Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

You are here: Home / Archives for meta-learning

Informal budget ratio <> 80/20?

by 1 Comment

Donald Clark raises an issue on his blog about confounding informal with Web 2.0, and the point I found interesting is his query about the 80/20 in/formal learning metrics.  He queries the statistics, and the issue of supporting informal.  I took it (and no blame to him if I misconstrue) to be an issue of should we match our budgets to that ration.  I commented:

Interesting point, and right in many respects. The point of the 80/20 (or 75/25) is to help people realize that they’re not supporting the 80, rather than to totally match the investment. The formal learning probably takes more resources, over time, as there’s more development required. However, how much have we invested in the informal? Typically, bugger all. My take, at least, is that there needs to be some up-front investment in the informal, but then it (should) become self-perpetuating (with the usual maintenance/upgrade/review costs).

The way I see it, as you broaden your responsibility from just training to support performance, eCommunity, mobile, etc (eCommunity being the social component of web 2.0, and a major component of informal), you need to systematically support informal.  Most of the time, it’s providing resources and an infrastructure for informal learning to flourish (the culture is the hardest part).  It’s not as resource-intensive as the process of getting learners from novice to practitioner (except the initial investment in infrastructure and boot-stratpping).

So, to me, it’s about considering informal, making a systematic plan for supporting, it, and launching it, while continuing to develop the necessary formal support for learning.  The latter will change as we develop capable learners (assuming you’re putting meta-learning in, and you should be), but there will be a role for each, but that doesn’t mean that the support requirements are a one-to-one match.  At least, that’s how I see it.  What say you?

Distributed Learning

by 3 Comments

Distributed learning is an idea that I think offers an untapped potential, what with the new technologies we have.  I’m not talking here about distance learning, but instead a combination of slow learning with ubiquitous learning.  The idea is to combine learning on the go and on-demand with a long term relationship, personalized awareness, and mixed media.  Think of it as cloud computing for your learning goals.

There are strong reasons for spreading learning over time (Will Thalheimer‘s got a whole white paper on it) –  think drip irrigation.  We can use technology to do this in a contextually relevant way; not just random elements, but wrapped around the events in our life.  With some knowledge of our schedule, and our learning goals, a system could pop out little relevant bits of learning to develop us over time.

Imagine that you’ve learning goals about communication, and about coaching.  Assume, for the moment, an imaginary curriculum that places ‘authenticity’ after ‘understanding the other’s point’, and that you’ve completed the latter.  Then, before a business meeting with a potential new contact, you might get a message to “‘say what you mean, mean what you say, without being mean‘, after you ensure you’ve heard them”  that comes in right before the meeting.  After the meeting you might be connected to a coach/mentor, to see how it went.

Later that same day, you’ve got a review meeting with one of your reports, and as your coaching curriculum’s next topic is “focus on behavior, not person”, you get not only a relevant message beforehand, but a customized job aid to take with you (filled out with the individual’s last details and your particular area to work on), and a self-evaluation form afterward.

Which is not to say you don’t also have the opportunity to request particular information beforehand, so there might be a custom ‘pull’ portal available to you with things you’re likely to need (in addition to the general search tools you already have).  A smart system might recognize that it’s been too long since some knowledge has been applied, and choose to send you some challenge to keep the knowledge active, at least until it’s part of your internalized repertoire.

Why is this of interest?  It’s about developing people over time, in the ways they want (an individual should could choose their goals, though there could be ones also negotiated with an employer).  It’s about taking advantage of your life’s occurences, not removing oneself from it to learn.  It’s being contextualized sensitive to not only where you are, but ‘when’ you are.  It’s about being opportunistic, effective, and efficient, rather than intrusive, effortful, and minimally effective.  Which is not to say that there might not be more concerted chunks, particularly at the beginning, or at major inflection points, but it’s the optimal blend – an information model, not an industrial model.

We’ve got the capability (Clarke’s “any truly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”), but we need the will and the resources.  Anyone game?

Hard to cross a chasm with baby steps

by Leave a Comment

As I indicated, I’m experimenting with Twitter (@Quinnovator).  I’m following a number of people who point to interesting things or make interesting observations.  The benefits I’m finding with Twitter, I note, are random interesting thoughts that juxtapose with my own thinking, in addition to quick answers to questions.  It reminds me of Dave Owens’ long ago system DYK, that randomly gave you some unix tidbits.  It seemed to work, as many times it was irrelevant but every once in a while it was just the right thing.  Same concept as the later ‘tool tips’ you could get on starting up PowerPoint.

This particular reflection was triggered by George Siemens tweeting a response to his presentation: “we’re taking small steps” problem is, small steps=falling behind. need that big leap :).  Mark Oehlert responded with the title of this post.  And it triggered the thought that I’ve heard Jay Cross articulate, that evolution isn’t going to keep pace with the rapid rate of change. (And yes, I’m name dropping, because you too can follow thought leaders through blogs and twitter!)

On the other hand, change is hard, big change exponentially so.  What’s an organization to do?  Yet change is coming faster. One of the ways we’ve thought to address this is an opportunity we’re offering through the Cafe’, getting some high-value external input on major issues in a lightweight way, a jumpstart to out-of-the-box thinking.

What I’ve been assisting organizations to do, and this is definitely a good thing, is to start with setting a long term vision (e.g. performance ecosystem), and making organization-specific short, medium, and long term plans to get there.  However, I’m thinking that, in parallel, what’s needed is doing some ‘out of the box’ exercises where some more disruptive stuff is trialed.  Maybe a ‘tiger team‘ for communication & innovation (and yes, I’m aware of the abuse of the phrase, but in lieu of another quick way to communicate the concept…).

The point is that you can’t just daydream crossing the chasm, and you can’t rethink in increments.  Sometimes you’ve got to take a major rethink, and put it in place and learn from it.  The best advice I recall on this is that you’ve got to have some experiments going on.  A few well-thought out gambles that you’re willing to have fail.  However, it’s not random mutation, but also not intelligent design; rather a hybrid.  Taking a calculated risk.

Like trying out new technologies: the current experimental space is social networking for me, as well as the iPhone.   But you’ve got to keep pushing your personal boundaries to have the awareness for pushing the organizational ones.  So take risks and experiment yourself, and get your organization doing the same.

eLearning 2.0

by 2 Comments

During the 1st day of Mark and Brent’s Collaboration summer seminar, they got folks active: starting blogs, wikis, webtops, etc.  They’re doing a great job:

c2sss

Naturally, in addition to the tactical questions (“how do I move this tab”?), the conceptual questions started: when do you use a blog versus a wiki, how do you make sense of all the options out there.

Now, as part of my performance ecosystem, I think blogs are a personal reflection or a history (as I told an attendee, it would be great for capturing a ‘war story’), whereas wikis are for collaboration to create a unified view of something (e.g. the way to tune a network).  I don’t think blogs support a rich discussion and aren’t that collaborative.  Also, one of the problems I see is that we often forget old tools in the excitement of new tools: discussion boards are a great way to have an ongoing conversation; you don’t need some new tool for this. Yet wikis are really good for capturing the output of a collaboration.

Also recently I’ve been having conversations with folks about integrating tools to meet larger needs.  Ning is a tool that provides ways for individuals to have profiles, to have forums, to list events, etc.  Increasingly, LMSs also have these capabilities.

The interesting thing is the great spate of tools out there: Google, Central Desktop, Zoho, Wetpaint, PBWiki, an ever growing list. There are suites of web meeting apps, web-based productivity tools, etc. How do you make sense of it? I think there’s another ‘bubble’ with these, and eventually a bunch will fail and out of the ashes a few will persist.  The good thing, I think, is that by getting your hands dirty with a variety of these, you’ll access some generalized skills.  And web apps are not going away.

I believe training anybody on any particular tool (even the seemingly ubiquitous Microsoft Office suite), is the wrong way to go.  Talk to them about the skill (writing, creating presentations, etc), and then give some assignments across a couple of different tools.  This gives you transferrable skills, which will equip you to communicate and collaborate regardless of the latest wave of tools.  And that’s what’s important, in this day of increasing change.

DevLearn ’08

by 2 Comments

Up in the mountains, there’s lots to reflect on, little time to capture it. However, I do want to note that DevLearn is again on the horizon (November), which will include keynote, preconference sessions, concurrent sessions, and more.

I’m really looking forward to Tim O’Reilly’s keynote, as his description of Web 2.0 is fairly definitive.  I reckon I’ll again be part of the pre-conference sessions on Serious Games, er, Immersive Learning Simulations, and Mobile Learning as well.  I have a concurrent session on deeper instructional design which is stuff I really believe is fundamental yet seemingly not widespread, and fortunately has been well received in a few prior instances.

The real excitement for me is having a chance to catch up with some of the brightest folks in the business, like Tony Karrer, Will Thalheimer, Ruth Clark, Judy Brown, David Metcalf, Mark Oehlert, Brent Schenkler, Frank Nguyen, Lance Dublin, Karen Hyder, Michelle Lentz, and more, as well as the new folks I’ll meet.

The Guild’s conferences have always been a highlight of the year for me, so I hope I’ll see you there!

A Moving Experience…

by 1 Comment

Yesterday, we moved furniture (OK, so bad puns are an occupational hazard :) ).  More specifically, a large solid wood entertainment center piece that even empty is surprisingly heavy.  And had to come down six steps and then up three.  Just my wife and myself (and for those who don’t know me or us, we’re not large people).  We seriously debated hiring two or four laborers to assist moving it.  However, we found another way…

Sitting down and thinking, we decided we could break it down into little steps.  First, we waltzed it over to the top of the steps. This was the most scary part, controlling it going down.  We put it on it’s back, and slid it down the carpeted steps onto some blankets, controlling the slide.

Now, the harder part, getting it up the three steps to the next room.  We stood it back up rather than take it up on the back; that had been important going down, but wasn’t for the upward trip.  We got my son to push from the back (didn’t really need it, but he was hanging around…), and we each took the front up a step at a shot.  Finally, I went to the back, lifted it up, and pushed while my wife tugged it forward.  Success!

The reason to recite this is not the impress you with our meager strength and effort (as if), but instead to highlight the lesson that taking a monumental task and breaking it down into littler steps is a really useful meta-learning technique.  Sitting down, working through the alternatives, imagining how you’d manage that particular approach and what you’d need.  With patience, a willingness to stop and rethink, and a little bit of courage, you can move mountains!

Off the grid

by 3 Comments

High SierrasIt’s time to get away from electronic diversions, and spend some time in nature, once again. Off to the high Sierras, up near timberline, lakes, rocks, trees, and wild critters.  There’s no phone connection, so no internet, email, etc.  And with nought but a twitch and a shudder, I shall endure :).

On a side note about mobile, I’ve got two invitations to talk mobile at the beginning of next year.  A sign that we’re finally hitting our stride?

Back at the end of the week. Hope you too are finding time to recharge your batteries.

Ain’t it Tweet?

by 4 Comments

OK, so my colleague/mentor/friend Sky finally got me on Twitter.  If you don’t know twitter, it’s a microblog, where you post the equivalent of a SMS (text message), maximum 160 characters.  People I respect are into it, but I’d wondered the advantages.  Sky told me he was using TwitterFox which lets you put it in your Firefox browser.  So I installed it, and managed to get it running (tho’ I may still be mucking a few things up).  And finding out that people will ‘follow’ you in the hopes you’ll visit and see their ads, e.g. weightloss; there’s spam everywhere; something I’m doing wrong?

So far, I’ve been on it a few days (@Quinnovator), and find it easy to update what I’m doing, harder to use it as a reflective tool.  I’m also only following a couple of folks I know, as I haven’t found an easy way to find folks I know who might be tweeting.  So far, some interesting things are coming through and I’ve answered a couple of questions.

One of the few folks I am following, however, pointed me to this site, recommendations of how to use Twitter as a college student.  I like where someone looks to a technology and finds the learning affordances (what I try to do myself).  I’ve not the experience with Twitter, let alone the additional apps people are building (e.g. retweetme, a twitter reminder system), as yet, so it’s nice to see someone else doing it.

I’m not going to be SMSing my tweets (I’ve a limit on SMS messages, and like that I never come near the limit), but I will be giving it a spin through the browser interface.  Any recommendations?

Mathematics or mathematician, reconsidered

by 5 Comments

“Don’t teach kids mathematics, teach them to be mathematicians.” (I believe it was Seymour Papert)

It was in the scoping phase of a new project where this came to mind, and I realized that, depending on your definition of ‘mathematician’, I don’t want them to be mathematicians either, but I want them to be mathematical problem solvers.  That is, I don’t necessarily want them to be able to create mathematical theories any more than I want them to be able to recite math formulas; I want them to be able to solve problems with mathematics.  And, as Jonassen tells us, the problems we give kids to solve in schools bear little resemblance to those they need to face in the real world.

My thoughts wandered further, however.  I wondered if we could create rubrics around what a good math problem-solver looks like, and have students evaluate each other and assist one another in becoming good problem-solvers.  Like Brown and Palincsar’s Reciprocal Teaching, they could take turns solving problems and looking at how they do it.

Of course, I want to generalize it, and find rubrics that define meaningful skills like searching, design, research, problem-solving, etc, even for adults (ala work literacy) that individual can use for self-evaluation, but also peer or guide evaluation (360; level 3, etc) and mentoring. Particularly for digital literacy.

What do you think; would you like a set of such metrics and a social support infrastructure to self-develop in the use of new technologies and skills for accomplishing your goals?

Lead the Charge?

by 2 Comments

This month’s Learning Circuit’s Big Question of the Month is whether learning organizations should be leading the way in the use of Web 2.0 technologies. Or, to be more exact:

  • Should workplace learning professionals be leading the charge around these new work literacies?
  • Shouldn’t they be starting with themselves and helping to develop it throughout the organizations?
  • And then shouldn’t the learning organization become a driver for the organization?
  • And like in the world of libraries don’t we need to market ourselves in this capacity?

The short answer is yes, we (I’m assuming most of you are learning professionals) should be leading the way. It may seem like an odd locus for technology awareness, but it’s really about technology affordances for organizational effectiveness, not just new technology. That’s why it shouldn’t be IT, or operations, or engineering, because they’re focused on a task, not the meta-level look at how the task is being accomplished, can be improved, etc. And that’s the unique perspective that makes the learning organization the right instigator.

Learning folks have the perspective of looking at the performance needs of the organization, and are charged with helping people meet those needs, but that also gives the learning organization the opportunity to improve them. When it’s the product or servce, it’s the user experience group (that, ideally, gets in early in the design process), but internally, it’s the learning group.

Which means the learning organization can’t be just a training group, but that’s part of the strategic picture I’ve talked about elsewhere. The point being that to truly help an organization you have to move to a performance focus, moving people from novice, through practitioner, to expert, and giving them a coherent support environment. To do this, you need to know what’s available. And, consequently, the learning organization has to experiment with new technologies for it’s own internal workings to determine how and when to deploy them to organizational benefit.

To put it another way, if not the learning organization, then who? Of course, there’s the political perspective as well, demonstrating currency, but I’m more concerned about adding real value. Learning professionals need to know it, bring it to bear when it’s valuable (and skewer it when it’s not), and in general be seen not only knowing what’s what but also what’s hype.

Marketing is smart in general, but it’s not hype, it’s helping transition the perspective from a training group being an expendable cost-center to a learning capability that’s central to organizational effectiveness and performance. Which is where a learning organization should be, right?