Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Debating debates

by Leave a Comment

This is the year, at the LDA, of unpacking thinking (the broader view of my previous ‘exposure‘). The idea is to find ways to dig a bit into the underlying rationale for decisions, to show the issues and choices that underly design decisions. How to do that? Last year we had the You Oughta Know series of interviews with folks who represent some important ideas. This year we’re trying something new, using debates to show tradeoffs. Is this a good idea? Here’s the case, debating debates.

First, showing underlying thinking is helpful. For one, you can look at Alan Schoenfeld’s work on showing his thinking as portrayed in Collins & Brown’s Cognitive Apprenticeship. Similarly, the benefits are clear in the worked examples research of John Sweller. While it’s fine to see the results, if you’re trying to internalize the thinking, having it made explicit is helpful.

Debates are a tried and tested approach to issues. They require folks to explore both sides. Even if there’s already a reconciliation, I feel, it’s worth it to have the debate to unpack the thinking behind the positions. Then, the resolution comes from an informed position.

Moreover, they can be fun! As I recalled here, in an earlier debate, we agreed to that end. Similarly, in some of the debates I had with Will Thalheimer (e.g. here), we deliberately were a bit over-the-top in our discussions. The intent is to continue to pursue the fun as well as exposing thinking. It is part of the brand, after all ;).

As always, we can end up being wrong. However, we believe it’s better to err on the side of principled steps. We’ll find out. So that’s the result of debating debates. What positions would you put up?

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?

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?

(Social) Media Moves

by 1 Comment

Time change, and so must we. Recent changes in the social media market mean that I’ve had to adapt. Somewhat. So here’s an update on my social media moves.

Hopefully, you’re aware of the changes that have affected Twitter. After acquisition, the new owner made a number of moves both internally and to the business model. Most of them seem counter to what I advocate: aligning with how people think, work, and learn. I’ve been on Twitter for 14+ years, and was one of the first team recruited to run #lrnchat. I have first met people who are now friends through Twitter. It’s been great. ’til now.

Now, I’m not leaving it, yet. I don’t want to be forced to make decisions by others. Still, while the decision to cut the Covid misinformation containment bothered me, the one to cut the child abuse team has forced my hand. I am no longer posting on Twitter. I’ve stopped auto-posting these blog screeds.

Of course, auto-posting is problematic. I can’t seem to get it working for LinkedIn. IFTTT works for Facebook, and for Twitter, but…not LinkedIn (testing again), and the plugin I was using doesn’t seem to any longer either. Not that I expect you to see me on Facebook (that’s just for friends & family, sorry), but I do engage a lot on LinkedIn. That’s my most active arena right now.

I’m experimenting with alternatives to the little bird. I’ve set up an account on Mastodon (sfba.social) as many have, and likewise just got in to post.news. On both, as on LinkedIn and Twitter, I’m @quinnovator (surprise, eh?).  Hey, I want to make it easy to connect! If you’re on one of those, please do. Besides, I’ve got a brand to maintain, right?  Not sure how to autopost to either, though.

I have yet to really get a handle on Mastodon and post.news, so I’m still experimenting. No insights yet (update: I can’t find myself on Post.news, nor can I see/edit my own profile). I’ll probably maintain the same criteria on them that I’ve used on LinkedIn: I’ll connect to most anyone in the L&D field. We’ll see. So those are my current social media moves. I welcome feedback.

Web 3.0 and whither the LMS

by 2 Comments

At the recent DevLearn conference, I was part of a Guild Master panel on emerging technologies. It featured notables such as Julie Dirksen, Mark Lassoff, Megan Torrence, Ron Price, Chad Udell, Karl Kapp, and Jane Bozarth, all hosted by Mark Britz. Not surprisingly, I guess, the topic went to the future of the LMS. In a session the next day, Dr. Jen Murphy of QIC talked insightfully (as she does) about the Metaverse, and compared it to Web 3.0. The conjunction of discussion prompted me to reflect on the intersection, considering Web 3.0 and whither the LMS.

To start, I’m not one proposing that the LMS should or will wither. I’ve suggested that courses make sense, particularly for novices. That said, they’re not full development plans. So it’s worth looking, and thinking, deeper. The conversation on the panel suggested the evolution of the LMS, and I think that’s an apt way to think about it.

What prompted this was Dr. Murphy’s comparison of Metaverse to Web 3.0. She argued that Web 3.0 was about user-control of content. That is, it’s about things like P2P, e.g. blockchain, NFT, etc. I’ve had a different view (now over a decade old, admittedly), that we’d moved from producer-generated content, through user-generated content, and the next would be system-generated content. AI can parse content (that people have painstakingly hand-crafted). Then systems can use models and rules to individualize the experience. That’s what web content is doing already.

So, have things changed? The recognition I see is that folks are concerned with identity and rights. Which I applaud, to be clear. The statement is that by having clear documentation, we can reward individual contributions instead of someone owning all the transactions. The latter of which would be part of a ‘system-generated’ web, for sure. Maybe my 3.0 is really 2.5? Or maybe theirs should be 4.0. Not sure I care…

What does matter is what that implies for courses. Obviously, if courses aren’t enough, we need a bigger picture. An associated question is who should own it? I see a development path as having many components. Even courses should be broken up for spacing, and have a follow-on for ongoing feedback whether digitally delivered and/or a coach. There was an LMS that actually allowed you to mix things into your paths: so you could interview someone, or read a book, or…other things besides courses. Made sense.

The other part aligns more closely with the user-controlled vision. I believe (and have stated, not that I can find it) that I think that ultimately, the community should own the path into membership. That is, just as we should determine the path into membership of L&D, a group in sales should determine what the necessary component skills are. They may need facilitation of this, but us ‘owning’ it isn’t right. We should merely be supporting the endeavor.

Again, it doesn’t really matter whether it’s labeled Web 3.0 or not, but I think that having a mechanism to track development, owned by the associated community (or communities) is useful. It’s not really a Learning Management System (you can’t really ‘manage’ learning), but it can include courses, and it is worthwhile. So those are my thoughts on Web 3.0 and whither the LMS, what’re yours?

L&D Language is Limiting?

by 1 Comment

In our most recent LDA You Oughta Know event, our guest touched on the language we use. It struck a chord for me, thinking about how we refer to things. It led me to wonder whether, in fact, we’re hampering ourselves. So here are some thoughts around the question of whether L&D language is limiting us?

So, Serena Gonsalves-Fersch heads talent for SoftwareONE, a global company. For her dissertation, she interviewed a number of folks about what L&D is doing. While her comments were extremely worthwhile, it was more a toss-off comment about using terms like “talent management” that got me to leave a note to riff on this topic.

So let’s start with those overarching terms. Human Capital, Human Resources, and Talent strike me as ways to dissociate from thinking of people, and instead think of using assets. You might invest in them, but are you investing in your people, or in the capability of your organization? The latter may sound sensible, but it leaves open the question “at what expense”. Do you care if they burn out from the way you use them?  Shouldn’t we talk about our people, employees, or those we’re responsible to and for? Perhaps I’m overly sensitive to the issues, but too often I see the approach being impersonal and if not inhumane.

Similarly, what about the phrase Corporate University? I am fond of the case study Mark Britz presented in Revolutionize L&D, where he said that for his organization, he recognized that what was needed was a community to share, given that they were disconnected but experts. What folks really mean by a corp uni is a training academy, but a uni isn’t a good model. Instead of deep theory with little practical application, it’s almost the reverse. Learning should be continual and ubiquitous, not sent off to separate environs. Even when you do specific formal interventions, they should be seen as integral, not isolated in an ivory tower.

Similarly, I’ve sounded off on the problems of Training & Development, or Learning & Development. Training and learning are means to an end. What we want are people performing optimally, and continually developing. It might even be Performance & Innovation (if you take the revolution seriously ;).

It’s clear language does determine the ways we think about things (is it a mishap or a catastrophe?). When we use language that characterizes activity in certain ways, we implicitly put constraints on it. This is true for every formulation, of course, but perhaps it behooves us to think consciously about the language we use. Do we know if L&D language is limiting us? Let’s make sure that we’re not prematurely handicapping ourselves by our framing.

On blogging

by 5 Comments

A recent chain of events led to a realization, and then a recognition, and some cogitation. What am I talking about? Well, it comes down to some reflections on blogging. So here’re some thoughts.

It started when my ISP wanted to do his quinquennial (yeah, I had to look it up) OS upgrade on the servers. Ultimately, it led me to review my site, which included my blogroll. Quelle horreur, it was almost completely out of date! Some people I’ve lost touch with, most who aren’t blogging any more or even in our field! In updating it, however, I found that there are many fewer people who seemed to be blogging. Which is interesting, though there are stalwarts in my upgraded blogroll.

There are lots of places people are putting up their prose thoughts. You can sign up for newsletters (I get a few), and many posts appear on LinkedIn. There are also article sites like Learning Solutions magazine and eLearnMag, amongst others. I have avoided having a newsletter;  I don’t like the idea of collecting folks’ email addresses and using it as a communication tool. (Completely contrary to the advice I receive about marketing.) I also don’t want to post just on LinkedIn, though it’s an increasing way people interact. Instead, I will keep posting here, trying to maintain at least one post a week.

There are myriad reasons I want to continue to blog. First, it’s for me. With a commitment of one post a week, it causes me to search for things to think, and then write, about. Not that there’s a dearth (to the contrary!), but there are ups and downs, and it’s good to have a driver. Blogging has caused me to do more than skim, and actually synthesize things (it’s led me to have thoughts on just about everything!). It’s also a place to lob my other way of thinking, diagramming. The practice of writing, of course, is probably good for my books, with a caveat.

The blog allows me to be more personal, doing things like using too many italics, and use more idiosyncratic references and grammar. Of course, it’s not always perfectly reread, so sometimes I have to go edit it after it’s posted! Which isn’t good for books. It also keeps me terse (a problem I’ve had since high school, my AP English teacher was sure I wouldn’t pass the test for that reason, but it actually was a benefit). Maybe too… Which may be good for books; at least mine are mostly pretty short and to the point ;). It’s also allowed me to share interim ideas and get feedback.

So, I find blogging to be valuable. I’ll happily follow the folks that I can that way. (I use Feedblitz as an email aggregator as I prefer email rather than a dedicated reader.) Or happy to come across their posts wherever, and even some newsletters. I appreciate folks who share their thinking in many ways, though I don’t really listen to podcasts nor watch vids, as I can read faster, and I don’t have a commute. Besides, having watched people I care about get taken down the rabbit hole watching vids (my take: doesn’t give you time to pause and ponder), I think I’ll prefer prose.

So those are some thoughts on blogging. I welcome seeing your comments here, on LinkedIn, or any other way you care to share.

Sensitivities and Sensibilities

by 2 Comments

We are currently experiencing a crisis of communication. While this is true of our nation and arguably the world, it‘s also true in our little world of L&D. Recently, there have been at least four different ‘spats‘ about things. While I don‘t want to address the specifics of any of them, what I do want to do is talk about how we engage. So here‘s a post on sensitivities and sensibilities.

First, let me be clear, I‘ve some social issues. I‘m an introvert, and also miss social cues. I also have a bad habit of speaking before I‘ve done the knowledge-check: is this true, kind, and necessary? Subtlety and diplomacies aren‘t my strong suit. I continue to be a work in progress. Still, I never intentionally hurt anyone, at least not anyone who hasn‘t demonstrated a reliable propensity to violate norms that I feel are minimum. I continue to try to refine my responses.

There are two issues, to me: what we should say, and how we should say it. For instance, I think when someone says something wrong, we need to educate. Initially, we need to evaluate the reason. It could be that they don‘t know any better. Or it could be that they‘re deliberately trying to mislead.  

Let‘s also realize we‘re emotional animals. If I‘m attacked, for instance, I’m likely to blame myself, even when it’s wrongly. Others are highly unlikely to wear blame, and lash out. We are affected by our current context; we are more critical if we‘re tired or otherwise upset, and on the reverse are more tolerant if rested and content.  

I‘m also aware that we have no insight into where someone‘s coming from. We can guess, but we really don‘t know. I really learned this when I was suffering from a pinched nerve in my back; I have more sympathy now since I‘ve come to recognize I don‘t know what anyone else is living with.

So, I‘m trying to come up with some principles about how to respond. For instance, when I write posts about things I think are misguided or misleading, I call out the problems, but not the person, e.g. I don‘t link to the post. I‘m not trying to shame anyone, and instead want to educate the market. I think this is a general principle of feedback: don‘t attack the person, attack the behavior.  

Also, if you‘re concerned about something, ask first. Assume good intentions. How you ask matters as well. The same principle above applies: ask about the behavior. I’m  impressed with those who worry about the asker. If the ask seems a bit harsh, they wonder whether the asker might be struggling. That‘s a very thoughtful response.  

There‘s a caveat on all this: if folks continue to promote something that‘s demonstrably wrong, after notification, they should get called out. Here in the US, the first amendment says we can say whatever, but it doesn‘t say we don‘t have any consequences from what we say. (You can‘t yell ‘fire‘ in a crowded theatre if there isn‘t one!) Similarly, if you continue to promote, say, a debunked personality test, you can be called out. ;)

So this is my first draft on sensitivities and sensibilities. Assume good intent. Ask first. Educate the individual and the market. Don‘t attack the person, but the behavior. I‘m sure I‘m missing situations, conditions, additional constraints, etc. Let me know.  

My Personal Knowledge Management Approach

by Leave a Comment

Last week, in our Learning Development Accelerator You Oughta Know session, we had Harold Jarche as a guest. Harold’s known for many things, but in particular his approach to continual learning. Amongst the things he shared was a collection of others’ approaches. I checked and I hadn’t made a contribution! So with no further ado, here’s my personal knowledge management approach.

First, Harold’s Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) model has three components: seek, sense, and share. Seeking is about information coming in, that is, what you’re looking for and the feeds you track. It can be in any conceivable channel, and one of the important things is that it’s  your seeking. Then, you make sense of what comes in, finding ways to comprehend and make use of it. The final step is to share back out the sense you’ve made. It’s a notion of contributing back. Importantly, it’s not that necessarily anybody consumes what you share, but the fact that you’ve prepared it for others is part of the benefit you receive.

Seek

Most seeking is two-fold, and mine’s no exception. First of all there’s the ‘as needed’ searches for specific information. Here I typically use DuckDuckGo as my search engine, and often end up at Wikipedia. With much experience, I trust it.  If there are multiple hits and not a definitive one, I’ll scan the sources as well as the title, and likely open several. Then I review them until I’m happy.

The second part is the feeds. I have a number of blogs I’m subscribed to. There are also the people I follow on Twitter. On LinkedIn, a while ago I actively removed all my follows on my connections, and only retained ones for folks I trust. As I add new people, I similarly make a selection of those I know to trust, and ones who look interesting from a role, domain, location, or other diversity factor.  An important element is to be active in selecting feeds, and even review your selections from time to time.

Sense

Sometimes, I’m looking for a specific answer, and it gets put into my work. Other times, it’s about processing something I’ve come across. It may lead me to diagramming, or writing up something, frequently both (as here). Diagramming is about trying to come to grip with conceptual relationships by mapping them to spatial ones. Writing is about creating a narrative around it.

Another thing I do is apply knowledge, that is put it into action. This can be in a design, or in writing something up. This is different than just writing, for me. That is, I’m not just explaining it, I’m using it in a solution.

Share

To share, I do things like blog, do presentations and workshop, and write books. I also write articles, and sometimes just RT. Harold mentioned, during the session, that sharing should be more than just passing it on, but also adding value. However, I do sometimes just like or share things, thinking spreading it to a different audience is value. If you’re not too prolific in your output, I reckon that the selected shares add value. Of course, in general if I pass things on I do try to make a note, such as when sharing someone else’s blog that I thought particularly valuable.

So that’s my process. It’s evolving, of course. We talked about how our approaches have changed; we’ve both dropped the quantity of posts, for instance. We’re also continually updating our tools, too. I’ve previously noted how comments that used to appear on my blog now appear on LinkedIn.

To be fair, it’s also worth noting that this approach scales. So workgroups and communities can do a similar approach to continually processing. Harold’s done it in orgs, and it factors nicely into social learning as well. One attendee immediately thought about how it could be used in training sessions!

So that’s a rough cut at my PKM process. I invite you to reflect on yours, and share it with Harold as well!

I discuss PKM in both my Revolutionize L&D book, and my Learning Science book.

Learning or Performance Strategy

by 1 Comment

Of late, I’m working in a couple of engagements where the issue of learning and performance strategy have come up. It has prompted some thoughts both on my part and the part of my clients. I think it’s worth laying out some of the issues and thinking, and of course I welcome your thoughts. So here are some reflections on whether to use learning or performance strategy as an organizing concept.

In one case, an organization decreed that they needed a learning strategy. Taken with my backwards design diagram  from the learning science book, I was tasked with determining what that means. In this case, the audience can’t be mandated with classes or tutorials. So really, the only options are to support performance in the moment and develop them over time. Thus we focus on job aids and examples. I think of it as a ‘performance strategy’, not a learning one.

In the other case, an organization is executing on a shift from a training philosophy to a performance focus. Which of course I laud, but the powers-that-be expect it to yield less training without much other change. Here I’m pushing for performance support, and the thinking is largely welcome. However, it’s a mindset shift for a group that previous was developing training.

I general, I support thinking that goes beyond the course, and for the optimal execution side of a full ecosystem, you want to look at outcomes and let that drive you. It includes performance consulting, so you’re applying the  right solution to performance gaps, not the convenient one (read: ‘courses’ ;). Thus, I think it makes more sense to talk performance strategy than learning one.

Even then, the question becomes what does such a strategy really entail, whether learning  or performance. Really, it’s about having a plan in place to systematically prioritize needs and address them in effective ways. It’s not  just design processes that reflect evidence-informed principles, though it includes that. It’s also, however, ways to identify and track problems, attach organizational costs and solution costs, and choose where to invest resources. It includes front-end analysis, but also ongoing-monitoring.

It also involves other elements. For one, the technology to hand; what solutions are in use and ensuring a process of ongoing reviews. This includes both formal learning tools including the LMS and LXP, but also informal learning tools such as social media platforms and collaborative documents. Another issue is management: lifecycle monitoring, ownership, and costs.

There’s a lot that goes into it, but being strategic about your approach keeps you from just being tactical and missing the forest for the trees. A lot of L&D is reactive, and I am suggesting that L&D needs to be come proactive. This includes going from courses to performance, as a first step. The next step is to facilitating informal learning and driving innovation in the organization. Associated elements include meaningful measurement  and truly understanding how we learn for a firm basis upon which to ground both formal  and informal learning. Those are my thoughts a learning or performance strategy, what am I missing?