Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Remote working expertise

by Leave a Comment

More and more, we’re working from home. This has important implications for organizations figuring out how to make that time productive. What are the best source(s) for remote working expertise? Here’re my recommendations.

I believe that applying the principles of cognitive science to how we think, work, and learn, is a good guide. There is lots known about how people are able to bring their best, alone and together. And, when that intersects with technology, we can find ways to equal, or surpass, existing workplace practices. We already know that many existing practices are contrary to the best outcomes, so this can be an inflection point. And, well, this is where I work and play. And yet, I’m certainly not the only; here are some more resources.

Two of my colleagues in the Internet Time Alliance (ITA) have expertise in working effectively. Jane Hart’s modern workplace learning, in particular, has useful guidance. While not specific to remote working, the principles generalize there very well. And Harold Jarche is one of the top thinkers about the intersection of work and learning. Increasingly work  is learning, and his frameworks including Seek-Sense-Share are apt. Particularly when you’re working more alone. Both have worked with organizations to improve outcomes. Charles Jennings does as well, personally, but a lot of his work currently is more on design methodologies and corporate strategy.

I’m also a fan of Mark Britz and his work in thinking through the social aspects of learning (he’s an ITA Jay Cross Memorial Award winner). He looks at how to build a meaningful community within organizations, and that’s a critical part of being able to maintain cohesiveness when you are not together all the time. Jane Bozarth’s work on social, as embodied in her book Show Your Work, is a great guide to some of the core principles to enable more effective working.

Then there’s the whole collection of independents at Change Agents Worldwide. With folks like Simon Terry, Helen Blunden, Marcia Conner, and more, all are folks who collaborate with organizations to work more effectively. (Helen and Marcia are recipients of the ITA Jay Cross Memorial Award as well.) The Change Agents mantra: “We believe the Future of Work will involve: working like a network, organizing like a network, leading like a network, and learning like a network.”

Then there are frameworks that make sense in this era of crisis. I’m a fan of Dave Snowden’s Cynefin framework talks about how to deal with different states of order. (Harold uses it a lot too.) The Community Maturity Model also can provide guidance about building effective work relationships. I immodestly like our ITA Coherent Organization framework as well.

I’m sure there are more good resources, but these are some ways to think about remote working expertise that I think stand up to scrutiny. I welcome your suggestions.

Two learning engineerings?

by Leave a Comment

So, I’ve written before about ‘learning engineering’. And, separately, it’s become an issue just what the term means. It appears there are two ‘learning engineerings’, and the issue is how to resolve them. So, let’s look at the contenders.

First, there’s the notion of engineering as applied science. We refer to chemical engineering as applied chemistry, electrical engineering as applied physics, etc. There’s not a one-to-one correspondence between label and theoretical field, but there is a relationship of theory and application.

Thus, learning engineering  could be the application of learning science to the design of instruction. Which is ‘instructional design’. And, to be clear, there’s a contingent that suggests this is what learning engineering could and should be. I, for one, think we should be looking to a focus on applied learning science instead of thinking of designing instruction, simply because the entrenched practices have devolved to content and a quiz. Which isn’t true ID, but…

On the other hand, there’s another perspective. Here, we’re recognizing that new technologies, particularly when we get to content systems, require a considerable amount of engineering to put them together. It’s applying computer systems to meet learning needs. Here, this is a  complement to instructional design, where we’re looking at the engineering to  support learning. And this is a valid recognition. Increasingly, we separate out design from development, and the development to make a full learning experience. It just could be the developer using an authoring tool, but when we’re talking AR/VR, or adaptive systems, and blended learning experiences and a Total Learning Architecture, it’s more.

As I see it, there’re two potential outcomes. We leave ID as the ‘applied learning science’, and let learning engineering mean the bit-twiddling (informed by learning science). Or, we reenergize ID by relabeling it, and come up with a new term for the complex system creation.

I guess I’m kind of inclined to the former,  except, we relabel ID as LXD. So we have LXD and LXE (because you can’t call it LXDesign and LXDevelopment because then you have acronym confusion :).   That’s my take, what’s yours?

How I work

by Leave a Comment

So, I work from home. A lot. And lots of folks are providing advice for those who have to make the shift in these interesting times. Rather than talk about what you should do, however, I thought I’d share what I do. So this is how I work.

This is my workspace. That’s a convertible desk, so I can be standing or sitting. That varies depending on what I’m working on, how I feel, etc. I’ve an ergonomic chair for sitting, and a foam pad I slide out when I’m standing. Behind me is my shelf of books, specifically L&D relevant ones, topped with awards & mementos, and a copy of each of my writings on the bottom shelf. Water bottle’s to the side, for regular access to stay hydrated. There’s a chair nearby for our little old dog who gets lonely when no one else is around.

On the other side is my laptop, which I plug into the large monitor and a hub. When I travel, it often goes with me (particularly if it’s more than a day or two). There’s a laser printer, scanner, CD/DVD drive, micro-usb cable, and a backup drive all plugged in, plus my iDevices.

I tend to get up, read the news and eat brekkie, before descending to my lair (it’s the lowest room in the house, which means it  can get cold in the winter). I hang a vest with fingerless gloves on the inside of the door to use when it’s cold. There’s a robe too, if I happen to come down at night. I’m too twitchy to typically be able to sit or stand and work for hours, so I regularly am up and about just to move. Snack breaks, or to take out the dog. For health reasons I try to get a walk in, and, ideally, some exercise. There is a torture device exercise machine in my office.

I’m doing this pretty much seven days a week, though I do try to leave time free for m’lady when it’s her weekend (which isn’t the same as everyone else). When there are times I need to crack down, I do so. I like to meet my commitments.

I do have a habit of working in fits and spurts. And the evidence suggests I’m very productive this way, letting things percolate and then there’s a burst of output. I also spend a fair bit of time consuming input to prepare for the percolation. I can’t just sit and crank on things too long; reckon I’ve a bit of ADD! So I break it up, and knock off a chunk before doing something else for a bit. Giving myself deliverables and deadlines helps, too.

I’ve experimented with various ways to project manage my time. I’ve several different projects in Pagico that I put tasks in. Also, it helps to just block out time on my calendar for tasks I need to get to. I definitely err on the side of apps that I can use regardless of what device I’m on.   When inspiration strikes, you need to be able to capture it.

Occasionally I’ll go out and meet a colleague or attend an event somewhere in the area. But otherwise, I’m a homebody except when I’m on the road, which happens semi-regularly. So I’m very used to hanging out alone. I’m not one of those who has to get fancy dressed every morning, so I just change from sleep clothes into sweats and a t-shirt. I do shave before I’m on screen (or before I go out). If I’ve a call, I can put on a collared shirt, and of course if I go out I do get properly dressed.

How do I do it? With Slack, Zoom, LinkedIn, Facebook, and email. Slack is a working setup, mostly with my IBSTPI colleagues, but there’s a social group I’m part of on there as well. I los I Zoom for meetings regularly, and the chat is how I stay in touch with the rest of the ITA. I have a LinkedIn group for the L&D Revolution, and track several others. Facebook is reserved for interpersonal communications with friends, but it helps keep me sane. I do use email to communicate, and am on a couple of mailing list communities that also occasionally do events.

With IBSTPI and others, Google Docs are a frequent way to develop and share documents. I find the Drive to be well-nigh impenetrable, but I mostly can find stuff. There really is an opportunity for better collaborative working arrangements! And of course I create my own documents, diagrams, etc, which I share.

This is how I work, most of the time when I’m remote. What did I forget to mention? And how does this compare to your approach?

 

 

Interesting times

by Leave a Comment

It was when I was living in Australia that I first heard the apocryphal Chinese curse “may you live in interesting times.” And, I have to say, the going’s gotten weird. A few reflections on the situation, all of course related to COVID-19.

I wrote some months ago about my spring schedule. And, well, as you might’ve guessed, things have changed. My trip to Boston has been postponed for a year (I’ll be giving a webinar for ATD NE).   I had added a trip to Brazil in May, which I’d yet to tell you about since they hadn’t gotten a page up, but…it’s been postponed.   And my trip to Belgium in June? Not feeling optimistic. (And this isn’t good, personally. As an independent, it’s gigs that pay the way. Need some remote work?)

Remote, because the entire SF Bay Area, where I live, is now on ‘stay home’ mode as of midnight last night.   Only essential services and travel are on. Of course work-based travel is acceptable, but right now, no one wants to meet in person. And there’s actually a good reason for this…

Curve below health system capacity if we take precautionsThis is a really wonderful diagram (ok, my poor rendition of it). It is the clearest depiction of the argument to take extraordinary measures. Simple, elegant. Our health system aims to cope with average levels of problems. We’re talking considerably more than that. This diagram, and the associated label “flattening the curve” really conveys the need for action. But this has really helped convey the necessity. I am using an adaptation to make the case for Community Emergency Response Team, a training initiative I’m engaged in. Which is also postponed.

I worry about much more, of course. We’ve seen weird behaviors (stockpiling toilet paper, an unsymptomatic response), as well as good ones (elbow bumps for greeting). Everyone,  and I mean everyone, is weighing in on how to design learning online and how to work remotely. I wasn’t going to, but an editor for one of my columns asked. I at least got agreement to not just talk the basics, but about using the opportunity to rethink.

My biggest concern is the impact on people’s lives! Folks’ livelihoods are at risk. There’s a lot of financial activity that’s not going to be happening (dining, for instance). The implications for many people – diminished income, mortgages or rent unpaid – are a concern. One interesting aside that a colleague noticed: there’s likely to be many more people who know what good hand-washing means now.   Please do learn it!

The main thing is to stay safe, for your sake and others. There’s a segment of the population that’s at higher risk, and that’s who we’re needing to help. And keep the need within capacity. We’re not only not equipped, but not supplied, to meet the possible demand when we don’t do enough.

I hope to see you at the other end of this, but stay tuned for all sorts of interim initiatives. We’re living in interesting times, and it’s an opportunity to be innovative, resilient, and humane. Here’s hoping that we become better as a consequence.

More Myths-Based Marketing

by 3 Comments

Is it the rising lack of trust in what anyone says? Have we turned into a society where any crazy marketing works? It certainly seems that way. It was only a couple of weeks ago I went on a rant, and yet, here we are again. A new twitter account (*not without controversy) @badlearning, has started taking on posts citing myths. And one caught my attention (not least because the stream mentioned the myths book ;). It got interesting when the marketing manager responded. Yet, I still will argue that it’s just more myths-based marketing.

*For context, it quickly got noticed amongst my colleagues. One colleague wasn’t sure that confronting myths was the appropriate approach. The particular issue (as several of us do that) was the anonymity of the poster. And blatantly calling out the flaws. You’ll note I don’t point to the perpetrator, just the error. I’m not going down the path of determining right or wrong, as I can see the concern, but also the potential for harm…  For full disclosure.

Digital Natives/Generations (& Goldfish) Myths

The post in question was announcing a new initiative, specifically “nano-learning” to address the new generation with a plan for “digital native advancement”. And, to my surprise when I chased the links, they pointed to Pew Research Center data. Which I generally think of as a reputable group. And, they have their categorizations defined, and used Census data as a basis to do the analysis.

One problem arises in their definitions of generations. Their bands (e.g. 1965 to 1980 for Gen X) aren’t constant across different proposals for generations!  How can you be claiming results for a group when there are fuzzy boundaries? I can create arbitrary boundaries and likely find differences.

And it’s also trying to define a category when it’s a continuum. One piece of data says the new generation will be more mixed. But isn’t that just a trend? Isn’t the US population becoming more diverse? Why try to attach it to a generation? What good does that do? Yes, our brains do want to categorize, but that doesn’t make it right. (See below.)

The other data is more problematic. For one, they refer to their own previous post. Um, er…And another admits it’s a marketing intelligence company. Like they have no vested interests in finding divisions they can promote and prosper from. Ahem. There’s even a post from Inc. that cites the goldfish myth, which has been shown to have been misapplied data. And they’re making that claim too, as the basis of ‘nano learning’!

But also there’s a presentation with a bunch of data but it doesn’t serve to differentiate between generations. It just says things like “young folks want to go overseas”. Without noting whether that’s different than previous generations. On the other hand, that source says that more Gen Z’s than Gen Y want to start their own business. But isn’t that likely to be a trend, too?

And…a representative of the organization weighed in: “I’m not sure I agree with you on all elements. Just like any generation shift in History, the new one has its own codes and vision of the world”. Er, that would be ‘no’. The problem is  assuming the generations proposal, and working from there. The notion is fundamentally flawed. There’s so much variability in context, that it’s not neatly carved out that way. This is just more myths-based marketing.

Learning Styles myth

Just to add to the rant, another post called out by the same twitter account talked about the 65% of learners being visual. And that’s learning styles, but it turns out to be a whole separate myth as well. There’s a story, of course.

Tracked back by Jo Cook, the 65% figure has been retracted by the originator (much like the 7-38-55 myth). Yet it continues to appear. Not least by marketers pushing visual solutions.  She points out that you can’t trust Forbes. There’s a cite, and it turns out  that  article goes down a rabbit hole of cascading web cites, ultimately leading to the now retracted claim, which isn’t really even in the data!

And, really, it’s a learning styles issue, because this is talking about how you learn. Which has been debunked. It’s not that learners don’t differ, it’s just that they vary so much by context (what/how/where/why/when they’re learning).  And, there’s no evidence that adapting learning to learners is better.

Interestingly, the post author justified (not to me) the claim thusly: “Since you have never run a training dept/division or L&D or taught at uni, I. E. Never been in the real world and seen it in action, then you shouldn’t hide behind articles. I talked to other L&D and training execs and ID execs they all agreed with LS situational.” Um, I have taught at uni, and have a Ph.D. in cog psych. And I’ve researched this. As has Jo. And it’s wrong. And all the anecdotes from people (some who may have invested and thus have a vested interest in it being true), doesn’t change that.

Empirical research is tested on the real world. The problem with these things  is, specifically, that it ‘feels right’. But it’s not. Worse, it’s harmful. It’s myths-based marketing again.  And  it’s not that we might not eventually be able to identify learning styles, but right now we can’t. And, we have a better basis for decisions anyway.

Avoiding myths-based marketing

There are many flaws in what’s transpired here.  People are using bad sources, not researching, and making claims that justify their work. Which doesn’t make it right.

For one, they’re suffering from confirmation bias. That’s when you only look for data that agrees with what you want to believe. Here, there’s  robust counter-evidence.

And they’re not using good sources. Just because someone claims something and has a link, that doesn’t count as good evidence. Anecdotes  can be data, but triangulation helps. As does aggregation and assessment of alternatives.

And the reasoning  about  the data is flawed. For instance, we can create artificial boundaries, and cite trends. So, X has been going up steadily for Y period. I could break Y into two pieces, and say that the second period has a higher average X than the previous period, and therefore the two periods are different. But it’s a continuum. It’s artificial and arbitrary.

We need to do better, as an industry. You don’t see executives using astrology to plot business plans. You don’t see product managers using alchemy to determine the next market offering. We have to stop using pseudo-science, and start using the results of research on learning. We need to avoid more myths-based marketing. Please!

 

Images processed 60K faster? No! And more…

by 4 Comments

Recently, I’ve run into the claim that images are processed 60K times faster than text. And, folks, it’s a myth. More over, it’s exemplary of bad practices in business. And so it’s worth pointing out what the situation is, why it’s happening, and why you should be on guard.

It’s easy to find the myth. Just search on “images processed 60K times faster than text”. You’ll get lots of citations, and a few debunkings. Most of the references are from marketing hype, selling you visual support.

The origin is suspicious. It’s always cited as coming from 3M, Polishing Your Presentation. Which is problematic, because when you go to that paper, you find the quote, but not a legitimate citation. Instead, there’s a vague statement about “findings from behavioral research”  with no citation!  Bad form.

A study done jointly between 3M and the University of Minnesota about presentations also is potentially a source. With only one small catch: it doesn’t mention 60K  at all!  Instead, it  does conclude that “Presentations using visual aids were found to be  43% MORE PERSUASIVE  than unaided presentations.” Which is hardly controversial.

Yet this is another zombie, like learning styles, that won’t die!  It’s been researched by several folks, including Alan Levine and  Jonathan Schwabish. No one seems to be able to identify a real piece of evidence. And it just doesn’t make sense!

In use, words are practiced enough to be recognized as a whole, serving as icons; they’re not repeatedly processed from letters into words. Second, images need parsing, too, and contextualization between the image and the current semantics.

Sure, we have many more neurons devoted to image processing than auditory, but that’s not only due to a sensory primacy (e.g. distance capability), but also the richness of the visual field. And more doesn’t equal ‘faster’. Yes, we’re processing in parallel, but nerve firing rates change based upon activation, not modality.

And this means that we have to have our ‘hype’ shields up. We need to evaluate any claims by several methods. Who else is saying this? Not pointing to the same (bad) data, but what convergent evidence is there? And what vested interest do the promoters have? And, importantly, does it make causal sense? Is there a plausible scenario when you dig beneath the surface features?

And, if you don’t want to read research published in the original academese, find those who you can trust. Those who’ve demonstrated a consistent ability to cut through the hype  and the research, and bring good interpretations and debunk the myths. You can see my list of mythbusters here.

So, please, practice professionalism, avoid the hype, and use good principles in design and practice.

 

Content systems not content packages

by 1 Comment

In a conversation last week (ok, an engagement), the topic of content systems came up. Now this is something I’ve argued for before, in several ways. For one, separate content from how it’s delivered. And, pull content together by rules, not hardwired. And it’s also about the right level of granularity. It’s time to revisit the message, because I thought it was too early, but I think the time is fast coming when we can look at this.

This is in opposition to the notion of pre-packaged content. MOOCs showed that folks want to drill in to what they need. Yet we still pull everything together and launch it as a final total solution. We are moving to smaller chunks (all for the better; even if it is burdened with a misleading label). But there’s more.

The first point is about content models. That we should start designing our content into smaller chunks. My heuristic is the smallest thing you’d give one person or another. My more general principle is that resolves to breaking content down by it’s learning role: a concept model is different than an example is different than a practice.

This approach emerged from an initiative on an adaptive learning system I led. It now has played out as a mechanism to support several initiatives delivering content appropriately. For one, it was supporting different business products from the same content repository. For another it was about delivering the right thing at the right time.

Which leads to the second point, about being able to pick and deliver the right thing  for the context.  This includes adaptive systems for learning, but also context-based performance support. With a model of the learner, the context, and the content, you can write rules that put these together to optimally identify the right thing to push.

You can go further. Think of two different representatives from the same company visiting a client. A sales person and a field engineer are going to want different things in the same location. So you can add a model of ‘role’ (though that can also be tied to the learner model).

There’s more, of course. To do this well requires content strategy, engineering, and management. Someone put it this way: strategy is what you want to deliver, engineering is how, and management is overseeing the content lifecycle.

Ultimately, it’s about moving from hardwired content to flexible delivery. And that’s possible and desirable. Moreover, it’s the future. As we see the movement from LMS to LXP, we realize that it’s about delivering just what’s needed when useful. Recognizing that LXPs are portals, not about creating experiences, we see the need for federated search.

There’s more: semantics means we can identify what things are (and are not), so we can respond to queries. With chatbot interfaces, we can make it easier to automate the search and offering to deliver the right thing to the right person at the right time.

The future is here; we see it in web interfaces all over the place. Why aren’t we seeing it yet in learning? There are strong cognitive reasons (performance support, workflow learning, self-directed and self-regulated learning).  And the technology is no longer the limitation. So let’s get on it. It’s time to think content systems, not content packages.

 

Cultural Comment Shift

by 2 Comments

I’ve been blogging now for over a decade, and one thing has changed. The phenomena is that we’re seeing a cultural comment shift; comments are now coming from shared platforms, not directly on the site. And while I try not to care, I’m finding it interesting to reflect on the implications of that, in a small way.

When I started, people would comment right on the blog. It still happens, but not in the way it used to. It wasn’t unknown for a post to generate many responses right in the post. And I liked that focused dialog.

These days, however, I get more comments on the LinkedIn announcement of the post rather than the post itself. And I don’t think that’s bad, it’s just interesting. The question is why.

I think that more and more, people want one place to go. With the proliferation of places to go: from Facebook and Twitter and LinkedIn to a variety of group tools and Instragram and Pinterest and…the list goes on. People instead are more likely to go where others are.

And that makes it increasingly easy to just view and comment in a place where I already am. And since that’s possible, it works. I wish I could automatically post directly to LinkedIn, but apparently that’s not of interest (APIs are a clear indicator of intent).

I think the lesson is, as I was opining about elsewhere, is to go where people are. Don’t try to set up your own community if you can get people to participate where they already are. Of course, that also implies having good places to go. We’re seeing certain platforms emerge as the ‘go to’ place, and that’s OK, as long as they work. The cultural comment shift is merely an indicator of a bigger cultural shift, and as long as we can ride it, we’re good.

On building trust

by 2 Comments

My post last week was on trust, and it triggered a question on LinkedIn: “Do you have any tips, processes, models, suggestions, etc. for building trust within a team?”  And while I wrote a short response there, I thought it would be worth it to expand on it.  So here’re some thoughts on building trust.

First, there was a further question: “You mentioned that it started with credentials. For example, did you all take turns going around and introducing yourselves?” No, it wasn’t introducing ourselves. Potential new candidates are scrutinized in a call, so existing members are aware of new members’ capabilities. In my case, I looked them up, or more usually their activities emerged in conversation. It develops authentically.

The most important thing was that there were activities underway, and people were contributing in an open, constructive, non-personal way.  There’s a focus on reinventing the organization, and an important activity underway was using the Business Model Canvas as a framework to explore opportunities. The activity was led by one of the team whose experience became abundantly clear, for example.

There also was acknowledgement of others’ contributions. Conversations would reference and build upon what others said. It was an implicit ‘yes and’, but also an occasional ‘but what about’.  That is, we were free to present alternative viewpoints. Sometimes they resolve and other times it’s ok to leave them hanging in the moment. The only agenda is the common good.

One critical element is that the leaders are very unassuming and solicitous of input, as well as sharing lessons learned. There is a lot of sharing of experience, connections, and more. There’re also personal notes about travel, concerns, and more. It’s very ‘human’.

It quickly was obvious that the group was a safe place where people had a shared goal but were also diverse. We’re diverse in geography, race, gender, and role, which forms a strong basis for good outcomes.  The culture’s established, and we naturally align. As Mark Britz says, we follow the systems, but they’re right from the start.

It goes back to the learning organization dimensions, particularly the environment: open mind, valuing diversity, time for reflection, and psychological safety. When it’s lived, it works. And that’s what’s happening. When you’re focused on building trust, get the culture right, and the rest follows.