Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Don’t make me learn!

by 1 Comment

In a conversation with a client, the book Don’t Make Me Think was mentioned. Though I haven’t read it, I’m aware of its topic: usability. The underlying premise also is familiar: make interfaces that use pre-existing knowledge and satisficing solutions. (NB: I used to teach interface design, having studied under one of the gurus.) However, in the context of the conversation, it made me also ponder a related topic: “don’t make me learn”. Which, of course, prompted some reflection.

There are times, I’ll posit, when we don’t want employees to be learning. There are times when learning doesn’t make sense. For instance, if the performance opportunities are infrequent, it may not make sense to try to have it in people’s heads. If there’s a resource people can use to solve the problem rather, than learning, that is probably a better answer. That is, in almost any instance, if the information can be in the world, perhaps it should.

One reason for this is learning, done properly, is hard. If a solution must be ‘in the head’ – available when needed and transferring to appropriate situations – there’ll likely be a fair bit of practice required. If it’s complex, much more so. Van Merriënboer’s Four Component Instructional Design is necessarily rigorous! Thus, we shouldn’t be training unless it absolutely, positively, has to be in the head when needed (such as in life-threatening situations such as aviation and medicine).

I’m gently pushing the idea that we should avoid learning as much as possible! Make the situation solvable in some other way. When people talk about ‘workflow learning’, they say that if it takes you out of the workflow, it’s not workflow. I’ll suggest that if it doesn’t, it’s not learning. Ok, so I’m being a bit provocative, but too often we err on the side of throwing training at it, even when it’s not the best solution. Let’s aim for the reverse, finding other solutions first. Turn to job aids or community (learning can be facilitated around either, as well), but stop developing learning as a default.

So, don’t make me learn, unless I have to. Fair enough?

Looking ahead

by Leave a Comment

A number of people are indicating that 2022 is another year to move on from. And, of course, we do need to move on (as if there were an alternative ;). Still, 2022 was a good year for Quinnovation, and here’s hoping that continues.  Here’re some random thoughts looking ahead.

For one, I saw an interesting piece leveraging the financial adage (really: caution) that “past performance is not indicative of future results”. That comes with various investment opportunities; just because they’ve done well in the past doesn’t meant that will continue. The nice twist in the article was to apply it to yourself: if the past year wasn’t a great one, that doesn’t mean you’re going to continue to suffer. Things can get better despite what happened in the past (or worse), though of course taking your own proactive steps is recommended. Indeed, given that for me, 2020 and 2021 were slow years didn’t mean 2022 had to be. Fortunately!

In the broader sense, I think that despite some hiccups, we’re seeing positive trends. For instance, I increasingly see calls for greater attention to evidence-based practices. While that doesn’t mean it’s happening yet, but the notice is hopefully precedes implementation!

We’ve still some legacies slowing us down, of course. I do think that the belief in us as formal reasoning beings will continue to be a barrier. Still, the above clarion call should help us move (however slowly) to right that wrong.

I’m optimistic, by nature (despite being skeptical). Thus, I think we are working our way forward. I reckon I’ll keep working on that, at least. I am continuing with the Learning Development Accelerator, and Upside Learning, as well of course continuing to do Quinnovative things. I’m looking ahead to us having an impact, together!

Happy Holidays and the New Year!

by Leave a Comment

This year, my traditional Tuesday post means this is the last post of this year. The next will be in 2023! Which means it’s time for reflection, heartfelt thanks, and so on. So here’s some thoughts and wishes for happy holidays and the new year.

First, it’s been a really good year, overall. After two too-quiet years (2020 and 2021), the year has been joyously busy. Almost too, but that beats the alternative! I’ve been fortunate to be working not only with great clients, but also with Matt Richter and team for the Learning Development Accelerator (LDA), and with Amit Garg and the Upside Learning team. Both have been very fulfilling.

I’ve been serving as the co-director of the LDA, and as such helped drive a few of the initiatives. For one, the You Oughta Know weekly webinar series was a blessing! I got to interview some of my heroes in learning such as John Sweller and Rich Mayer, as well as many eminent friends. We also ran the Learning & Development Conference in a new format this year. I think it went well. We’re moving on to new ideas for this coming year (stay tuned).

Serving as Upside Learning’s Chief Learning Strategist has also been a great experience. These are folks who’ve made a welcome serious commitment to learning science. I’m helping them find the balance between rigor and commercial viability. I’ve always recognized the need to strike a pragmatic balance between principle and practicality. Thus, it’s truly ‘hard fun’ to help figure it out. More mischief is afoot (so again, stay tuned).

I’ve had the chance to realize a couple of things. For one, I’ve been fortunate to have the bandwidth to do things like publish books (my most recent also came out this year). I likely wouldn’t have had that if I had a full-time job. It was an enormous source of stress (and not a few bad decisions) to not have the security of such work, particularly when the kids were young and I was the sole bread-winner. Yet, things have turned out for the best.

Another realization is that I love working with folks to find the balance between what theory would suggest and what fits in practice. I like working through these exercises, because I  learn, and I think this is where I add unique value.  I also like sharing the underlying thinking, because I think we need more of it and it’s hard to scale as an individual contributor. I’m grateful I’ve had the chance for the books and to speak at various venues around the world. Also this blog!

So, thanks to my clients, my partners, and all those who strive to pay attention to what research says and do the right thing. I wish you all the best for happy holidays and the new year. May we continue to learn and grow. Stay curious, my friends!

Meta-reflections

by Leave a Comment

Lake reflectionI was recently pinged about a new virtual world, a ‘metaverse‘ inspired new place for L&D. It looked like a lot of previous efforts! I admit I was underwhelmed, and I think sharing why might be worthwhile. So here are some meta-reflections.

I’ve written before on virtual worlds. In short, I think that when you need to be social and 3D, they make sense. At other times, there’s a lot of overhead for them to be useful that can be met in other ways. Further, to me, the metaverse really is just another virtual world. Your mileage may vary, of course.

This new virtual world had, like many others, the means to navigate in 3D, and to put information around. The demo they had was a virtual museum. Which, I presume, is a nice alternative to trying to get to a particular location. On the other hand, if it’s all digital, is this the best way to do it? Why navigate around in 3D? Why not treat it as an infographic, and work in 2D, leading people through the story? What did 3D add? Not much, that I could see.

My take has, and continues to be, as they say, “horses for courses”. That is, use the right tool for the job. I complained about watching a powerpoint presentation in Second Life (rightly so). Sure, I get that we tend to use new technologies in old ways first until we get on top of the new capabilities. However, I also argue that we can short-circuit this process if we look at core affordances.

The followup message was that this was the future of L&D, and we’d get away from slide decks and Zoom calls, and do it all in this virtual world. I deeply desire this not to be true! My take is that slide decks, Zoom, virtual worlds, and more all have a place. It’s a further instance of get the design right first, then figure out how to implement it. I want an ecosystem of resources.

Sure, I get that such a meta verse could be an integrating environment. However, do you really want to do all your work in a virtual world? Some things you can’t, I reckon, machining materials, for instance. Moreover, we have benefits from being out in the world. There are other issues as well. You might be better able to deal with diversity, etc, in a virtual world, but it’ll disadvantage some folks. Better, maybe, to address the structural problems rather than try to cover them over?

As always, my takeaway is use technology to implement better approaches, don’t meld your approaches to your tech. Those are, at least, my meta-reflections. What are yours?

Conference Outcomes?

by Leave a Comment

Two months ago, I wrote about the L&D Conference we were designing. In all fairness, I reckon I should report on how it went, now that it’s finished. There are some definite learnings, which we hope to bring forward, both for the conference (should we run it again, which we intend), and for the Learning & Development Accelerator (LDA; the sponsoring org, of which I’m co-director with Matt Richter) activities as well. So here are some thoughts on the conference outcomes.

Our design was to have two tracks (basic and advanced) and a limited but world-class faculty to cover the topics. We also were looking not just to replicate what you get at typical face-to-face conferences (which we like as well), but to do something unique to the medium and our audience. Thus, we weren’t just doing one-off sessions on a topic. Instead, each was an extended experience, with several sessions spread out over days or weeks.

The results of that seemed to work well. While not everybody who attended one of the sessions on a topic attended all, there was good continuity. And the feedback has been quite good; folks appreciate the deep dive with a knowledgeable and articulate expert. This, we figure, is an important result that we’re proud of. If someone misses a session, they can always review the video (we’re keeping the contents available for the rest of the year).

Our social events, networking and trivia, didn’t do quite so well. The networking night did have a small attendance but the trivia night didn’t reach critical mass. We attribute this at least partly to it being a later thought, and not promoting from the get-go.

We struggled a bit with scheduling. First, we spread it across changes in countries that switch to/from daylight savings time. The platform we used didn’t manage that elegantly, and we owe a lot to a staffer who wrestled that into submission. Still, it led to some problems in folks connecting at the right time. On the other hand, having the courses spread out meant we didn’t collide, you could attend any sessions you want (the tracks were indicative, not prescriptive).

The platform also had one place to schedule events, but it was as web page. As a faculty member opined, they wished they could’ve loaded all the sesssions into their calendar with one click. I resonate with that, because in moments when I might’ve had spare bandwidth to attend a session, I’m more likely to look at my calendar rather than the event page. Not sure there’s an easy solution, of course. Still, folks were able to find and attend sessions.

We also didn’t get the social interaction between the sessions we’d hoped, though there was great interaction during the sessions. Faculty and participants were consistent in that perspective. There was a lot of valuable sharing of experiences, questions, and advice.

One thing that, post-hoc, I realize is that it really helps to unpack the thinking. The faculty we chose are those who’ve demonstrated an ability to help folk see the underlying thinking. That paid off well! However, we realize that there may be more opportunities. An interesting discussion arose in a closing event about the value of debates; where two folks who generally agree on the science find something to diverge on. Everyone (including the debaters), benefit from that.

We’re going to be looking to figure out how to do more unpacking, and share the ability to do the necessary critical thinking around claims in our industry. The LDA focuses on evidence-based approaches to L&D. That requires a bit more effort than just accepting status quo (and associated myths, snakeoil, etc), but it’s worth it for our professional reputation.

So those are my reflections on the L&D Conference outcomes. Any thoughts on this, from attendees or others?

Writing books

by 2 Comments

I write. A lot, obviously (7 books, numerous articles, this blog, white papers, …). As a colleague pointed out, I’m lucky it comes easy. For others, that’s not the case. However, someone recently asked how to get started. As another colleague who just published posted some thoughts on what they learned, I realize it may be appropriate to toss out some thoughts on writing books. (Not least because I’m Editor-in-Chief of LDA Press, which so far has only published my own book, but hope springs eternal… ;)

I know some of the barriers to writing a book, for sure. The overwhelming scope, for one. How do you manage it? Well, like you do all big projects, you break it down. The underlying idea, then an outline, before you ever start writing a chapter or anything. I have a colleague whose supervisor never started writing without first creating a diagram. You really do need to get your idea down. I start with an outline. It won’t stay the same, of course. I’ve moved chunks around, added sections, deleted sections, etc. Not only while creating it, but while writing to it!

Set your expectations appropriately. You should expect it to take months. Not full time, but for practitioners, writing full time isn’t feasible. Certainly for non-fiction. Reward yourself for progress, too. Be easy on yourself! Set small goals: “today, I’ll write section X of chapter Y”. If you don’t make it, it’s ok.

I also have written about what makes a good book. Well-written (that is, easy to read), sensible layout, evidence-based, new perspective. A book shouldn’t be written just to exist, it should have a purpose. You learn a lot from writing a book. JD Dillon, who recently wrote The Modern Learning Ecosystem, documented his learnings. They included that it’s never finished, stories are more fun to write than tech jargon, releasing is harder than writing (depends on how you do it, I’d suggest)., and if you’re not uncomfortable, you’re not going far enough. I added: the value of editors/reviewers, creating a structure first, and nicking away a bit at a time.

You probably should not try to write a book as your first project.With speaking, you should speak within your org or to local chapters, before moving to bigger venues. Same with writing. Start small. Blog posts, or newsletter posts within your org or for your local chapter. Like drawing, I suspect, it’s just keep writing! And, importantly, get feedback! Feedback you can trust. It’s clear some folks have never paid attention to how people perceive their writing!

It sounds like a grind, but there are tangible benefits. First, you get known as someone who has an opinion worth hearing! Further, you may be invited to speak, and certainly have a basis to propose speaking. You may be asked to write more. On the other hand, you’re unlikely to get rich from your book. The old adage applies: you make more money giving it away; it’s a better business card!

Do try to get a good editor. In the publishing world, there are usually several. First, there’s your acquisition editor, who works with you to get a viable proposal to get approval. Then there’s your development editor, who works with you to stay on track and develop a clear narrative with useful examples, diagrams, and more. There’ll be copy-editing, of course, and reading initial proofs if formal. Finally, there’s your marketing editor to help get the word out and build sales.

It’s not for everyone. It’s hard. And, again, you need a unique tangible contribution. If you have one, however, don’t miss the opportunity to share it. There are real benefits. Speak and write about it small, first, to ensure it’s viable, but then, look to write it up. I hope this diatribe about writing books makes sense. Hopefully, it’ll inspire some new ones as well.

 

Wisdom into practice

by Leave a Comment

Many moons ago, I wrote about a personal quest. Recognizing that what I was doing is making people smarter ‘in the moment’, I looked for a stretch goal. That was making people wiser over time. The question, how is that working? Have I been putting wisdom into practice?

First, let me state for the record that I’m not claiming to be a wise person. It’s an aspiration, not a status ;). Moreover, I know my flaws all too well. Instead, I’m talking about what might be wise behavior, and how I might be helping.

As the broader picture, I’m talking about working ‘wiser‘. I’ll suggest it’s about better aligning with how our brains think, work, and learn. It’s also about being explicit about what values we’re invoking in making our decisions.

I do espouse this, but I realize that, in practice, I’m doing something else. I’m working to help us, the L&D community, be wiser. That includes being wise in our decisions, and in our designs as well. This manifests in several ways.

For one, it is about helping educate about learning science, and how it should be the foundation for what we do. We should create designs that reflect about what’s known to support effective learning. We also need design processes that deliver on this. This goes beyond just learning design, of course, and it should go into our performance support (e.g. job aid) design, task design, and informal learning as well.

In a broader sense, it’s also about values. What do we care about? We should, first, care about creating an environment where people can not just survive, but thrive. It’s also about being scientific. That includes measuring what we’re doing. Going further, it’s also about being strategic, such as recognizing the opportunity to move beyond optimal execution, and look to facilitating formal and informal learning.

I think making people wiser over time is an interesting challenge to think about how we might stretch what we do. However, I’m thinking that helping us all be wiser in how we approach our tasks and roles is really what I’m here to do, pragmatically. I guess that’s how I’m putting wisdom into practice. What more could and should I, or we, be doing?

 

Feast or Famine

by Leave a Comment

This week is a wee bit of a hectic one, capping a few of the same. There’s an old saying about feast or famine, and I’m living it. It’s better than the alternative, regardless. A taste:

So, as context, I’ve been doing a few things (as previously noted). In addition to working on a STEM project and advising a startup, co-directing LDA, and continuing Quinnovation work, I’m now also serving as Chief Learning Strategist for Upside Learning. This latter role is exciting for me, as they’re one of many custom elearning solution providers, but the first I’ve seen really committing to learning science.  They want to lift their game; truly refreshing! Also a chance to really practice what I preach, and of course learn what works and what I’m wrong about.  Good folks, too, as I’ve begun working with them.

This all together has manifested in some commitments, including being in the middle of the LDConference. As part of it, I’m running four weeks around learning science, and will be starting 3 weeks on learning technology. In addition, I was asked to open the L&D Conference of People Matters two weeks ago, in India. I also ran a master class the same day. I was able to visit Upside in person before flying back, which was an unexpected bonus. Not completely a surprise, I came back with a raging cough (testing negative and no fever, fortunately).

This week, as a topper, is DevLearn. I like DevLearn, as the Guild runs a good event, and as such it attracts many of my colleagial friends. It’s a chance to hang out with some of my favorite folks! My schedule, of course, is a wee bit frenetic. Monday I run a Make It Meaningful workshop. Tuesday I’m a facilitator for the Learning Leaders forum (on short notice). I’ll have to take a break to run my learning science event for the LDC! Wed and Thurs morn I’ll be spending time in the booth with Upside, culminating in a book giveaway and signing. Thurs afternoon I’m on a Guild Master panel before running my own session on some work I’ve been doing. Back to back busyness…

Finally, Friday, I can attend actually attend sessions before I fly home. After that, it’s just LDC (and LDA) until mid Nov, and then life gets sorta kinda back to normal. I think! It’s definitely feast or famine. 2020 and 2021 were too much famine. I prefer feast. Busy is better than the alternative, though I’m looking forward to catching my breath. Sorry for less reflection than normal, but this is front of mind for now. Next week hopefully we’ll be back to normal here as well ;).

Fewer myths, please

by 5 Comments

I had the pleasure of being the opening keynote at the People Matters L&D conference in Mumbai this past week, with a theme of ‘disruption’. In it, I talked about some particular myths and their relation to our understanding of our own brains. Following my presentation, I sat through some other presentations. And heard at least one other myth being used to flog solutions. So, fewer myths, please.

My presentation focused on the evidence that we’re still operating under the assumption that we’re logical reasoners (which I pointed out, isn’t apt). I mentioned annual reviews, bullet points presos, unilateral decisions, and more. I also cited evidence that L&D isn’t doing well, so it is a worry. Pointing to post-cognitive frameworks like predictive coding, situated & distributed cognition, and more, I argued that we need to update our practices. I closed by urging two major disruptions: measurement, and implementing a learning culture in L&D before taking it out to the broader org.

In a subsequent presentation, however, the presenter (from a sponsoring org) was touting how leadership needed to accommodate millennials. I’m sorry, but there’s considerable evidence that ‘generation differences’ are a myth. The boundaries are arbitrary, there’re no significant differences in workplace values, and every effect is attributable to age and experience, not generation. (Wish I could find a link to the ‘eulogy for millennials myth’ two academics wrote.)

Another talk presented a lot of data, but ultimately seemed to be about supporting user preferences. Sorry, but user preferences, particularly for novices, aren’t a good guide. There was also a pitch for an ‘all-singing, all-dancing’ solution. Which could be appealing, if you’re willing to live with the tradeoffs. For instance, locking into whatever features your provider is willing to develop, and living without best-0f-breed for all components.

Yes, it’s marketing hype. However, marketing hype should be based on reality, not myths. I can get promising a bit more than you can deliver, and focusing on features you’re strong on. I can’t see telling people things that aren’t true. My first step in dealing with the post-cognitive brain is to know the cognitive and learning sciences, so you’ll know what’s plausible and what’s not. Not to PhD depth, but to have a working knowledge. That’s the jumping off point to much that’s the necessary disruption, revolution, that L&D needs to have. And fewer myths, please!

Misusing affordances?

by Leave a Comment

Affordances is a complex term. Originally coined by Gibson, and popularized by Norman, it’s been largely used in terms of designing interfaces. Yet, it’s easy to misinterpret. I may have been guilty myself! In the past, I used it as a way to characterize technologies. Which isn’t really the intent, as it’s about sensory perception and action. So maybe I should explain what I mean, so you don’t think I’m misusing affordances.

To be clear, in interface design, it’s about the affordances you can perceive. If something looks like it can slide (e.g. a scrollbar), it lets you know you might be able to move the target of a related window in a field. Similarly a button affords pushing. One of the complaints about touch screens is that as people work to overload more functions on gestures. There might be affordances you can’t perceive: does a two-fingered swipe do anything differently than a single-finger swipe?

In my case, I’m talking more about what a technology supports. In my analysis of virtual worlds and mobile devices, I was looking to see what their core capabilities are, and so what we might naturally do with them. Similarly with media, what are their core natures?

So, for instance, an LMS’s core affordance is managing courses. Video captures dynamic context.  You might be able to do course management with a spreadsheet and some elbow grease, or you can mimic video with a series of static shots (think: Ken Burns) and narration, but the purpose-designed tool is likely going to be better. There are tradeoffs. You can graft on capabilities to a core, still an LMS won’t naturally serve as a resource repository or social media platform.

It’s an analytical tool, in my mind. You should end up asking: what’s the DNA? For example, you can match the time affordance of different mobile devices to the task. You can determine whether you need a virtual world or VR based upon whether you truly need visual or sensory immersion, action, and social (versus the tradeoffs of cost and cognitive overhead).

With an affordance perspective, you can make inferences about technologies. For instance, LXPs are really (sometimes smart) portals. AI (artificial intelligence)’s best application is IA (intelligence augmentation). AR’s natural niche, like mobile, is performance support. This isn’t to say that each can’t be repurposed in useful ways. AR has the potential to annotate the world. LXPs can be learning guides for those beyond novice stage. AI can serve in particular ways like auto-content parsing (more an automation than an augmentation). Etc.

My intent is that this way of thinking helps us short-circuit that age-old problem that we use new technologies first in ways that mimic old technologies (the old cliche of tv starting out by broadcasting radio shows). It’s a way to generate your own hype curve for technologies: over-enthusiasm leading to overuse, disappointment, and rebirth leveraging the core affordances. Maybe there’s a better word, and I’ve been misusing affordances, but I think the concept is useful. I welcome your thoughts.

Prompted by prep for the advanced seminar on instructional tech for the upcoming Learning & Development Conference.