addition to my ongoing Litmos blog (at least for now!), other things have surfaced.

For one, I’ll be doing a course for the Allen Academy.   I’ll be talking about mobile learning, a topic I’ve had  some experience with ;). It starts soon, 6 May. I’ll be clear: it’s about ‘thinking’ mobile, which means getting your mind around much much more than ‘courses on a phone’. And it’s about design and strategy, not development. No bit spinning. After all, I’ve quipped about the importance of getting the design right.

Another is the upcoming L&D conference. I’ll be talking “Learning Science 101”, which I think is much needed and also doable. This is a new online event conjured up by some colleagues to meet a need. And, I’m happy to say, there’s a lot to like: thinking really hard about how to take advantage of online for conference-style learning, a great lineup of speakers. This starts June 22, and last 6 weeks, so already you can see it’s different.

Two other non-event things to note. My first two books,  Engaging Learning  and  Designing mLearning, were out of print. Fortunately, when that happens, publishing contracts say the rights can revert to the author if they request it. And…they did!   I’ve taken them with minimal modification (had to remove one case study from the latter; some minor tweaks), and made them available through Kindle. At a greatly reduced price!

And, of course, I’m still working in a variety of ways. Including being available to help you with moving courses or working online. And scheming up more things. I’m tentatively scheduled for another tome, and one was already underway. Somewhat under wraps still, but…

So those are the things I’m doing adapting to change. Not to worry, there’ll be more, in this volatile age. I’m trying to practice what I preach about experimentation, so there’ll likely be other new things percolating. Stay tuned!

Two learning engineerings?

by Leave a Comment

So, I’ve written before about ‘learning engineering’. And, separately, it’s become an issue just what the term means. It appears there are two ‘learning engineerings’, and the issue is how to resolve them. So, let’s look at the contenders.

First, there’s the notion of engineering as applied science. We refer to chemical engineering as applied chemistry, electrical engineering as applied physics, etc. There’s not a one-to-one correspondence between label and theoretical field, but there is a relationship of theory and application.

Thus, learning engineering  could be the application of learning science to the design of instruction. Which is ‘instructional design’. And, to be clear, there’s a contingent that suggests this is what learning engineering could and should be. I, for one, think we should be looking to a focus on applied learning science instead of thinking of designing instruction, simply because the entrenched practices have devolved to content and a quiz. Which isn’t true ID, but…

On the other hand, there’s another perspective. Here, we’re recognizing that new technologies, particularly when we get to content systems, require a considerable amount of engineering to put them together. It’s applying computer systems to meet learning needs. Here, this is a  complement to instructional design, where we’re looking at the engineering to  support learning. And this is a valid recognition. Increasingly, we separate out design from development, and the development to make a full learning experience. It just could be the developer using an authoring tool, but when we’re talking AR/VR, or adaptive systems, and blended learning experiences and a Total Learning Architecture, it’s more.

As I see it, there’re two potential outcomes. We leave ID as the ‘applied learning science’, and let learning engineering mean the bit-twiddling (informed by learning science). Or, we reenergize ID by relabeling it, and come up with a new term for the complex system creation.

I guess I’m kind of inclined to the former,  except, we relabel ID as LXD. So we have LXD and LXE (because you can’t call it LXDesign and LXDevelopment because then you have acronym confusion :).   That’s my take, what’s yours?