Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

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.

Conference Outcomes?

by Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writing books

by 2 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Wisdom into practice

by Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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?

Fewer myths, please

by 5 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

Misusing affordances?

by Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Myth Persistence

by 2 Comments

It’s been more than a decade (and probably several), that folks have been busting myths that permeate our industry. Yet, they persist. The latest evidence was in a recent chat I was in. I didn’t call them out at the time; this was a group I don’t really know, and I didn’t want to make any particular person defensive or look foolish. Sometimes I will, if it’s a deliberate attempt at misleading folks, but here I believe it’s safe to infer that it was just a lack of understanding. I’ll keep calling them out here, though. However, the myth persistence is troubling.

One of the myths was learning preferences. The claim was something like that with personalization we could support people’s preferences for learning. This is, really, the learning styles myth. There’s no evidence that adapting to learners’ preferred or identified styles makes a difference. Learner intuitions about what works is not well correlated with outcomes.. So this wasn’t a sensible statement.

There were several comments on unlearning. There is some controversy on this, some people saying that it’s necessary for organizations if not individuals. I still think it’s a misconception, at least. That is, your learning doesn’t go away and something replaces it, you have to actively practice the new behavior in response to the same context to learn a new way of doing things. It’s people, after all, and that’s how our cognitive architecture works!

Gamification also got a mention. Again, this is more misconception perhaps. That is, it matters how you define it. We had Karl Kapp on the LDA’s You Oughta Know session, talking about gamification (and micro learning). He talks about understanding that it’s more than just points and leaderboards. Yes, it is. However, that term leads people quickly to that mindset, hence my resistance to the term. However, the chat seemed to suggest that gamification, in combination with something else (memory fails), was a panacea. There are no panaceas, and gamification isn’t a part of any major advance. It’s a ‘tuning’ tool, at best.

A final one was really about tech excitement; with all the new tools, we’ll usher in a new era of productivity. Well, no. The transformation really is not digital. That is, if we use tech to augment our existing approaches, we’re liable to be stuck in the same old approaches. Most of which are predicated on broken models of human behavior. The transformation should be humane, reflecting how we really think, work, and learn. Without that, digitization isn’t going to accomplish as much as it could.

So, there’s significant myth persistence. I realize change can be hard and take time. Sometimes that’s frustrating, but we have to be similarly persistent in busting them. I’ll keep doing my part. How about you?

Better RFPs, Please

by Leave a Comment

I regularly rant about the quality of the learning designs we see. Knowledge dump and information test, I rail, is not going to lead to meaningful outcomes. Consequently, I work to promote more learning science in what we do. However, I have to acknowledge that frequently, the problem isn’t in the designer, but in the requester. Too often, there are RFPs (emblematic, they’re equivalent to the internal request for ‘a course on X’) that are asking for designers to take content and essentially put it up on the screen with a quiz (and window dressing). So we need better RFPs, please.

Ideally, RFPs would be expecting a good process. That includes a number of steps, from analysis through to deliver. For instance, to expect due diligence in analysis, with either clear metrics of success, or expectations of an appropriate process. That latter would include where appropriate individuals (experts, supervisors, performers) work with the team to identify ideal performance, gaps, and the causes.

Similarly in design, there’d be an expectation of iterative development and review, with testing. Where’s the expectation of meaningful practice, where the lowest level of practice is mini-scenarios (better written multiple choice questions) through full scenarios, to even serious games? We need identification of misconceptions and specific feedback as well.

Yet, the RFPs that come out often focus on cost, visual design, and an expectation that PPTs and PDFs are a sufficient basis to build a course. I recently suffered through a droned presentation of bullet points and unclear diagrams, followed by quiz questions that a) focused on random knowledge that wasn’t emphasized during the presentation and b) provided as feedback only ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Let me assure you that little meaningful learning came from that experience.

While we need to push ourselves to be better, we also need to educate our clients (internal or external). They need to educate themselves, too. Orgs will get the courses they ask for. However, will the ask have any impact? Too often, unfortunately, the answer is no. There’s a quote in the article The Great Training Robbery that estimates suggest only 10% of the multi-billions spent on training has any impact. That’s a staggering loss. While there are many contributors, it behooves us to try to address them all. For one, can we have better RFPs, please?