Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Search Results for: Quip

LXD by Design

by Leave a Comment

Learning Experience Design (LXD), I argue, is the elegant integration of learning science with engagement. All well and good, of course, but how do you introduce it? Specifically, how do we engage people already actively designing? There are a number of ways to cut it. You could talk about the cognitive underpinnings, the implications for the elements of learning, or via the changes in the design process. I do the latter two, with a focus on the engagement side (which I feel is underdeveloped), in my latest book, “Make It Meaningful“. However, what if you’re trying to do both? Here’s a case to visit LXD by design.

It seems pretty safe to say that most people will resist totally throwing out their entire design process. There’s lots of investment. Further, most design processes have a useful basic structure. This suggests looking for the smallest tweaks that will yield the biggest impacts. We’re looking to incorporate the effectiveness of learning science with the emotional appropriateness of engagement. What does this require?

The first change is in the analysis. LXD simply  can’t work without performance objectives. If you’re just trying to make people aware, you’re not really on a transformative journey. You want to be focusing on equipping people so that they’re (meaningfully) changed through the process. You also need some new information: why this is necessary  for the learners, and why experts find it interesting enough to study. There’s more, but this is key.

Then, your design process differs. You are being creative,  given that you’re not just directly practicing. You’re also tuning to get the experience optimized. So, you need to build in some brainstorming, and iteration. In pragmatic ways, of course.

Implementation is also more iterative. You’ll be investing slowly, to allow pivots and to keep the overall costs contained. Postponing programming and preferring paper are components of this.

Even your evaluation is different. You are testing, now, not only effectiveness, but also the experience. Which you may have been doing (*cough* smile sheets *cough*), but you need to test both sequentially, not just one  or the other.

All along, there are small changes that will help integrate learning science elegantly with engagement. Making those critical changes will likely take a bit longer, at least at first. On the other hand, you should be getting real outcomes  and more engaged learners. Which, ultimately, is what we should be doing.

I’ll be covering this in a workshop for the Learning Guild in two half-day sessions prior to their LXD conference at the beginning of August. (Also doing a session during the conf on emotion.) I hope you’ll find LXD by Design to be a practical and useful, even  transformative, experience.

Critical ID/LXD Differences?

by 4 Comments

I’ve argued both that Learning Experience Design (LXD) is an improvement on Instructional Design (ID), and that LXD is the  elegant integration of learning science with engagement. However, that doesn’t really unpack what are the critical ID/LXD differences. I think it’s worth looking at those important distinctions both in principle and practice. Here, I’m talking about the extensions to what’s already probably in place.

Principle

In principle, I think it’s the engagement part that separates the two. True, proper ID shouldn’t ignore it. However, there’s been too little attention. For instance, only one ID theorist, John Keller, has really looked at those elements. Overall, it’s too easy to focus purely on the cognitive. (Worse, of course, is a focus purely on knowledge, which really  isn’t good ID).

I suggest that this manifests in two ways. First, you need an initial emotional ‘hook’ to gain the learner’s commitment to the learning experience. Even before we open them up cognitively (though, of course, they’re linked)! Then, we need to manage emotions through out the experience. We want to do thinks like keep challenge balanced, anxiety low enough not to interfere, build confidence, etc.

We have tools we can use, like story, exaggeration, humor, and more to assist us in these endeavors. At core, however, what we’re focusing on is making it a true ‘experience’, not just an instructional event. Ideally, we’d like to be transformational, leaving learners equipped with new skills and the awareness thereof.

Practice

What does this mean in practice? A number of things. For one, it takes creativity to consider ways in which to address emotions. There are research results and guidance, but you’ll still want to exercise some exploration. Which also means you have to be iterative, with testing. I understand that this is immediately scary, thinking about costs. However, when you stop trying to use courses for everything, you’ll have more resources to do courses right. For that matter, you’ll actually be achieving outcomes, which is a justification for the effort.

Our design process needs to start gathering different information. We need to get performance objectives; what people actually need to do, not just what they need to know. You really can’t develop people if you’re not having them perform and getting feedback. You also need to understand  why this is needed, why it’s important, and why it’s interesting. It is, at least to the subject matter experts who’ve invested the time to  be experts in this…

Your process also needs to have those creative breaks. These are far better if they’re collaborative, at least at the times when you’re ideating. While ideally you have a team working together on an ongoing basis, in many cases that may be problematic. I suggest getting together at least at the ideating stage, and then after testing to review findings.

You’ll also want to be testing against criteria. At the analysis stage, you should design criteria that will determine when you’re ‘done’. When you run out of time and money is  not the right answer! Test usability first, then effectiveness, and then engagement. Yes, you want to quantify engagement. It doesn’t have to be ‘adrenaline in the blood’ or even galvanic skin response, subjective evaluations by your learners is just fine. If you are running out of time and money before you’re achieving your metrics, you can adjust them, but now you’re doing it on consciously, not implicitly.

I’m sure there more that I’m missing, but these strike me as some critical ID/LXD differences. There are differences in principle, which yield differences in practice. What are your thoughts?

What’s In It For Them?

by Leave a Comment

One of the things I talk about in my most recent book,  Make It Meaningful, is the importance of communicating the WIIFM (What’s In It For Me). I do think it’s important, but in recent work I’ve found an interesting alternative. I’m not sure I completely have my mind around how to address it, so as I’m wont to do, here’s some ‘thinking out loud’ about What’s In It For Them (WIIFT).

To start, WIIFM is about connecting learners to a visceral understanding of the reason for the learning experience. There should be a clear value proposition, to them.  It can be either having to do with either the consequences of having the resulting skill, or not. The point is that they ‘get’ that they need this (then there’s more). I believe that learners will invest in learning if they understand why.

However, in this instance, we have audiences who may or may not be interested. This is a suite of offerings, different for different potential clients. What we want here is for them to quickly determine  whether there’s WIIFM. We don’t think everyone will be appropriate for every thing we’re providing. Importantly, we don’t want them to waste time on ones that aren’t relevant. So we very quickly want to establish what’s in it  for the appropriate audience.

There are a number of ways to send signals. For one, the filename and the title of the resource can (and should) be clear what this particular thing about. Then, there should be a brief description of why this particular thing exists. Then, there can be a brief introduction saying what is going on. Obviously, all should align, so that folks can get in with the minimal effort to get there.

This, to me, suggests that the intro either explicitly making it clear  who we think  is   the audience, or provides an initial statement of what the outcomes are so that individuals can self-select. I’m not sure yet which I think is better, or even whether it’s useful to do both. There’s a tradeoff, of course; brevity is useful, and so is clarity. I suppose we can always make our best guess in the instance. For sure we’ll test it.

So, I’ve been led to wonder how to communicate What’s In It For Them so that they know whether they’re ‘them’ or not! There are also probably converging influences. I reckon marketing has this issue, as does documentation? What have seen/done/found out? I welcome your input.

 

Why L&D isn’t better

by 1 Comment

As I’ve noted before, someone on LinkedIn asked a question, and it’s prompting a reply. In this case, the question was in response to my previous post on superstitions (for new L&D practitioners). He asked “How did we even get here?” I’ve talked before about the sorry state of our industry, but haven’t really shared my thinking on why this is the case. My short response was that it’s complex. Here’s the longer response, trying to answer why L&D isn’t better.

First, I think we’re suffering from some mistaken beliefs. In particular, that presenting information will lead to behavior change. As I’ve noted before, I think this is a legacy of our beliefs that we’re formal logical reasoners. That is, if we were such beings (we’re not), this would likely be true. We’d respond to information by changing how we act. Instead, of course, we don’t change our behavior without practice, reinforcement, etc.

Another contributor, I suggest, is that a belief that if we can perform, we can teach. We can, therefore, take the best performer, and turn them into a trainer. Which is mistaken for a couple of reasons. For one, expertise is compiled away, and isn’t accessible. Estimates suggest around 70% of what experts do, they literally can’t tell us. It’s also a mistake to think that just anyone can teach. There’re specific skills that need to go into it.

Of course, we’re not aware of our flaws. We don’t measure, by and large. Even when we do, we too often measure the wrong things.  So, we see the bad practice of just looking at what learners think of the experience. Which has little correlation with the actual impact. We seldom look to see if the learning has actually changed any behavior, let alone whether it’s now at an acceptable level.

I do think we also still see the effects of 9/11. When we didn’t want to travel, we went to elearning. Rapid eLearning tools emerged to make it fast to take the PPTs and PDFs from the previous courses and put them onscreen with an added quiz. This has led to expectations that courses can be churned out quickly. Indeed, except that these ‘courses’ won’t have any impact!

One other factor is that our stakeholders also don’t know nor care. They know they need to invest in learning, so they do. It’s a cost center, not a driver of business success. No one is (yet) calling us on the carpet to justify our success. That’s changing, however. I just would like for us to be proactive, not reactive. Moreover, there’s a bigger opportunity on tap, not only to help the organization execute on the things that it needs to do, but also to facilitate the new knowledge the org will need.

In short, we don’t seem know what learning is, and we’re blind to the fact that our approaches aren’t useful. These, of course, are all premises I’ve addressed in my call to Revolutionize L&D. I still think there’s a meaningful role for L&D to play, but we have to lift our game. That’s my explanation of why L&D isn’t better, what’s yours?

 

What makes a good book?

by 1 Comment

I was in contact with a person about a potential book, and she followed up with an interesting question: what’s the vision I have for publishing? She was looking for what I thought was a good book. Of course, I hadn’t really articulated it! I responded, but thought I should share my thinking with you as well. In particular, to get your thoughts!  So, what makes a good book? (I’m talking non-fiction here, of course.)

My first response was that I like books that take a sensible approach to a subject. That is, they start where the learner is and get them realizing this is an important topic. Then the book walks them through the thinking with models and examples. Ultimately, a book should leave them equipped to do new things. In a sense, it’s the author leading the reader through a narrative that leaves them with a different and valuable view of the world.

I think these books can take different forms. Some shake up your world view with new perspectives, so for example Don Norman‘s Design of Everyday Things or Todd  Rose‘s The End of Average. Another types are  ones that provide deep coverage of an important topic, such as Patti Shank‘s  Write Better Multiple-Choice Questions.  A third type are ones that lead you through a process, such as Cathy Moore‘s Map It. These are rough characterizations, that may not be mutually exclusive, but each can be done to fit the description above.

To me the necessary elements are that it’s readable, authoritative, and worthwhile. That is, first there’s a narrative flow that makes it easy to process. For instance, Annie Murphy Paul’s The Extended Mind takes a journalistic approach to important phenomena.  Also, a book needs an evidence-base, grounding in documented experience and/or science. It can re-spin topics (I’m thinking here about Lisa Feldman Barrett’s  How Emotions Are Made), but must have a viable reinterpretation. Finally, it has to be something that’s worth covering. That may differ by reader, but it has to be applicable to  a field. You should leave with a new perspective and potentially new capabilities.

That’s what came off the top of my head. What am I missing in what makes a good book?

The Performance Ecosystem and L&D

by 2 Comments

On LinkedIn recently, a survey in a post asked whether L&D should simply become performance consulting (Y/N). In the ensuing discussion, a comment was made that the binary discussion was flawed, and that a richer picture was possible. I was extremely pleased when she referred to my  Revolutionize Learning & Development book, and posted a diagram from it. I backed her comment, but it occurs to me that there’s more here, and of course I have a connection. So here’re some thoughts on the Performance Ecosystem and L&D.

To start, she cited how I wanted to move to Performance and Development. Indeed, I’ve posted about it, and included a diagram. In it, performance consulting  is represented, but as she noticed, there’s more. I think performance consulting is great, but…it’s not everything. To me, it only addresses the ‘optimal execution’ side of the picture, and ignores the ‘continual innovation’ opportunity.

To be fair, suggesting that L&D take responsibility for informal learning could be considered a stretch. My argument is simply that informal learning has practices and policies that can optimize outcomes,  and that it’s a necessary component of success going forward. (I note that problem-solving, design, research, and innovation all start without a known answer, so they’re learning too!) It’s not necessarily L&D’s role,  but who else (should) know more about learning?

So, innovation is an opportunity. A big one, I suggest. It’s a chance to move to the most valuable role in the organization, going forward. Orgs  need to innovate, and facilitating the best innovation is going to be a critical role. Why  not L&D? Yes, we have to get out of our comfort zone, start working with other business units, and most importantly know learning. So? We should anyway!

The infrastructure necessary is what I call the performance ecosystem. It’s about formal learning, but also more. That includes social, and information and learning resources. It includes facilitation as well as performance interventions. It’s about technology, but how to use it in ways that align with our brains.

The interesting issue for me is how to awaken this awareness. I  suggest  mobile is a gateway to the appropriate thinking. I wrote about mobile before writing the Revolution book (as my then-publisher required), but even there I laid out the case how mobile was not (just) about formal learning. Indeed, when you look at the way people use mobile, it’s very different. It’s also a digital platform, which means that it supports multiple outcomes.

Thus, mobile thinking is a way to break through the mindset of courses, and start looking at the bigger picture of technology supporting how we think, work, and learn to the success of our organizations. Which is why I’m happy to say that I’ll again be running the mobile course with Allen Academy, starting next week. Through 18 Jan, they’re offering this as a two-fer, so you get both the mobile and the learning science course for one low price! Together, you’re addressing my silly clip about L&D, both doing courses well  and going beyond them.

If you want to get your mind around the performance ecosystem and L&D, I suggest that mobile learning is a effective vehicle. You get both some deep advice about mobile, but it also generalizes to digital technology overall. The course itself looks at formal learning, performance support, informal learning, and more, as well as strategic issues. Coupled with learning science, this is a real grounding in the most important opportunities and necessities facing L&D today. Whether you call it P&D or L&D, these are core concepts. Hope to see you there!

 

The (Post) Cognitive Perspective

by 5 Comments

I’m deeply steeped in the cognitive sciences, owing to a Ph.D. in cognitive psych. Fortuitively, this was at the time my advisor was creating the cognitive science program (and more). So I’ve a bias. Yet I also have a fair bit of empirical evidence that taking a cognitive perspective accomplishes things that are hard to do in other ways. So let me make the case that the cognitive perspective is more than just a useful one, but arguably a necessary one.

I‘ll start by reflecting back on something I wrote before, about virtual world affordances. At the time, platforms like Second Life were touting the advantages of an immersive navigable world. Of course, the promises were all-encompassing: everything would move to virtual worlds. In retrospect, it didn‘t eventuate. Why? I argue it’s because the cognitive overhead of virtual worlds means that there has to be a sustained value proposition, and that came from when you truly need 3D immersion and social.  

Similarly, when I wrote my books on games and mobile, I focused on the cognitive impacts. The first reason was because technology was changing so fast that anything hardware-specific would be out of date before the book was published. The second is because our brains don‘t change that fast, so what works will work regardless of the technology .  

Note that our understanding of cognition has changed. We‘re now in a ‘post-cognitive‘ era, where the notion that all our formal, logical thinking is done in our heads is wrong. Research is showing that we‘re far more ‘situated‘ than we think, and distributed as well. That includes distributed across external representations and other people! It’s very contextual, and it’s not all in our heads!

So these days, when I look at things, I try to look with a cognitive (ok, post-cognitive) perspective. I look to see how things align, or not, with how our brains work. When I evaluate learning technologies, for instance, I look to see how well they do things like provide meaningful practice: active and contextualized. You can also see when particular technologies (e.g. VR/AR/AI) will be valuable, and not. Similarly, when I look at workplace change proposals, I look at how well they reflect our mechanisms for adapting to change.  

I‘ll argue that these perspectives are valuable. You can quickly see why most training doesn‘t work, cut through hype from vendors, create explanations about why myths are mythtaken, etc. You can save money, be more effective, etc when you align with how our brains work. I‘ve talked before about how there are gaps. This is the flip side, how to avoid those gaps, and do better.   In short, you‘re better able to assist your organization in being more effective (and efficient).  

That‘s why I‘m pleased that I am able to put these basics into the learning science book, and workshops. It‘s possible to get better at this sort of perspective. It‘s also possible to get it on tap as needed. However, it does take both the cognitive understanding and the experience in applying it. So, how‘s your cognitive perspective?

On a side note, I want to encourage you to consider my workshop at DevLearn on Make It Meaningful, a full day exploring how we make learning experiences deeply engaging (adding to effectiveness). This is also the topic of my online workshop through the Learning Development Accelerator. This is, to me, the most important topic to  complement  learning science. (Available as a book and workshop. ;) In both cases, I’m trying  to help us  stop making boring courses that people want to avoid, and suggest that this  can be done for most any topic. It also leads to more effective learning outcomes! Hope to see you at one! (Of course, if your organization would like your own private version, let me know!)

My ‘Man on the Moon’ Project

by 8 Comments

There have been a variety of proposals for the next ‘man on the moon’ project since JFK first inspired us. This includes going to Mars, infrastructure revitalization, and more. And I’m sympathetic to them. I’d like us to commit to manufacturing and installing solar panels over all parking lots, both to stimulate jobs and the economy, and transform our energy infrastructure, for instance. However, with my focus on learning and technology, there’s another ‘man on the moon’ project I’d like to see.

I’d like to see an entire K12 curriculum online (in English, but open, so that anyone can translate it). However, there are nuances here. I’m not oblivious to the fact that there are folks pushing in this direction. I don’t know them all, but I certainly have some reservations. So let me document three important criteria that I think are critical to make this work (queue my claim “only two things wrong with education in this country, the curriculum and the pedagogy, other than that it’s fine”).

First, as presaged, it can’t be the existing curriculum.  Common Core isn’t evil, but it’s still focused on a set of elements that are out of touch. As an example, I’ll channel Roger Schank on the quadratic equation: everyone’s learned (and forgotten) it, almost no one actually uses it. Why? Making every kid learn it is just silly. Our curriculum is a holdover from what was stipulated at the founding of this country. Let’s get a curriculum that’s looking forward, not back. Let’s include the ability to balance a bankbook, to project manage, to critically evaluate claims, to communicate visually, and the like.

Second, as suggested, it can’t be the existing pedagogy. Lecture and test don’t lead to retaining and transferring the ability to  do. Instead, learning science tells us that we need to be given challenging problems, and resources and guidance to solve them. Quite simply, we need to practice as we want to be able to perform. Instruction is designed action and  guided reflection.  Ideally, we’d layer on learning on top of learner interests. Which leads to the third component.

We need to develop teachers who can facilitate learning in this new pedagogy. We can’t assume teachers can do this. There are many dedicated teachers, but the system is aligned against effective outcomes. (Just look at the lack of success of educational reform initiatives.) David Preston, with his Open Source Learning has a wonderful idea, but it takes a different sort of teacher. We also can’t assume learners sitting at computers. So, having a teacher support component along with every element is important.

Are there initiatives that are working on all this? I have yet to see any one that’s gotten it  all right.  The ones I’ve seen lack on one or another element. I’m happy to be wrong!

I also recognize that agreeing on all the elements, each of which is controversial, is problematic. (What’s the  right curricula? Direct instruction or constructivist? How do we value teachers in society?) We’d have major challenges in assembling folks to address any of these, let alone all and achieving convergence.

However, think of the upside. What could we accomplish if we had an effective education system preparing youth for the success of our future? What  is the best investment in our future?  I realize it’s a big dream; and I’m not in a position to make it happen. Yet I did want to drop the spark, and see if it fire any imaginations. I’m happy to help. So, this is my ‘man on the moon’ project; what am I missing?

Overworked IDs

by 2 Comments

I was asked a somewhat challenging question the other day, and it led me to reflect. As usual, I‘m sharing that with you. The question was “How can IDs keep up with everything, feel competent and confident in our work” It‘s not a trivial question! So I‘ll share my response to overworked IDs.

There was considerable context behind the question. My interlocutor weighed in with her tasks:  

“sometimes I wonder how to best juggle everything that my role requires: project management, design and ux/ui skills, basic coding, dealing with timelines and SMEs and managers. Don‘t forget task analysis and needs assessment skills, making content accessible and engaging. And staying on top of a variety of software.”  

I recognize that this is the life of overworked IDs, particularly if you‘re the lone ID (which isn‘t infrequent), or expected to handle course development on your own. Yet it is a lot of different competencies. In work with IBSTPI, where we‘re defining competencies, we‘re recognizing that different folks cut up roles differently. Regardless, many folks wear different competency requirements that in other orgs are handled by different teams. So what‘s a person to do?

My response focused on a couple of things. First, there‘re the expectations that have emerged. After 9/11, when we were avoiding travel, there was a push for elearning. And, with the usual push for efficiency, rapid elearning became the vogue. That is, tools that made it easy to take PDFs and PPTs and put it up online with a quiz. It looked like lectures, so it must be learning, right?

One of the responses, then, is to manage expectations. In fact, a recent post addressed the gap between what we know and what orgs should know. We need to reset expectations.

As part of that, we need to create better expectations about what learning is. That was what drove the Serious eLearning Manifesto [elearningmanifesto.org], where we tried to distinguish between typical elearning and serious elearning. Our focus should shift to where our first response isn‘t a course!  

As to what is needed to feel competent and confident, I‘ve been arguing there are three strands. For one (not surprisingly ;), I think IDs need to know learning science. This includes being able to fill in the gaps in and update on instructional design prescriptions, and also to be able to push back against bad recommendations. (Besides the book, this has been the subject of the course I run for HR.com via Allen Academy, will be the focus of my presentation at ATD ICE this summer, and also my asynchronous course for the LDC conference.)  

Second, I believe a concomitant element is understanding true engagement. Here I mean going beyond trivial approaches like tarting-up drill-and-kill, and gamification, and getting into making it meaningful. (I‘ve run a workshop on that through the LDA, and it will be the topic of my workshop at DevLearn this fall.)

The final element is a performance ecosystem mindset. That is, thinking beyond the course: first to performance support, still on the optimal execution side of the equation. Then we move to informal learning, facilitating learning. Read: continual innovation! This may seem like more competencies to add on, but the goal is to reduce the emphasis (and workload) on courses, and build an organization that continues to learn. I address this in the  Revolutionize L&D book, and also my mobile course for Allen Interactions (a mobile mindset is, really, a performance ecosystem mindset!).

If you‘re on top of these you should prepared to do your job with competence and confidence. Yes, you still have to navigate organizational expectations, but you‘re better equipped to do so. I‘ll also suggest you stay tuned for further efforts to make these frameworks accessible.  

So, there‘re my responses to overworked IDs. Sorry, no magic bullets, I‘m afraid (because ‘magic‘ isn‘t a thing, sad as that may be). Hopefully, however, a basis upon which to build. That‘s my take, at any rate, I welcome hearing how you‘d respond.

A message to CxOs: about L&D myths

by 3 Comments

If you’re a CEO, COO, CFO, and the like, are you holding L&D to account? Because much of what I see coming out of L&D doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. As I’ve cited in books and presentations, there’s evidence that L&D isn’t up to scratch. And I think you should know a few things that may be of interest to you. So here’re some L&D myths you might want to watch out for.

  1. If it looks like school, it must be learning. We’ve all been to school, so we know what learning looks like, right? Except, do you remember how effective school actually was? Did it give you many of the skills you apply in your job now?  Maybe reading and writing, but beyond that, what did you learn about business, leadership, etc? And how  did you learn those things? I’ll bet not by sitting and listening to lectures presented via bulletpoints. If it looks like schooling, it’s probably a waste of time and money. It should look more like lab, or studio.
  2. If we’re keeping our  efficiency in line with others, we’re doing good. This is a common belief amongst L&D: well, our [fill in the blank: employees served per L&D staff member | costs per hour of training | courses run per year | etc.] is the same or better than the industry average, so we’re doing good. No, this is all about efficiency, not effectiveness. If they’re not reporting on measurable changes in the improvement of business metrics, like sales, customer service, operations,e tc, they’re not demonstrating their worth. It’s a waste of money.
  3. We produce the courses our customers need. Can they justify that? It’s a frequent symptom that the courses that are asked for have little relation to the actual problem. There are many reasons for performance problems, and a reliable solution is to throw a course at it. Without knowing whether it’s truly a function of lack of skill. Courses can’t address problems like the wrong incentives, or a lack of resources. If you’re not ensuring that you’re only using courses when they make sense, you’re throwing away money.
  4. Job aids aren’t our job.  Performance should be the job, not just courses. As Joe Harless famously said: “Inside every fat course there‘s a thin job aid crying to get out.” There are many times when a job aid is a better solution than a course. To believe otherwise is one of the classic L&D myths. If they’re avoiding taking that on, they’re avoiding a cheaper and more effective solution.
  5. Informal learning isn’t our job. Well, it might not be if L&D truly doesn’t understand learning, but they should. When you’re doing trouble-shooting, research, design, etc., you don’t know the answer when you start. That’s learning too, and there is a role for active facilitation of best principles. Assuming people know how to do it isn’t justifiable. Informal learning is the key to innovation, and innovation is a necessary differentiation.
  6. Our LMS is all we need. Learning management systems (which is a misnomer, they’re course management systems) manage courses well. However, if they’re trying to also be resource portals, and social media systems, and collaboration tools, they’re unlikely to be good at all that. Yet those are also functions that affect optimal performance and continual innovation (the two things I argue  should be the remit of L&D). Further, you want the right tool for the job. One all-singing, all-dancing solution isn’t the way to bet for IT in general, and that holds true for L&D as well.
  7. Our investment in evaluation instruments is valuable. If you’re using some proprietary tools that purport to help you identify and characterize individuals, you’re probably being had. If you’re using it for hiring and promotion, you’re also probably violating ethical guidelines. Whether personality, or behavior, or any other criteria, most of these are methodologically and psychometrically flawed. You’re throwing away money. We have a natural instinct to categorize, but do it on individual performance, not on some flawed instrument.
  8. We have to jump on this latest concept.  There’re a slew of myths and misconceptions running around that are appealing and yet flawed. Generations, learning styles, attention spans, neuro-<whatever> and more are all appealing, and also misguided. Don’t spend resources on investing in them without knowing the real tradeoffs and outcomes.These are classic L&D myths.
  9. We  have to have this latest technology. Hopefully you’re resistant to new technologies unless you know what they truly will do for your organization. This holds true for L&D as well. They’re as prone to lust after VR and AR and AI as the rest of the organization. They’re also as likely to spend the money without knowing the real costs and consequences. Make sure they’re coming from a place where they know the unique value the technology brings!

There’s more, but that’s enough for now. Please, dig in. Ask the hard questions. Get L&D to be scrutable for real results, not platitudes. Ensure that you’re not succumbing to L&D myths. Your organization needs it, and it’s time to hold them to account as you do the rest of your organization. Thanks, and wishing you all the best.

Something that emerged from a walk, and, well, I had to get it off my chest. I welcome your thoughts.