Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Valuing Diversity

by Leave a Comment

My lass has us engaging us in an activity. Being in it has sparked a recognition that’s not new, but continues to be important, particularly in the global context! I frequently talk about how diversity is important in getting the best ideas. Moreover, it’s not just ‘tolerating’ it, but valuing diversity. Why?

So the activity is choosing music that matches a theme. Everyone (in this case m’lady, and two offspring), submits four songs to a theme, and then when all are in, you vote. Not on yours, of course! For us, it’s not about who ‘wins’ so much as it’s about exposure to different music.

When we’re evaluating them is when I get a particular reaction. I typically realize “Oh, that reminds me of this other song, and I wish I’d thought of it as a candidate.”  What’s happening is that being exposed to other ideas expands my own thinking. Which is, after all, one of the things that helps us find solutions. Finding more solutions is a step on the path to finding good solutions!

Globally, I’ve heard of a country that is cracking down on diversity, trying to get everyone to adhere to the same world view. This includes diverse languages. Now, to be a country, I agree that there have to be some shared values. However, for the best opportunity for a country to succeed, tapping into the diversity of thoughts provides a greater likelihood of finding the best approaches. You risk stifling innovation to achieve stability, and that’s not a necessary tradeoff.

Diversity can be challenging. It means being able to accept other views, making it safe, and negotiating a shared understanding. On the flip side, that negotiated understanding is likely to be richer than what existed before. In the long term, that challenge leads to better outcomes.  Further, we can work together, when we follow what’s known.

So, if you want to get the best from your unit, whether business, organization, or society, you want to find ways to build diversity. And, then, find ways to use it, productively. We need more than acceptance, or tolerance. We need to be valuing diversity, and when we do, we do better.

What does it take to leave?

by 4 Comments

I did it, I finally left. I’m not happy about it, but it had to happen. (Actually, it happened some weeks ago.) So, what does it take to leave?

I’m talking about Twitter (oh, yeah, ‘X’ as in what’s been done to it ), by the way. I’d been on there a fair bit. Having tossed my account, I can’t see when my first tweet was, but at least since 2009. How do I know? Because that’s when I was recruited to help start #lrnchat, an early tweetchat that has still been going as recently as this past summer! I became an enthusiast and active participant.

And, let me be clear, it’s sad. I built friendships there with folks with long before I met them in person. And I learned so much, and got so much help. I like to tell the story about when I posted a query about some software, and got a response…from the guy who wrote it! For many years, it was a great resource, both personal and professional!

So, what happened? Make no mistake, it was the takeover by Elon Musk. Twitter went downhill from there, with hiccups but overall steadily. The removal of support, the politics, the stupid approaches to monetization, the bad actors, it all added up. Finally, I couldn’t take it any more. Vote with your feet. (And yes, I’m mindful of Jane Bozarth’s admonition: “worth every cent it cost you”. Yep, it was free, and that was unexpected and perhaps couldn’t be expected to last. However, I tolerated the ads, so there was a biz basis!)

Perhaps it’s like being an ex-smoker, but it riles me to see media still citing X posts in their articles. I want to yell “it’s dead, what you hear are no longer valid opinions”. I get that it’s hard, and lots of folks are still there, but… It had become, and I hear that it continues to be, an increasing swamp of bad information. Not a good source!

So where am I now? There isn’t yet an obvious solution. I’m trying out Mastodon and Bluesky. If you’re there, connect! I find the former to be more intimate. The latter is closer to twitter, but I’m not yet really seeing my ‘tribe’ there. I am posting these to both (I think). I’m finding LinkedIn to be more of an interaction location lately, as well, though it’s also become a bit spammy. #sideeffects? I keep Facebook for personal things, not biz, and I’m not on Instagram. I also won’t go on Threads or TikTok.

So, what does it take to leave? I guess when the focus turns from facilitating enlightening conversation at a reasonable exchange, to monetization and ego. When there’s interference in clean discourse, and opposition to benign facilitation. And, yes, I’m not naive enough to believe in total philanthropy (tho’ it happens), but there are levels that are tolerable and then there’s going to a ridiculous extreme. Wish I had $44B to lose! I know I’m not the only one wishing those who’ve earned riches would focus on libraries and other benevolent activities instead of ego-shots into space, but this is the world we’ve built. Here’s to positive change in alignment with how people really think, work, and learn.

Top 10 tools for Learning 2023

by 3 Comments

Somehow I missed colleague Jane Hart’s annual survey of top 10 tools for learning ’til just today, yet it’s the last day! I’ve participated in the past, and find it a valuable chance for reflection on my own, as well as seeing the results come out. So here’s my (belated) list of top 10 tools for learning 2023.

I’m using  Harold Jarche’s Personal Knowledge Mastery framework for learning here. His categories of seek (search and feed), sense (interpret) and share (closely or broadly) seems like an interesting and relevant way to organize my tools.

Seek

I subscribe to blog posts via email, and I use Feedblitz because I use it as a way for people to sign up for Learnlets. I finally started paying so they didn’t show gross ads (you can now signup safely; they lie when they say the have ‘brand-safe’ ads), and fortunately my mail removes images (for safety, unless I ask), so I don’t see them.

I’m also continuing to explore Mastodon (@quinnovator@sfba.social). It has its problems (e.g. hard to find others, smaller overall population), but I do find the conversations to be richer.

I’m similarly experimenting with Discord. It’s a place where I can generally communicate with colleagues.

I’m using Slack as a way to stay in touch, and I regularly learn from it, too. Like the previous two, it’s both seek and share, of course.

Of course, web surfing is still a regular activity. I’ve been using DuckDuckGo as a search engine instead of more famous ones, as I like the privacy policies better.

Sense

I still use Graffle as a diagramming tool (Mac only). Though I’m intrigued to try Apple’s FreeForm, in recent cases I’ve been editing old diagrams to update, and it’s hard to switch.

Apple’s Keynote is also still my ‘goto’ presentation maker, e.g. for my LDA activities. I have to occasionally use or output to Powerpoint, but for me, it’s a more elegant tool.

I also continue to use Microsoft’s Word as a writing tool. I’ve messed with Apple’s Pages, but…it doesn’t transfer over, and some colleagues need Word. Plus, that outlining is still critical.

Share

My blog (e.g. what you’re reading ;) is still my best sharing tool, so WordPress remains a top learning tool.

LinkedIn has risen to replace Twitter (which I now minimize my use of, owing to the regressive policies that continue to emerge). It’s where I not only auto-post these screeds, but respond to others.

As a closing note, I know a lot of people are using generative AI tools as thinking partners. I’ve avoided that for several reasons. For one, it’s clear that they’ve used others’ work to build them, yet there’s no benefit to the folks whose work has been purloined. There are also mistakes.  Probably wrongly, but I still trust my brain first. So there’re my top 10 tools for learning 2023

Two steps for L&D

by Leave a Comment

In a conversation, we were discussing how L&D fares. Badly, of course, but we were looking at why. One of the problems is that L&D folks don’t have credibility. Another was that they don’t measure. I didn’t raise it in the conversation, but it’s come up before that they’re also not being strategic. That came up in another conversation. Overall, there are two steps for L&D to really make an impact on.

Now, I joke that L&D isn’t doing well what it’s supposed to be doing, and isn’t doing enough. My first complaint is that we’re not doing a good job. In the second conversation, up-skilling came up as an important trend. My take is that it’s all well and good to want to do it, but if you really want persistent new skill development, you have to do it right! That is, shooting for retention and transfer. Which will be, by the way, the topic of my presentation at DevLearn this year, I’ve just found out. Also the topic of the Missing LXD workshop (coming in Asia Pacific times this July/Aug), in linking that learning science grounding to engagement as well.

I’ve argued that the most important thing L&D can do is start measuring, because it will point out what works (and doesn’t). That’s a barrier that came up in the first conversation; how do we move people forward in their measurements. We were talking about little steps; if they’re doing learner surveys (c.f. Thalheimer), let’s encourage them to move to survey some time after. If they’re doing that, let’s also have them ask supervisors. Etc.

So, this is a necessary step. It’s not enough, of course. You might throw courses at things where they don’t make sense, e.g. where performance support would work better. Measurement should tell you that, in that a course isn’t working, but it won’t necessarily point you directly to performance support. Still, measurement is a step along the way. There’s another step, however.

The second thing I argue we should do is start looking at going beyond courses. Not just performance support, but here I’m talking about informal and social learning, e.g. innovation. There are both principled and practical reasons for this. The principled reason is that innovation is learning; you don’t know the answer when you start. Thus, knowing how learning works provides a good basis for assisting here. The practical reason is it gives a way for L&D to contribute to the most important part of organizational success. Instead of being an appendage that can be cut when times are tough, L&D can be facilitating the survival and thrival strategies that will keep the organization agile.

Of course, we’re running a workshop on this as well. I’m not touting it because it’s on offer, I’m behind it because it’s something I’ve organized specifically because it’s so important! We’ll cover the gamut, from individual learning skills, to team, and organizational success. We’ll also cover strategy. Importantly, we have some of the best people in the world to assist! I’ve managed to convince  Harold Jarche, Emma Weber, Kat Koppett, and Mark Britz (each of which alone would be worth the price of entry!), on top of myself and Matt Richter. Because it’s the Learning Development Accelerator, it will be evidence-based. It’ll also be interactive, and practically focused.

Look, there are lots of things you can do. There are some things you should do. There are two steps for L&D to do, and you have the opportunity to get on top of each. You can do it any way you want, of course, but please, please start making these moves!

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 3 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.