Learnlets

Things are moving faster, and careers are supposed to be changing more frequently. What does that mean for university degrees (or other employment preparation)?  Yes, university degrees aren’t necessarily  just employment preparation, but I’m thinking about a degree program that provides a useful preparation for the coming world. And I think it’s got several key components.

For one, anything we do, in working together and in meeting client needs,  must be aligned with how our brains work. Industrial design, interface design, learning design, marketing; increasingly everything  about  our products and services must be producing  experiences.  And, if the prognostications are to be believed, experiences that  transform  us.  Increasingly, organizations will need to work in such ways, and those that understand this will be core. Similarly, increasingly products and services will likewise need to adapt. At core, everything we do revolves around thinking,  and our brains aren’t changing. Understanding cognition is a sustainable value.

A second such areas is understanding information technology. Increasingly, the capability of computational systems to serve as configurable information processing machines is fundamental to society. It’s the perfect cognitive complement, doing well what our brains don’t, and vice-versa.  And while the technology continues to evolve, some core understandings don’t. Computational thinking is focused on breaking down problems into tractable steps, and that’s part of it. And understanding how AI works (e.g. machine learning, symbolic logic, neural nets, etc), and even quantum computing, are tools to solve problems. People need to understand computational technology to complement our cognitive capability, and it’s stable enough to again be a sustainable edge.

Then, the question is, what complements these to provide a solid foundation. I have two answers: one is design (e.g. design thinking), and the other is business. And I had trouble reconciling this until recently.  So, in some sense, design is an  outcome of our cognitive processes, and an application. (To design is human!)  But being systematic about it is a useful integration of the other two. For those who haven’t had experience in business, however, an overall understanding of business is key.  This suggests that a full bachelor’s program would include design  and business, while a master’s program could focus more specifically on the design (assuming some business experience).

Could these be minors on some other area people might want? It might be good to supplement this with specific interests whether bio, art, or what have you.  You do want to support people’s passions. But I’ll suggest that these elements  should be part of all folks preparation for life going forward.  So, what do you think?

Is there any difference? At core, my new book  is  about learning science. And, as I’ve lamented before, the lack of understanding of cognitive science is a barrier to better L&D. However, it takes a certain mindset to put this into practice in practical ways.

Should you overall be optimistic or cynical?  Applying cognitive science (see what I did there?), I would err on the side of optimism.  Research suggests a positive attitude is overall better.  Thus, I guess I’m arguing for the former ;). The alternative, a cynic still looking for good, is less optimal.

However, optimism tempered with  a healthy skepticism! There are those who’d take advantage of naivete, as has reliably been exposed.  A vigilant evaluation of what’s presented is healthy for dialog and moving the industry forward!

You need to be prepared for the variety of ways people can mislead you (and even themselves).  Without a decent understanding of scientific validity, you might be swayed by statistical sleight-of-hand.  Worst case, you listen to those who carry the standard of rigor in evaluation.  I don’t necessarily mean the scientists, because they don’t always present it in comprehensible ways (writing in their native academese).  Instead, there are those who serve as translators of research to practice.

People like Will Thalheimer, Patti Shank, Julie Dirksen, Guy Wallace, Mirjam Neelen, and more (including yours truly), have boiled down learning science into practical approaches. Whether it’s overviews, processes, or even acronyms, their guidance is soundly based.  We may not always agree, but you’re far better off betting on them than on those with a vested interest.

On your own, of course, you should be conducting several validity checks.  Who’s telling you, and what’s in it for them?  Is their message supported by external validation? Are there alternate views? Does it pass the ‘sniff’ test (that is, does it make a plausible causal story)?  Of course, “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is”.

In addition to empirical grounds, one should also evaluate the theoretical basis.  Did the work emerge from empirical data, or was it made from someone’s musings, and untested?  Is there a reason to accept the underlying frameworks?

Overall, I suggest that practitioners in learning first need to be grounded in understanding  how we learn. Then, I reckon we need to be rigorous in evaluating new approaches.  There will be wheat amongst the chaff, but the relative ratios are the issue. Make sure you’re finding nuggets, not tailings (I like my metaphors mixed).

John Medina of Brain Rules  fame opened the second day of ATD’s TechKnowledge conference. In a rapid-paced and amusing presentation, he went through how we understand others, and can get better.  This was, he hypothesized, the core of talent development: understanding others and helping them improve.