Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Editing, process, topics, and other reflections

by Leave a Comment

My lass let me know there was a typo in my recent post on Transformation.  I’m thrilled that she’s reading them (!), but she triggered many thoughts about my writing approach. I thought I’d share how I deal with blogging, articles, and writing in general, as a ‘show your work‘ effort. And, in a sense, solicit your thoughts on approach, editing, and topics (amongst other things).

Process

It starts with my commitment to two blog posts a week. And I’m pretty sure I average that, since while I occasionally only get one, I also occasionally get three (say, during a week at a conference with mindmaps).  That means, however, that sometimes I’m brimming with ideas and have them queued up a week or two in advance, and sometimes I’m writing them at the last minute (*cough* this one *cough*).  When I know I’ll be on the road on a particular week, I definitely try to have them in the hopper in advance.

Regardless, I tend to write each in one fell swoop. Something sparks a thought, and I rush to get it down. Sometimes I’ll have an idea elsewhere, and jot myself a one line reminder, and need to generate the full prose. But my writing’s often like that: once I’m going, I have to let that full idea gestate. Even when writing a full book (as I’ve done a time or two ;), I outline it in a go, and then write sections in a burst.

Now, I write in several channels: my blog, my committed articles, and of course books. And, not surprisingly, I write them differently.  The blog comes out ‘as is’. I do reread it after it’s first done, typically, but as my lass discovered, it can have flaws. I reread my Trends article after posting, for instance, and noticed a couple of flaws. (I’ve fixed them, of course, similarly when folks comment in one way or another about something I’ve left confusing or wrong.)

My articles are different. I write them typically in one go, but I always hang on to them for at least a day, and reread with fresh eyes. I think that’s obligatory for such efforts. In one case, I have an editor who reads them with a careful eye, and always sends back a revised version. I don’t get to  see the revisions (which is frustrating), but the articles are always improved. Editing is valuable!

For books, as I mentioned, I outline it, then write sections. And, depending on the book, the experience changes. With  Engaging Learning, it had been percolating for so long it kind of flew out of my fingers onto the page.  For  Designing mLearning, it was different; I outlined, and wrote, and as I got further in I found myself rearranging the structure and going back to add things.  The Revolutionize L&D book was closer to the Designing mLearning book, with two changes. I didn’t reorganize as much, but I kept going back and adding stuff. It was hard to finish!

With my books, I’ve always had an editor. The ones from the publisher varied in quality (good experiences generally), but I also have m’lady serve as my first (and best) editor. And I’ve learned to truly value an editor. The benefit of a second eye without the assumptions and blinders the writer brings is great!

Topics

The ideas come differently as well. My blog tends to get whatever I’m thinking about (like this). My articles tend to be a deeper dive into whatever I think (or we agree, with my editor) is important. I keep a list of potential topics for each, and take whatever feels ‘right’ for the month.

Books, of course, are a bigger story. For one, you need a publisher’s agreement (unless you self-publish). My first book was based upon my research for years on games and engagement. The mLearning books were publisher requests, and yet I had to believe I could do a proper job. Revolutionize emerged from my work with people and orgs and looking at the industry as a whole, and was something I think needed to be said. My latest, on myths, was also requested, but also something I felt comfortable doing (and needed to be done).

(Interestingly, on the requested books, I first checked to see if someone else might write it instead, but when the obvious candidates declined, I was happy to step up. I got their voices in anyway. ;)

The hard part, sometimes, is coming up with topics. The commitment to two posts a week is a great catalyst for thinking, but sometimes I feel bereft. I welcome suggestions for topics for any of the above as well. Someone asked what my next book would be, and I asked them what they thought it should be.  However, I’m not ready to write a memoir yet; I’m not done!  Thoughts solicited on any or all of the above.

Developing learning to learn skills

by 5 Comments

I’m an advocate of meta-learning, that is: learning to learn. Not just because it’s personally empowering, but because it can and should be  organizationally empowering. The problem is, little is talked about how to develop it. And I have to say that what I  do see, seems inadequate. So I thought I’d rant, for a post, on what is involved in developing learning to learn skills.

First, of course, you have to identify what they  are!  What are learning to learn skills?  Harold Jarche’s PKM is a good start, talking about seek > sense > share. Obviously, there’s more to it than just that, so it’s about seeking actively but also setting up systems to continually feed you new, potentially tangential thoughts. And how to evaluate what you get. Then, it’s about being able to process the inputs in ways that help you understand, or do, something new. What does it  mean, in practice?  Finally, of course, it’s about sharing, in two ways. For one, contributing to others’ questions and work. Then it’s also sharing your own thoughts and work.

That’s (largely) working alone, but there are also specifics about how you work and play well with others. Do you know how to best manage the process of solving a problem together?  How can you ask questions, and answer them, in ways that people will recognize and participate?   People need models and frameworks that guide performance.

Of course, just knowing this isn’t enough.  There are some necessary additional steps. The first is evangelizing and sharing the best principles for working together. So, people have to know about the principles, and be encouraged to use them.  And even be rewarded, whether just with praise or actual promotion of their successes. There should also be models, examples. So L&D should be practicing what they preach, and working and learning ‘out loud’.  Show, and narrate, your own work!  And, this is still not enough.

Most importantly, you have to  develop the skills. Actively. So, content about them, and examples are good. But learning is, at core, about mentored practice.  And it can’t be in the abstract, it’s about doing it with real tasks. You can set up such opportunities in your formal learning (and should), but you should also be coaching around real work.

At least, you should be facilitating proper approaches in public forums, like social media.  You can quietly coach individuals about good practices if they’re off target.  You can point out, as a meta-discussion, when people are learning effectively.  Annotate the thinking behind what learners can and should be doing.

The worst thing is to leave it to chance, or assume your learners are effective self-learners. The evidence is that they’re not. Sadly, our education system doesn’t do a good job of this. Nor do our organizations. But we could. This is about more effective innovation, really. Learning manifests as new ways of doing things. Innovation is about better ways of doing things. If we evaluate our learnings and apply the ones that are improvements, we’re innovating. Both for specific needs and as a ongoing background process.  And if indeed innovation is the only sustainable differentiator, this is the best investment you can make for the organization.

And, if you’re truly contributing to the central success factor in the organization, you’re becoming essential to the organization. As you should be. So seize the opportunity, and make meta-learning a priority. Develop learning to learn skills consciously, and conscientiously.  It’s an innovative, and valuable, thing to do :).

 

And the myths go on

by Leave a Comment

Yet another silly post I stumbled upon.  And last week at a conf someone said they liked my take-downs. If you disagree, let me know, but otherwise here’s yet another bunch of marketing hype.  Hopefully no one uses this for any real decisions!

This one talks about ‘generation Z’, and implications for L&D. Ok, so we’re off on the wrong foot from the get-go.  These are listed as 1995-2014. (Er, um, as Jessica Kriegel pointed out last week, isn’t the whole point of the millennial label that they’re ‘2000’? )  However, there’s no evidence to point to reliable generational differences. What differences there are can be attributed to age, and it’s still a form of age discrimination, how about treating people by how they individually behave?

So there’s a list of differentiators, sourced from elsewhere. You go to the elsewhere, and it’s preferences, and anecdotal. Neither one are good bases for making broad claims. There are several cites in the list, as well. From marketing sites. So the author clearly doesn’t understand good data.  What are they talking about? Here’s a subset:

  • Digital multitaskers: well, we know that’s inefficient, but haven’t we seen that taken up by device, not age group? It’s certainly true for millennials as well, and seems to be true for everyone who’s gotten on to mobile devices.
  • Secretly social: (wth?) they share, but with control. As do most astute folks beyond high school.
  • Diverse: er, yes, so’s the whole US. And, more and more, the world. How is this definitional? And do you think they really don’t still have biases?
  • Quick Information Processors/Communicators:  dealing with chunks, quickly but not necessarily accurately. Isn’t that, er, just kind of human?

The recommendations list is similarly silly:

  • Update job descriptions: make sure they’re up-to-date.  Really?  This isn’t just good practice?
  • Expunge bias: ditto
  • Go where the talent is: use appropriate social media. C’mon, already; any other statements of the obvious?
  • Benefits: emphasize the WIIFM. Can you imagine?

The overarching theme here is ‘do good things’.  Why isn’t this appropriate for  every job search?  And the same thing continues when recommendations for your courses:

  • Digital and Visual Content: Use media? Really?  Who’d have thought of it?
  • Reassess your Library and Curricula: you don’t need diversity, but you do need soft skills. Here I think there is bad advice, instead of the generally ‘best principles argued for the wrong reasons’.  Just because you hear more messages of tolerance (yay!), doesn’t mean you know how to be inclusive, and are aware of unconscious bias. (That’s why it’s  unconscious!)

And the same overall pattern of good advice pretending to be specific to a generation holds true for the final list.   (I’m paraphrasing the advice here):

  • Embrace diversity
  • Provide social connection tools
  • Give them the ability to contribute
  • Include them
  • Don’t try to ‘own’ their time

Tell me if you think any of these should be not true for other folks than these new folks?  I think this approach is a bad idea, overall. You’re providing decent advice (er,  mostly), but doing so through a myth-perpetuating framing. That’s still myth-perpetuating!

Ok, so this was from a company that’s trying to flog their services. It still seems like it’s written by a person more focused on marketing than matter. And I think we need to unpack these, and push back. Generation Z is just as discriminatory as millennials,  gender, and other differences that are attempts to avoid dealing with people as individuals.  If we don’t kick up our heels, we won’t get better efforts. And we should.

Intellectricity

by Leave a Comment

Many years ago, I met a guy who worked for Apple. They were allowed to have their own job titles, and his was “Intellectrician”. I thought that was a very nice turn of phrase. And, as I just ordered new business cards, I put  Intellectricity as the tagline instead of “Learning & Performance Strategy” or other permutations with Technology and such in the title.  Why?

The goal, of course, is to have a phrase that folks will read it and go “what’s that about?”, as some of my colleagues helped me remember. If you can spark a conversation, you have a chance to do a little evangelism/education. (And maybe some business interest?)  Also, I think it actually captures what I believe and like to do pretty well.

You’ve likely heard or read me harp many times on how companies aren’t well aligned with how we think, work, and learn. The cognitive violations are many, from how we design our learning, to design our workplaces, policies, tool use, and culture. If we redesigned what we’re doing, creating strategies to get better practices in place, we’d be unleashing the organizational intellect!  Hence, ‘intellectricity’.

And this is pretty much what I’m on about, in several ways:

  • knowing what formal learning  really  looks like, and designing our design processes accordingly
  • recognizing what facilitates informal learning in the short term (the ‘solve this’ type of problem-solving’)
  • facilitating long-term informal learning by practices and tools suites
  • fostering a culture where innovation thrives

This is a partial list that goes fractal really quickly with practices and principles around each area. The point is that these elements are key to organizational ‘thrival’.  Overall, they’re about optimizing the intellectual activity of the organization, learning quickly to be agile.

We’ll see if this tactic works to generate conversations and then new thinking. As Jay Cross used to say “conversations are the stem cells of learning”.  Practicing what we preach.  So here’s to Intellectricity: more conversations and more learning.

Competencies and Innovation?

by Leave a Comment

This may seem like an odd pairing, so bear with me.  I believe that we want to find ways to support organizations moving in the direction of innovation and learning cultures. Of course, I’ve been on a pretty continuous campaign for this, but I’m wondering what other levers we have. And, oddly, I think competencies may be one. Let me make the case for competencies and innovation.

So I’ve gotten involved in standards and competency work. Don’t ask me why, as I have no better answer than a) they asked, and b) the big ‘sucker’ tattoo on my forehead.  Of course, as I’ve said before, the folks that do this stuff (besides me, obviously) are really contributing to the benefit of our org. Maybe I felt I had to walk the talk?

In the course of the one that was just launched, we identified a number of competencies across the suite of L&D activities. This included (in addition the more traditional activities) looking at how to foster innovation. This means understanding culture and the change processes to get there, as well as knowing how to run meetings that get the best outputs. It’s about being prepared for both types of innovation, fast (solve ‘this’ problem) and slow (the steady percolation of ideas).

Thus, the necessary skills are identified as a component of a full suite of L&D capabilities. And the hope, of course, is that people will begin to recognize that there are parts of L&D they’re not addressing, and move to take on this opportunity. I hope that it’s becoming obvious that the ability to facilitate innovation is an organizational imperative, and that there’s a strong argument for L&D to be key. This is on principle, and pragmatically, it’s a no-brainer for L&D to find a way to become central to org success, not peripheral.

However, leaving that to chance would be, well, just silly. What can we do?  Well, two things, I think: one is to help raise awareness, the other is to provide support. A suite of skills aligned to this area is a ‘good thing’ if it known and used. Working on the know has been an ongoing thing (*cough*), but how can we support it?

Again, two things, I think. One are examples where people have put in place programs where they’ve oriented themselves in this direction and documented benefits. The other is to provide scaffolding; support materials that help folks implement these competencies. And I believe that’s coming.

“Systematic creativity is  not an oxymoron” (I may need to make a quip post about that). And this is an example. Think of brainstorming, for example. It can be useful, or  not. When done right, the outcomes are much better. And similarly in lots of ways, the nuances matter. If we define, through competencies, what suites of knowledge matter, we bring awareness to the possible outcomes. And the opportunity to improve them.

It may be an indirect path, to be sure, but it’s a steady, and real one. In fact, to say “we want to innovate, but how” and have a suite of specific sets of knowledge on tap to point people to, is pretty much next to the fastest path.  Showing people the benefits and the path to obtain them is key. It’s even self-referential: let’s innovate on making innovation systematically embedded in organizations! ;)  So, keep on experimenting!

Constraints on activities

by 2 Comments

When we design learning activities (per the activity-based learning model), ideally we’re looking to create an integration of a number of constraints around that assignment. I was looking to enumerate them, and (of course) I tried diagramming it.  Thought I’d share the first draft, and I welcome feedback!

Multiple constraints on assignmentsThe goal is an assignment that includes the right type of processing. This must align with what they need to be able to do after the learning experience. Whether at work or in a subsequent class. Of course, that’s factored into the objective for this learning activity (which is part of an overall sequence of learning).

Another constraint is making sure the setting is a context that helps establish the breadth of transfer. The choice should be sufficiently different from contexts seen in examples and other practices to facilitate abstracting the essential elements. And, of course, it’s ideally in the form of a story that the learner’s actions are contributing to (read: resolve). The right level of exaggeration could play an (unrepresented) role in that story.

We also need the challenge in the activity to be in the right range of difficulty for the learner. This is the integration of flow and learning to create meaningful engagement.  And we want to include ways in which learners typically go wrong (read: misconceptions). Learners need to be able to make the mistakes here so we’re trapping and addressing them in the learning situation, not when it could matter.

Finally, we want to make sure there’s enough variation across tasks. While some similarities benefit for both consistency and addressing the objective, variety can maintain interest. We need to strike that balance. Similarly, look at the overall workload: how much are we expecting, and is that appropriate given the other constraints outside this learning goal.

I think you can see that successfully integrating these is non-trivial, and I haven’t even gotten into how to evaluate this, particularly to make it a part of an overall assessment. Yet, we know that multiple constraints help make the design easier (at least until you constrain yourself to an empty solution set ;).  This is probably still a mix of art and science, but by being explicit you’re less likely to miss an element.

We want to align activities with the desired outcome, in the full context.  So, what am I missing?  Does this make sense?

 

Processing

by Leave a Comment

I’ve been thinking a lot about processing in learning of late; what processing matters, when, and why. I thought I’d share my thinking with you and see what you think.  This is  my processing!  :)

We know processing is useful. You can consider Craik & Lockhart’s Levels of Processing model, or look to the importance of retrieval practice as highlighted in Brown, Roediger, and McDaniel’s Make it Stick. The point is that retrieving information from memory and doing things with it increases the likelihood of learning. One of the questions is  “what sort of retrieval (or processing)?”

I’ve always advocated for  applying the information, doing something with it.  But there are actually a variety of useful things we can do:

  • representing information (a form of reflection) whether rewriting, or mindmapping, or…
  • connecting to other known information, personal or professional
  • considering how it would be applied in practice
  • applying it in practice, real or simulated

Of course, we want there to be scrutiny and feedback for the learning to be optimized, etc.

Now, this is in the individual instance, but I’m also looking at the sequence of processing. What would be a series of activities that would develop understanding. So, for instance, for a problem-solving practice like trouble-shooting a process, what might you do? You might have  (say, after a model of the process, and examples) a sequence of :

  • critique someone else’s performance
  • try a simple example of performing
  • try a more complex example (perhaps in a group)
  • …(more examples of performing)
  • try a very complex (read: typical) example

We could throw in related tasks as well either during or as a summary:

  • create a checklist to follow
  • draw a flow diagram
  • create a representation

On a more categorical task, say determining whether a situation qualifies as this or not (with shades of grey in between), we would have a similar structure, but with different types of tasks (again, after initial content such as definition and examples):

  • review a case where it clearly is (white)
  • review a case where it clearly isn’t (black)
  • group review a case of grey (but not too bad)
  • group review a case of grey (more shady)
  • …

Again, we could have interim or summary tasks:

  • summarize the constraints
  • document a proposed process
  • make a plan for how to do it in the future
  • …

What I’ve explicitly added here is when and why to go ‘social‘.  There are benefits for the same, but should they all be social?  I’ll argue that there’s some initial prep that’s individual, to get everyone on the same page. Since all are different, it helps if this is individual. Then there’s often value in doing it socially, for the reasons in the linked post.  Then, I reckon there’s value in doing  something independently, to consolidate the learning. And, of course, to determine what capability the individual has acquired.

The point I want to make is that the processing  flow, the progression from activity to activity, matters. We want to introduce, diverge, and then converge.  We do need to elaborate across contexts to support transfer, and of course increase complexity until they’ve developed the ability to deal with the typical difficulty of cases.

I’m thinking that, too often, we forget the consolidation phase.  And we’re often doing processing that’s somewhat like what we need them to do, but ultimately tangential. There are multiple constraints here to be acknowledged, cognitive such as depth and breadth as well as pragmatic such as cost and time, but we want to find the right intersection.

And my practical question is: where does this fall apart? Are their situations where this doesn’t make sense?  I realize there are other types of outcomes that I haven’t represented (I’m being indicative, not exhaustive ;), but is this a useful way to think about it?

 

Labels, models, and drives

by Leave a Comment

In my post last week on engagement, I presented the alignment model from my  Engaging Learning  book on designing learning experiences. And as I thought about the post, I pondered several related things about labels, models, and drives. I thought I’d wrestle with them ‘out loud’ here, and troll (in the old sense) to see what you think.

Some folks have branded a model and lived on that for their career. And, in a number of cases, that’s not bad: they’re useful models and their applicability hasn’t diminished. And while, for instance, I think that alignment model is as useful as most models I’ve seen, I didn’t see any reason to tie my legacy to it, because the principles I like to comprehend and then apply to create solutions aren’t limited to just engagement. Though I wonder if people would find it easier to put the model in practice if it had a label.  The Quinn Engagement model or somesuch?

I’ve also created models around mobile, and about performance ecosystems, and more. I can’t say that they’re all original (e.g. the 4Cs of mobile), though I think they have utility. And some have labels (again, the 4Cs, Least Assistance Principle…) Then the misconceptions book is very useful, but the coverage there isn’t really mine, either. It’s just a useful compendium. I expect to keep creating models. But it’d led to another thought…

I’ve seen people driven to build companies. They just keep doing it, even if they’ve built one and sold it, they’re always on it; they’re serial entrepreneurs. I, for instance, have no desire to do that. There are elements to that that aren’t me.    Other folks are driven to do research: they have a knack for designing experiments that tease out the questions that drive them to find answers. And I’ve been good at that, but it’s not what makes my heart beat faster. I do  like action research, which is about doing with theory, and reflecting back. (I also like helping others become able to do this.)

What I’m about is understanding and applying cognitive science (in the broad sense) to help people do important things in ways that are enabled by new technologies.  Models that explain disparate domains are a hobby. I like finding ways to apply them to solve new problems in ways that are insightful but also pragmatic.   If I create models along the way (and I do), that’s a bonus. Maybe I should try to create a model about applying models or somesuch. But really, I like what I do.

The question I had though, is whether anyone’s categorized ‘drives’.  Some folks are clearly driven by money, some by physical challenges. Is there a characterization?  Not that there needs to be, but the above chain of thought led me to be curious. Is there a typology of drives? And, of course, I’m skeptical if there is one (or more), owing to the problems with, for instance, personality types and learning styles :D. Still, welcome any pointers.

Another Day Another Myth-Ridden Hype Piece

by 1 Comment

Some days, it feels like I’m playing whack-a-mole. I got an email blast from an org (need to unsubscribe) that included a link that just reeked of being a myth-ridden piece of hype.  So I clicked, and sure enough!  And, as part of my commitment to showing my thinking, I’m taking it down. I reckon it’s important to take these myths apart, to show the type of thinking we should avoid if not actively attack.  Let me know if you don’t think this is helpful.

The article starts by talking about millennials. That’s a problem right away, as millennials is an arbitrary grouping by birthdate, and therefore is inherently discriminatory. The boundaries are blurry, and most of the differences can be attributed to age, not generation. And that’s a continuum, not a group. As the data shows.  Millennials is a myth.

Ok, so they go on to say: “Changing the approach from adapting to Millennials to leveraging Millennials is the key…”  Ouch!  Maybe it’s just me, but while I like to leverage assets, I think saying that about people seems a bit rude.  Look, people are people!  You work with them, develop them, etc. Leverage them?  That sounds like you’re using them (in the derogatory sense).

They go on to talk about Learning Organizations, which I’m obviously a fan of.  And so the ability to continue to learn is important.  No argument. But why would that be specific to ‘millennials’?  Er…

Here’s another winner: “They natively understand the imperative of change and their clockspeed is already set for the accelerated learning this requires.”  This smacks of the ‘digital native’ myth.  Young people’s wetware isn’t any different than anyone else’s. They may be more comfortable with the technology, but making assumptions such as this undermines the fact that any one individual may not fit the group mean. And it’s demonstrable that their information skills aren’t any better because of their age.

We move on to 3 ways to leverage millennials:

  1. Create Cross-pollination through greater teamwork.  Yeah, this is a good strategy.  FOR EVERYONE. Why attribute it just to millennials?  Making diverse teams is just good strategy, period. Including diversity by age? Sure. By generation?  Hype. You see this  also with the ‘use games for learning’ argument for millennials. No, they’re just better learning designs! (Ok, with the caveat: if done well.)
  2. Establish a Feedback-Driven Culture to Learn and Grow Together. That’s a fabulous idea; we’re finding that moving to a coaching culture with meaningful assignments and quick feedback (not the quarterly or yearly) is valuable. We can correct course earlier, and people feel more enagaged. Again,  for everyone.
  3. Embrace a Trial-and-Error Approach to Learning to Drive Innovation. Ok, now here I think it’s going off the rails. I’m a fan of experimentation, but trial and error can be smart or random. Only one of those two makes sense. And, to be fair, they do argue for good experimentation in terms of rigor in capturing data and sharing lessons learned. It’s valuable, but again, why is this unique to millennials? It’s just a good practice for innovation.

They let us know there are 3 more ways they’ll share in their next post.  You can imagine my anticipation.  Hey, we can read  two  posts with myths, instead of just one.  Happy days!

Yes, do the right things (please), but  for the right reasons. You could be generous and suggest that they’re using millennials as a stealth tactic to sneak in messages about modern workplace learning.  I’m not, as they seem to suggest doing this largely with millennials. This sounds like hype written by a marketing person. And so, while I advocate the policies, I eschew the motivation, and therefore advise you to find better sources for your innovation practices. Let me know if this is helpful (or not ;).

Why Myths Matter

by 3 Comments

I’ve called out a number of myths (and superstitions, and misconceptions) in my latest tome, and I’m grateful people appear to be interested.  I take this as a sign that folks are beginning to really pay attention to things like good learning design. And that’s important. It’s also  important not to minimize the problems myths can create. I do that in my presentations, but I want to go a bit deeper.  We need to care about why myths matter to limit our mistakes!

It’s easy to think something like “they’re wrong, but surely they’re harmless”.  What can a few misguided intentions matter?  Can it hurt if people are helped to understand if people are different?  Won’t it draw attention to important things like caring for our learners?  Isn’t it good if people are more open-minded?

Would that this were true. However, let me spin it another way: does it matter if we invest in things that don’t have an impact?  Yes, for two reasons.  One, we’re wasting time and money. We will pay for workshops and spend time ensuring our designs have coverage for things that aren’t really worthwhile. And that’s both profligate and unprofessional.  Worse, we’re also not investing in things that might actually matter.  Like, say,  Serious eLearning. That is, research-derived principles about what  actually works. Which is what we should be getting dizzy about.

But there are worse consequences. For one, we could be undermining our own design efforts. Some of these myths may have us do things that undermine the effectiveness of our work. If we work too hard to accommodate non-existent ‘styles’, for instance, we might use media inappropriately. More problematic, we could be limiting our learners. Many of the myths want to categorize folks: styles, gender, left/right brain, age, etc.  And, it’s true, being aware of how diversity strengthens is important. But too often people go beyond; they’ll say “you’re an XYZ”, and people will self-categorize and consequently self-limit.  We could cause people not to tap into their own richness.

That’s still not the worst thing. One thing that most such instruments explicitly eschew is being used as a filter: hire/fire, or job role. And yet it’s being done. In many ways!  This means that you might be limiting your organization’s diversity. You might also be discriminatory in a totally unjustifiable way!

Myths are not just wasteful, they’re harmful. And that matters.  Please join me in campaigning for legitimate science in our profession. And let’s chase out the snake oil.  Please.