Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

A layer above

by Leave a Comment

I recently wrote a post about a secure, sustainable way to take advantage of artificial intelligence (AI, and all forms). The point was to not leave you vulnerable. And, I don’t think I was wrong, but I was a wee bit too limiting. Elizabeth Dalton (who I’m working with via Elevator 9) pointed me to an article that argues in much more depth about the necessary structure. So, my learning is that there’s a layer above that’s necessary as well.

In the post, I wrote about using small hybrid agents to do things, instead of using one monolithic entity to address all the needs. It was sort of a ‘use the right tool for the job’ article. And I do think it makes sense, for multiple reasons. For one, you control what you release when you control where and how when you host your own solutions.  For another, they can be run securely on your or hosted storage. That means without connecting to anyone else. Yes, you do have to develop the systems, but that’s become relatively easy. And, you own what you create. That’s important.

What this article adds is the integrating layer. What they call sovereign AI, and that’s a term I’m going to use more frequently. You need to have the infrastructure that hosts the agents to be something you build and own as well. The article was by an entity that I don’t particularly know, but I trust more because it’s open. And, my inference is that there are other ways to do it, but the important thing is that you do do it.

If my understanding is correct, under such a scheme you can have an agent that’s one of those big ones (from Anthropic or OpenAI or…) in there as well. Just that they’ve containment and constraints, and so given specific access. It doesn’t allow the systems to run rampant, hacking your security for instance.

To me, that integration, that complete ownership, is the only scrutable way to do things. I’m not a developer, so I can’t weigh in more, but the article talks not only the importance, but the steps. A layer above is a necessary extension to the core idea of ‘build your own’ that has big and long-term implications for a scrutable and successful implementation. Why would you want anything else?

Scams & Recommendations

by Leave a Comment

A blurry woman in white blouse and dark jacket holding up a clear hand in the 'stop' position. Of late, and I’m sure you’re seeing it too, there are an increasing number of attempts to inappropriately separate one from one’s money. Which I understand, if they’re ethical. Often, they’re not. So here are some scams & recommendations associated thereto.

For one, it appears that everyone wants to loan me money. I get offers seemingly every day. Texts, emails, and perhaps the calls that I don’t see if they’re from someone I don’t know. And, at least, these are (presumably at least mostly) legit. That is, loaning money isn’t unknown. It’s just not a great deal. I’d far rather earn money than borrow it. So, no. Please, stop! They’re unsolicited, so they are spam. So, I do recommend blocking, reporting, etc.

Then there’re the actual scams. One that’s become ubiquitous of late are the ones for authors. Sure, I get the requests to translate to another language, for books for which I don’t own the copyright (c.f. my books w/ ATD). Talk to the publisher, man?!?!  The new one (always something new), is something about GoodReads and groups. The promise is that they’ll recommend the book to their group. For a fee, of course. There are glowing reflections on the book and how valuable it is. The clue for me is that sometimes it’s for a new, or relatively new, book. But I’ve also gotten it for books more than a decade old, already out of print, and available for free download. Yeah, I really want to boost sales of that! Don’t fall for it.

There more, of course. There’ve been the companies that want to promote my book at book fairs. For a fee, of course. No. I’ve left much of social media (I miss the folks, but I ethically can’t support what they’re doing), but stay on LinkedIn. However, increasingly I’m getting connection requests from folks not in L&D or associated fields. I’ve got canned responses that either welcome the connection, or ask why the reason to connect. The latter, of course, is for anyone not obviously in L&D. There’ve been folks who want to do tech dev, marketing, financial advisement, etc. And, of course, loans ;). Nope, don’t want the assistance of someone who contacts me cold. Heck, I’d do research if I didn’t know someone personally (and in most cases, I do).

So, caveat emptor. There are lots of folks who’re looking for revenue, and not all are scrupulous. Be curious, but also probably skeptical. That’s my overall approach to scams & recommendations. What’re your approaches?

The right questions?

by Leave a Comment

Like others, I’ve been somewhat less than thrilled with the decrease in quality we’re seeing in more and more of our experiences. Such that Cory Doctorow even termed it “enshittification“. Of course, I haven’t read the full expose, but I also see it in what L&D is doing. Which leads me to wonder if we’re asking the right questions, or focusing appropriately on same.

It’s no secret that organizations are focusing on short-term shareholder returns. And I get it, but…I wonder if that’s the best focus? An apt focus would be on generating both revenue and brand loyalty, which should lead to the returns. However, it seems that the focus is different. And the introduction of generative AI seems to exacerbate that, in that it’s use is too often to produce more, cheaper. Oddly, there don’t seem to be similar rewards for doing more with less…

The appearance is that the focus is on driving more output faster and cheaper. That is, indeed, one way to shareholder returns. However, it seems to me, it also undermines brand loyalty, and thus the long term outcomes are worse. Are we too focused on the ‘short term’ aspect? Sure, shareholders want returns, but they can flip to other investments, so maybe it appears good to deliver? If we just focus on extracting more money, it would seem that it would undermine trust.

Another question we could ask, instead of ‘faster and cheaper’ would be better. How can we increase the customer outcomes and satisfaction? How can we make a better experience? When I look at L&D, for instance, the people I see offering better solutions are doing that. Whether it’s Jess Almlie focusing on being a better business partner, or JD Dillon helping the frontline more effectively, Lori Niles-Hoffman with tech, etc, the answer always is to do better. Which I laud.

To be fair, I’m not a stock investor. I don’t play that form of gambling. Yes, I have investments (all too few, TBH), and they’re managed. I indicate my preferences, and they execute them. However, I’m focusing on long-term benefits. I wish more companies would do that too, particularly online. And I wish more folks would be doing that in the areas they control, say L&D ;).

What is learning

by Leave a Comment

There’s been much debate of late about how generative AI (read LLMs) is taking over our thinking. Which, of course, has caused me to think about what’s crucial for us, as thinkers. And, arguably more importantly, as learners. In short, we’re asking what is learning, and what is it that we can’t abrogate if we want to keep doing so.

So, there’s increasing evidence that when we use AI to just get answers, it’s at least keeping us from learning, if not making us stupider (warning: PDF). The point is apt, to develop, we need what’s termed ‘desirable difficulty’. That is, we need to challenge ourselves. You can think of it as keeping an exercise regime, except we don’t plateau, we keep learning. There is, effectively, no limit to what we can learn; we run out of time before we run out of new things to learn!

What happens when we ask an AI for an answer is that we aren’t exercising our own minds. It’s been made clear that we need to do the work ourselves – tackle the task – so that we activate and leverage our cognitive representations for them to strengthen. To be clear, there are things we don’t want to learn. For instance, I’m fine not having learned how I repaired my dryer; I’m not a dryer repairperson. However, I don’t want some arbitrary summary that might be wrong, I prefer to find a document created by an expert who guides me through the steps to diagnose and repair it. And then I’m fine not learning, because I hope to never have to do it again!

The interesting question then becomes, what do we do? Markus Bernhardt has suggested there’re five steps, from working with a contractor. These are briefing, judging, composing, selecting, and building. Only the first two are before you talk agents (I’m not, for reasons). However, I want to simplify it, and suggest that there’s essentially one step that’s critical. As suggested by the above.

The main thing I think one needs to do is first generate our own ideas. I’ll suggest that an LLM can be a good partner for thinking. It can generate ideas you haven’t, though of course it may also generate ideas you reject. So evaluating the output is important (requiring an expert). But what I now think is that you should generate your ideas first. Then see what you’re coming up with. It’s an extension of the idea of self-evaluation of free form responses, with a rubric. Particularly when learning to learn on one’s own, you should be generating responses, but you need feedback. Without an instructor to do so, you need a way to evaluate your own output. Comparing your answers to someone else’s is good! Particularly if you’ve done the work beforehand to know what a good answer should contain or consists of.

Let’s be clear; you don’t have to flesh it all out. What you do need to do is get concrete enough that you know your own ideas. It’s one thing to think you’ve got an answer, and another to actually try to capture it. It’s a pretty common phenomena to realize, when you try to get concrete, that you need to tweak a few things. That thinking is part of the learning. But a quick phrase, a sketch, whatever captures your thinking quickly can be enough, it’s just that you have to generate the idea.

So for any area you want to grow in, you can’t abrogate your responsibility. That’s a negative, not a positive, path. For other things, I prefer the best expert advice, not a potentially wrong summary generated by a stochastic parrot (yeah, I said it ;).  But when it’s important for your learning, and that is something you can and should be doing, you need to do the work. Sure, get assistance, but do the work and then get feedback. And evaluate the feedback to understand how you can improve. But, do the work. That’s where the learning happens. That’s what is learning: action and reflection. So, as the Nike ad says, Just Do It!

 

 

KMN

by 6 Comments

So, I’m compiling a hopefully comprehensive list of learning to learn strategies. As part of that, I searched on meta-learning strategies. And, in two of the top listed sites, I found, indeed, articles on meta-cognitive strategies. And, a myth. More specifically, one that continues to bedevil our industry (and, relatedly, education). I mean, we’re a quarter way into the new century! I sadly feel like KMN (Kill Me Now).

So, the first site had an article that asked “What meta-learning techniques improve skill acquisition?” After first saying why and what, both good things, the very first recommendation is “understand and adapt to your learning style”. What? I mean, this is such a debunked theme that it’s almost ludicrous. I did comment, but yikes.

So, then going through my other tabs opened from the search results (a meta-learning strategy, btw ;), I find another list. This site has an article listing Examples of Metacognitive Strategies. And, it was only item 5 that was “awareness of learning styles”. Still, here’s a myth pretending to be a valid strategy. Here I couldn’t comment, but I did send a politely worded recommendation to pay attention to the research. (And got a response saying they’d moved on from that position. Ok, but then why did I find it when I did the search?)

In both cases, pointing to an approach that has been deeply investigated and resoundingly dismissed undermines anything and everything else they have to say. Why should I trust what you tell me when I know part of it is wrong? There was other good, and bad, advice in the articles, but sorry, you’ve lost my ability to think you know what you’re talking about.

Yes, I get that the idea of learning styles feels right. Anyone who’s taught recognizes that people learn differently. But…what people think is good, and what actually works, has essentially zero correlation. Yes, you should have different representations. This is to increase access, not to address learning styles, however. And deliberately designing for styles is clearly a waste of money. For instance, creating three different versions of the content for say, visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners, wouldn’t be justified.

A step back provides this lesson: know what you say before you say it, and don’t say wrong things unless you want to lose credibility. Which is kind of a meta-comment, but that’s a separate issue ;). I don’t really want you to KMN, but…sometimes it feels like we are moving backwards. Can we return to using what’s demonstrably known as a basis? Sure, science gets upgrades, and so sometimes is wrong (flat earth, anyone?) when it moves to a better explanation, but it’s still better than a basis of dogma.

Learning culture = design culture?

by Leave a Comment

I”m reading Don Norman’s Design for a Better World (recommended; more after I finish). One of the things mentioned is ‘design culture’. Now, I’ve been a big fan of ‘learning culture’, and so was triggered. What’s the relationship? Some thoughts.

So, to start, I think of learning culture as a determinant of performance ecosystem success. I’ve regularly touted Garvin, Edmondson, & Gino’s model as a grounded approach that identifies major factors. The issue is creating an environment where people contribute their best ideas, and folks are learning ‘together’. Practices such as Jane Bozarth’s Show Your Work are components, as is Amy Edmonson’s The Fearless Organization about psychological safety.

So what is a ‘design culture’? Don doesn’t define it, but Wikipedia says “approaches that improve customer experiences through design.” Of course, the customers may be internal, I’d suggest. More importantly, it’s about design being a core component of the way things are done. Yet, isn’t design ‘learning’?

I’d suggest that, indeed, design is learning. I’ve suggested in the past (e.g. here) that design, research, and trouble-shooting are informal learning, as you don’t know the answer when you start. Design is creating a solution where one doesn’t exist. It’s part of learning: you design, test and measure, and iterate until the metrics meet your needs. Thus, I’d argue that for a successful design culture, you’d need a successful learning culture, or you can’t get the best solutions.

The bigger argument of Don’s book is about how things have gone south, societally/globally, and the role of design in causing and remedying that. I’m sympathetic, I admit. I do feel chuffed that he’s mentioning participatory design, something I just talked about for the UX part of the Learning & Development as Ecosystem conference. But his overall message is important, particularly in light of his previous works on design, notably Design of Everyday Things. If he’s now saying he got it wrong, I’ll suggest we probably should take note of what he’s now thinking.

So, I might take design culture as a subset of a learning culture, or an integral part. However, if SDT (c.f. Matt Richter’s forthcoming The Motivation Blueprint, and Stephen Johnson’s previous Drive) is right, considering our purpose may need to go beyond not just doing harm, and look at remedying what’s wrong. My quibble about culture is relatively small potatoes in the bigger picture. Still, worth pondering.

Ethics, science process, and disagreements

by Leave a Comment

Recently, one of our LDA members provided a link to this argument, as a follow-on to a book club discussion. The book we covered in this meeting was David McRaney’s How Minds Change (a worthwhile read), and the article raises an issue that links science process, discussions, and society. Hence, it’s extremely interesting. This argument covers science process in a particular instance of theorizing, so it’s worth thinking about.

To start, the article talks about two theories of foundational disagreement. He cites the prominent theory of Jonathan Haidt’s about five (or six, or?) foundational moral values. I was sold on that theory after reading Haidt’s The Righteous Mind (as recommended by my late mother!). So, to see an alternative was of interest. And, I have to say, that the evidence makes sense. The article does a good job of laying out the competing approaches, which is interesting in and of itself. There are questions of methodology, allowing for some divergence. In short, why do we agree and disagree?

Of equal, if not more interest, however, is the discussion of the process of the debate. That is, as Naomi Oreskses points out in Why Trust Science, science is about consensus. And Haidt’s been a good popularizer of his model. When a challenger to the entrenched theory arises, we end up with a battle of ideas, ala Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The better explanation takes a while to establish the data, and the acolytes of the previous approach mount a defensive action, but ultimately we accept the new story. If, and this is important, it continues to demonstrate superior explanatory power.

The article lays out, in interesting prose, the nature of the arguments, but also the nature of the process of argumentation. There’s presentation, and attacks, and in short a riveting story of science in action. Yet, it’s happening (largely) as science, with the arguments based on data, not on personal attacks.

It also raises issues of the overall ethics of the science process. This is relatively personal, as it’s a debate I’m having with a family member. In short, is the scientific process to be trusted, or is it too biased and we need an alternative? This gets into Science Denial, as Gale Sinatra & Barbara Hofer’s book discusses, That’s what I’m faced with, sadly.

As with some other things, I suggest that while science isn’t perfect, it’s better than any other approach. Sure, there continue to be misuses, as have the products that science provides us. I’ve got bias, as I’ve had science training and have been an active participant as well as translator. So take what I say with the proverbial boulder of salt. However, if you want to quibble, you may have to travel by horse to talk to me in person; you’re reading this via the benefits of the science process, and you wouldn’t want to be hypocritical, right?

Going it alone?

by Leave a Comment

I’ve been an independent consultant for the past quarter century. Which would make you think I go it alone. And, occasionally, I do. I’ve written my books myself. I’ve gone into consulting engagements on my own. I typically do my presentations on my own. Yet, not really. And, it’s not what I recommend. So, why do we think we should be going it alone?

It’s easy to think I’ve done much of my activities alone (and sometimes it feels like it). Yet, when you think about it, it’s really not. I’ve had publishers and editors on books. Also, of course, I’m building on the work of others (that I cite; academic holdover). Plus, I’ve had folks provide feedback that has improved my thinking. That includes on presentations and articles, which tend to have editors as well, or at least program managers. And, then there’s the feedback by the victims, er, audience. And even consulting I’m engaging with the clients and having them help me understand the context and review drafts of reports before acceptance. It’s essentially not alone!

Folks thinking about social, like Mark Britz (co-author of Social By Design) or Harold Jarche (of Personal Knowledge Mastery fame) remind us that we’re better together. That can be what is determined either authoritatively or collectively, and then there’s what’s offered freely. Still, the benefits of working together, of social cognitive processing, are that we are highly likely to get better when we get others’ feedback.

Which is why I feel bad when I hear about the lone L&D practitioner in an org, or someone doing a course by themselves. Ok, for the former, ideally they’re interacting with the SMEs at least, but hopefully they’re also getting support in connecting with peers at events like conferences or chapter meetings. For the latter, there at least could be checkpoints where your work gets review and feedback. Heck Watts Humphrey noted this in software engineering, we should likewise worry about it. We need feedback to improve, and that comes from others. (In a tighter loop than quarterly.)

I also worry as people more and more seem to be choosing, or being ‘voluntold’, to use tools that minimize interaction. It’s already been seen that this diminishes personal development. It’s also concerning for building culture, and more. In short, we don’t want people not collaborating; that’s where new ideas come from! While some of the tools may help the less-than-average person be better in the moment, they’re not developing over time. That’s not a long-term path to success.

You simply shouldn’t be going it alone. You should continually be learning, and that means getting feedback. And, of course, learning to learn from that feedback in all forms, and reading or watching something can be that. It can be challenging (says the introvert) to work with others, but when it happens the outcome is almost always better. At least if you follow good process! So please, find someone to be your partner in your endeavors. I’m trying, I hope you will too!

Timing matters

by Leave a Comment

There are many phenomena associated with time. I know it was such a topic of my late friend Jay Cross that he named his vehicle for agency Internet Time. A few phenomena have arisen in my thinking, and it’s time to just review some of the reasons why timing matters.

So, for one, things seem to come in waves. It’ll be too quiet, and then too busy; too frenetic a rhythm. I might prefer a smoother rate, but…it’s not something we get to control. (At least, individually; societally we have chosen speed over quality, what with requirements for short-term returns.) Now, I do my best to cope, using the downtimes to work on background tasks. So that, of course, when it’s crunch time I feel like I can still function.

That was also true when I’ve struggled. For one, when I had back pain (before I got surgery), I had good days and bad. My solution was to get things done on the good days, so I was okay on the bad ones. That again is a coping strategy.

Overall, things are going faster than we’d like. We are dealing with increasing change, and increasing information. Things like Harold Jarche’s Personal Knowledge Mastery (PKM) are tools we increasingly need to use, to be able to adapt.

Timing matters in other ways, too. Some times the time has to be right for an idea to stick. I regularly tell the story about how I mentioned the concept of ‘explorable interfaces’ (from Jean-Marc Robert) to my PhD supervisor, to no avail. Which surprised me, because our lab was looking at usability! However, I brought the concept up a few years later, and suddenly it was a great idea! Same idea, but right time.

It’s true for learning as well. It’s not something we can rush! Yet we try to have an event and then move on, not recognizing learning takes time. We need repeated reactivation and feedback for learning to occur, yet that’s seldom the design of our organizational solutions. Yet, technology gives us the ability to address this, if only we have the will.

And, we may need to make sure it’s the right time. We need to understand why something’s relevant to us before we’re ready for the message. That’s something I think we don’t focus on enough, hence my most recent tome.

We live in interesting times, as the saying has it. There’s little reason to believe things will slow down, even if they should. So, we need to be able to deal with it. Personally, and for our learners. Timing matters, as does how we deal with it. What are your strategies?

If it’s Thursday…

by Leave a Comment

…it must be Belgium. Ok, so there’re two things here. First, on Thursday, Feb 26, in Brussels specifically, I’ll be there. Why? I’ll be spending a full day workshopping practical learning science. In conjunction, I should note with my LDA Co-Director, Matthew Richter. And, hopefully, you!  So, what, and why, and…? For the other, yes, I know the original movie said Tuesday. And, no, I haven’t seen it.

The premise of the workshop is Designing Learning That Actually Works. This is something we both not only care about (heck, basically the whole focus of this blog!), but believe is the essential ingredient to successful L&D initiatives. Matt’s knowledge complements mine. He’s deeper into face-to-face learning and the business side, while I’m more into asynchronous learning and the cognitive side. Though, of course, we’re continually learning from each other. We also are both focused on essential practice, not theoretical background (though the latter is essential).

We’re starting with the core of how our brains work, largely at a cognitive level (not neural; despite the claims it’s largely irrelevant). We’ll cover how we process information, with a focus on learning. Then we’ll look at the emergent elements that research has identified, with a clear focus on the implications for design. There’ll be a focus on what most learning is missing, as there’s little reason to rehash what’s not going wrong!

The advantage of the location is, we feel, that it’s central. I’ve always admired how easy it is to get around Europe (I love train travel!), and thus we’re expecting that the catchment is relatively broad. I haven’t been to Europe for a number of years (thanks, Covid), so this will be a happy reunion. Also, I’ve met Matt once face-to-face, and this will be an extended chance to interact. Still, I’ve been working with him for a number of years online now and continue to be impressed with his knowledge (and jealous of his superior social skills).

So, if it’s Thursday (Feb 26) and you’re nearby, or can arrange to be there, I think this is going to be valuable. Also fun, as Matt’s possibly even more irreverent than I am, and certainly less staid ;). We hope to see you there!

By the way, I’ll be there M-F, so if you’ve some ideas for the other days, let me know!