Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Search Results for: Reading Research

Meta-ethics of learning design

by 1 Comment

I‘ve addressed ethics elsewhere, but I‘m looking at it a different way now. I’m thinking from the perspective of situated cognition, and recognizing that there are certain things we can do. For better or worse. Further, these choices have ramifications beyond the initial impact. I think we need to be aware of the possibilities, and then consider the meta-ethics of learning design.

My particular concern sparks from the notion of how we are contextually sensitive. To make this concrete, think of the research by Beth Loftus. I”ll characterize a whole suite of research with a simply paraphrased experiment. So, she had folks watch a video of an accident. Then, she prompted recall of the amount of damage they witnessed. For one, she just asked them. For another group, the recall was prompted by “Besides the broken glass,…”. The latter group recalled worse damage. And. There. Was. No. Broken. Glass!  

The point here is that context can influence our thinking and memory. Which is what I see worry about with videos. They can take a statement as if it‘s fact, and then continue on with that as received wisdom. It‘s a classic cognitive approach, making a statement as if it‘s assumed.The bad part is that there‘s a narrative flow, and it‘s hard to stop and reflect. Versus, say, reading.  

On the other hand, of course, we can build in reflection time. Sure, learners can use the pause button, but there are times they may not. For instance, if the learner is following confirmation bias, that is looking at things that align with what you believe.  

We have the option to use coercive techniques for good, of course. However, we can also choose to use legitimate presentation techniques. I believe we should. Part of the development of metacognition is to see the pedagogy being used and internalizing it. If our pedagogy is visible (as it should be), it needs to be scrutable if we want our learners to adopt appropriate skills.  

Our designs, and our meta-designs, need to be ethically designed, both to effectively achieve our ends, and to develop our learners. We need to support the meta-ethics of learning design, as well as the ethics themselves.  

Complexity in Learning Design

by Leave a Comment

a fractalI recently mentioned that one of the problems with research is that things are more interconnected than we think. This is particularly true with cognitive research. While we can make distinctions that simplify things in useful ways (e.g. the human information processing system model*), the underlying picture is of a more interactive system.  Which underpins why it makes sense to talk about Learning Experience Design (LXD) and not just instructional design. We need to accommodate complexity in learning design.  (* Which I talk about in Chapter 2 of my learning science book, and in my workshops on the same topic through the Allen Academy.)

We’re recognizing that the our cognition is more than just in our head. Marcia Conner, in her book  Learn More Now  mentioned how neuropeptides passed information around the body. Similarly, Annie Murphy Paul’s  The Extended Mind talks about moving cognition (and learning) into the world. In my Make It Meaningful workshops (online or F2F at DevLearn 19 Oct), I focus on how to address the emotional component of learning. In short, learning is about more than just information dump and knowledge test.

Scientifically, we’re finding there are lots of complex interactions between the current context, our prior experience, and our cognitive architecture. We’re much more ‘situated’ in the moment than the rational beings we want to believe. Behavioral economics and Daniel Kahneman’s research have made this abundantly clear. We try to avoid the hard mental work using shortcuts that work sometimes, but not others. (Understanding when is an important component of this).

We get good traction from learning science and instructional design approaches, for sure. There are good prescriptions (that we often ignore, for reasons above) about what to do and how. So, we should follow them. However, we need more. Which is why I tout LXD  Strategy! We need to account for complexity in learning design approaches.

For one, our design processes need to be iterative. We’ll make our best first guess, but it won’t be right, and we’ll need to tune. The incorporation of agile approaches, whether SAM or LLAMA or even just iterative ADDIE, reflects this. We need to evaluate and refine our designs to match the fact that our audience is more complex than we thought.

Our design also needs to think about the emotional experience as well as the cognitive experience. We want our design processes to systematically incorporate humor, safety, motivation, and more. Have we tuned the challenge enough, and how will we know?  Have we appropriately incorporated story? Are our graphics aligned or adding to cognitive load? There are lots of elements that factor in.

Our design process has to accommodate SMEs who literally can’t access what they do. Also learner interests, not just knowledge. We need to know what interim deliverables, processes for evaluation, times when we shouldn’t be working solo, and tools we need. Most importantly, we have to do this in a practical way, under real-world resource constraints.

Which is why we need to address this strategically. Too many design processes are carry-over from industrial approaches: one person, one tool, and a waterfall process. We need to do better. There’s complexity in learning design, both on the part of our learners, and ourselves as designers. Leveraging what we know about cognitive science can provide us with structures and approaches that accommodate these factors. That’s only true, however, if we are aware and actively address it. I’m happy to help, but can only do so if you reach out. (You know how to find me. ;) Here’s to effective and engaging  learning!

What about books | conferences?

by Leave a Comment

Responding to a frequent question  yet again, I decided to post an answer to the “what about books | conferences?” question.

And, as usual, the transcript.

Once again, after talking about how learning requires meaningful practice, I was asked the seemingly timeless question: “but what about books” Similarly, I regularly get “what about conferences”   So, for the record, let me say when and why books and lectures make sense. And when not. Hopefully I won‘t have to answer another “what about books | conferences” question.

To start, learning is action and reflection. That is, learning ‘outside‘ formal instruction. We act in the world and reflect on it to cement the lesson. It‘s slightly more complicated, because certain things, e.g. Geary‘s biologically primary things, may not really need reflection. Further some things may be really challenging to learn on your own even with reflection. But basically, doing things and reflecting (which can be reading, experimenting, writing/representing), etc is the way we learn on our own.  

Which, as I‘ve argued before, suggests that instruction  be designed action and guided reflection. That is, instructors should be choosing meaningful activities and scaffolding reflection around it. When we‘re designing for novices [link], in particular, when the learner doesn‘t know what‘s important nor why, we need to do the whole enchilada (darn, now I‘m hungry).

Which also means that when we‘ve segued beyond novice to practitioner (and beyond), we begin to know what‘s important and why, and we just need it. We want resources that can fill in the gaps. We want support for reflection.

So now we can explain why we can attend conferences, read books and articles, and the like. When we‘re deeply engaged in something, whether work or a passion, reading a book, listening to someone tell their story, and the like, serves as the necessary adjunct to our activity! They provide the complement to our own endeavors; the reflection to our action!

Now, hopefully, we‘ll never again need to discuss this. Realistically, we can point people here when we‘ get “what about books | conferences”? At least, that‘s my story, what‘s yours?  

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.

More Marketing Myths

by 1 Comment

The other day a tweet caught my eye that used a myth to get you to click a link. Worse, clicking the link led to another myth. These are folks I think are generally good, and it seems that their actual offering made sense, but the approach does not. It’s just more marketing myths, drawing upon common misconstruals, and that’s not a good thing. I think it’s worth calling out.

It’s like the claim that we’ve dropped to the ‘attention span of a goldfish’ to argue for shorter ads, learning, etc. That, of course, was a misinterpretation of data, with only a couple of implausibilities. First,  how  do you measure the attention span of a goldfish? More importantly, how would we evolutionarily change our cognitive architecture in the span of a few years? Er, no. Attention’s complex, and the argument is spurious. (Ever disappear into a novel/game/book and surface several hours later wondering where the time went? Yeah, that.)

In this case, they were supporting a proposition that makes sense. Instead of just having a research report, they’re suggesting a summary video. Yep, having a dynamic visual presentation of data is a supportable argument. As Jill Larkin & Herb Simon argued in their Cognitive Science  article,  Why A Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words, it’s about mapping conceptual relationships to spatial relationships to allow our strong spatial processing to assist.

What was wrong was that the lead-in in the tweet was saying “65% of the population are visual learners.” Er, no. That’s the learning styles myth. First, there aren’t reliable instruments. Further, people change depending on what’s to be learned, why, where, when, and more.   We learn visually, and auditorily, and kinesthetically, and… Suggesting that we know how many people are a type of learner is basically wrong.

They went on to say “..enhances knowledge delivery by catering to how people want to learn.” There’s research to say that’s not a good basis, either. The relationship between people’s preferences and what’s effective is pretty close to zero.

It gets worse. When I clicked on the link, it took me to this claim: “Studies show that people remember…10% of what they hear, 20% of what they read, 80% of what they see and do”. Nope. That’s the Dale’s Cone myth, and that’s been shown to be made up. You should indeed remember more of what you do, but reading is seeing, and depending on context, hearing might be best, and…This is even worse, conflating seeing and doing. Dale never added numbers, and the numbers just aren’t plausible anyways, being too perfect.

So, really, three myths for the price of two. It’s more marketing myths in service of selling you things. The most important part is that you don’t need to do this! There are perfectly good, comprehensible ways to push this message without relying on myths. Please, be wary, be leery, be a skeptical consumer. Caveat emptor!

Direct Instruction and Learning Experience Design

by Leave a Comment

After my previous article on direct instruction versus guided discovery, some discussion mentioned Engelmann’s Direct Instruction (DI). And, something again pointed me to the most comprehensive survey of educational effects. So, I tracked both of these down, and found some interesting results that both supported, and confounded, my learning. Ultimately, of course, it expanded my understanding, which is always my desire. So it’s time to think a bit deeper about Direct Instruction and Learning Experience Design.

Engelmann’s Direct Instruction is very scripted. It is rigorous in its goals, and has a high amount of responses from learners.  Empirically, DI has great success, with some complaints about lack of teacher flexibility. It strikes me as very good for developing core skills like reading and maths.  I was worried about the intersection of many responses a minute and more complex tasks, though it appears that’s an issue that has been addressed. I couldn’t find the paper that makes that case, however.

Another direction, however, proved fruitful.  John Hattie, an educational researcher, collected and conducted reviews of 800+ meta-analyses to look at what worked (and didn’t) in education.  It’s a monumental work, collected in his book Visible Learning. I’d heard of it before, but hadn’t tracked it down. It was time.

And it’s impressive in breadth  and depth.  This is arguably the single most important work in education. And it opened my eyes in several ways.  To illustrate, let me collect for you the top (>.4)  impacts found, which have some really interesting implications:

  • Reciprocal teaching (.74)
  • Providing feedback (.72)
  • Teaching student self-verbalization (.67)
  • Meta-cognition strategies (.67)
  • Direction instruction (.59)
  • Mastery learning (.57)
  • Goals-challenging (.56)
  • Frequent/effects of testing (.46)
  • Behavioral organizers (.41)

Reciprocal teaching and meta-cognition strategies coming out highly, a great outcome. And of course I am not surprised to see the importance of feedback. I have to say that I  was surprised to see direct instruction and mastery learning coming out so high.  So what’s going on?  It’s related to what I mentioned in the afore-mentioned article, about just what the definition of DI is.

So, Hattie says: …”what the critics mean by direct instruction is didactic teacher-led talking from the front…” And, indeed, that’s my fear of using the label. He goes on to point out the major steps of DI (in my words):

  1. Have clear learning objectives: what should the learner be able to  do?
  2. Clear success criteria (which to me is part of 1)
  3. Engagement: an emotional ‘hook’
  4. A clear pedagogy: info (models & examples), modeling, checking for understanding
  5. Guided practice
  6. Closure of the learning experience
  7. Reactivation: spaced and varied practice

And, of course, this is pretty much everything I argue for as being key to successful learning experience design. And, as I suspected, DI is not what the label would lead you to believe (which I  do think is a problem).  As I mentioned in a subsequent post, I’ve synthesized my approach across many elements, integrating the emotional elements along with effective education practice (see the alignment).  There’s so much more here, but it’s a very interesting result. Direct Instruction and Learning Experience Design have a really nice alignment.

And a perfect opportunity to remind you that I’ll be offering a Learning Experience Design workshop at DevLearn, which will include the results of my continuing investigation (over decades) to create an approach that’s doable and works. Hope to see you there!

Fun, Hard Fun, & Engagement

by 3 Comments

At Online Educa in Berlin, they apparently had a debate on fun in learning. The proposition was “all learning should be fun”.  And while the answer is obviously ‘no’, I think that it’s too simplistic of a question. So I want to dig a bit deeper into fun, engagement, and learning, how the right alignment is ‘hard fun’.

Donald Clark weighs in with a summary of the debate and the point he thought was the winner. He lauds Patti Shank, who pointed out that research talks about ‘desirable difficulty’. And I can’t argue with this (besides, Patti’s usually spot-on).  He goes on to cite how you read books that aren’t funny, and that how athletes train isn’t particularly giggle-inducing.  All of which I agree with, except this “Engagement and fun are proxies and the research shows that effort trumps fun every time.”  And I think tying engagement and fun together is a mistake.

There is the trivial notion of fun, to be fair.  The notion that it’s breezily entertaining.  But I want to make a distinction between such trivial attention and engagement.  For instance, I would argue that a movie like Schindler’s List is wholly engaging, but I’m not sure I would consider it ‘fun’.  And even ‘entertaining’ is a stretch. But I think it’s compelling. Similarly with even reading books for entertainment: many aren’t ‘fun’ in the sense of light entertainment and humor, but are hard to put down. So what’s going on here?

I think that cognitive (and emotional) immersion is also ‘engagement’.  That is, you find the story gripping, the action compelling, or the required performance to be a challenge, but you persist because you find it engaging in a deeper sense.

Raph Koster wrote  A Theory of Fun  about game design, but the underlying premise was that why games were ‘fun’ is that they were about learning. The continually increasing challenge, set in a world that you find compelling (we don’t all like the same games), is what makes a game fun. Similarly, I’ve written about  engagement as a far more complex notion than just a trivial view of fun.

The elements of the alignment between effective education practice and engaging experiences demonstrate that learning can, and should, be hard fun. This isn’t the trivial sort of ‘fun’ that apparently is what Donald and Patti were concerned about.  It is  all about ‘desirable difficulty’, having a challenge in the zone that’s Czikszentmihalyi’s  Flow and Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development.

I agree that just making it fun (just as putting high production values on under-designed content dump) isn’t the answer. But just making it ‘work’ doesn’t help either.  You want people to see the connection between what they’re doing and their goals. Learners should have a level of challenge that helps them know that they’re working toward that goal. You want them to recognize that the tasks are for achieving that goal. It’s about integrating the cognitive elements of learning with the emotional components of engagement in a way that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The synergy is what is needed.

I think fun and engagement aren’t the same thing. So while I agree with the premise that learning shouldn’t be the trivial sense of fun, I think the more rigorous sense should be the goal of learning. We want learning to be a transformation, not just a trudge nor a treat.  I’ll argue that the athletes and the readers and the others who are learning  are engaged, just not amused. And that’s the important distinction. This is, to me, what Learning Experience Design should be, designing hard fun. And I think we  can  do this; my upcoming workshop at Learning Solutions is about doing just that. Hope to see you there!

Citations

by 2 Comments

Following on my thoughts on writing yesterday, this was a topic that didn’t fit (the post got too long ;).  So here we go..  Colleagues have written that citations are important. If you’re making a claim, you should be able to back it up. On the other hand, if you’re citing what you think is ‘received wisdom’, do you need to bother?  Pondering…

Now, citations can interfere with the flow, I believe. If not the reading, they can interfere with the flow of my writing! (And, I’ve been accused of ‘name dropping‘, where instead I believe it’s important to both acknowledge prior work and show that you know what’s been done.) Still, it’s important to know what to cite, and when.

I admit that I don’t always cite the claims I make. Because, I take it as a given.  I may say something like “we know” or otherwise presume that what I’m saying is accepted premise. One problem, of course, is that I don’t know what others know (and don’t). And, of course, that this isn’t an official article source, this is my blog ;). Still, when I’m talking about something new to me (like thoughts from books), I will cite the locus.

Articles are different. When I write those, I try to provide sources. In both cases I generally don’t go to the extent of journal article links, because I’m not expect that folks have easy access to them, and so prefer to cite more commonly available resources, like books that have ‘digested’ the research.

And when I write ‘take down’ articles, I don’t cite the offender. It’s to make the point, not shame anyone. If you’re really curious, I’m sure you can track it down.

And, realize I don’t have easy access to journals either. Not affiliated with an institution, I don’t have access to the original articles behind a pay wall. I tend to depend on people who summarize including books and articles that summarize. Still, I’ve a grounding for over a decade in the original materials and am able to make inferences. And of course occasionally I’ll be wrong. Sometimes, I’ll even admit it ;).

The issue really is when do you need to make a citation. And I reckon it’s when you’re stating something that folks might disagree with. And I can’t always anticipate it. So I’ll try to consistently point to the basis for any claims I think might be arguable, or state that it’s my (NSH :) opinion.  And you can always ask!  Fair enough?

Editing, process, topics, and other reflections

by Leave a Comment

My lass let me know there was a typo in my recent post on Transformation.  I’m thrilled that she’s reading them (!), but she triggered many thoughts about my writing approach. I thought I’d share how I deal with blogging, articles, and writing in general, as a ‘show your work‘ effort. And, in a sense, solicit your thoughts on approach, editing, and topics (amongst other things).

Process

It starts with my commitment to two blog posts a week. And I’m pretty sure I average that, since while I occasionally only get one, I also occasionally get three (say, during a week at a conference with mindmaps).  That means, however, that sometimes I’m brimming with ideas and have them queued up a week or two in advance, and sometimes I’m writing them at the last minute (*cough* this one *cough*).  When I know I’ll be on the road on a particular week, I definitely try to have them in the hopper in advance.

Regardless, I tend to write each in one fell swoop. Something sparks a thought, and I rush to get it down. Sometimes I’ll have an idea elsewhere, and jot myself a one line reminder, and need to generate the full prose. But my writing’s often like that: once I’m going, I have to let that full idea gestate. Even when writing a full book (as I’ve done a time or two ;), I outline it in a go, and then write sections in a burst.

Now, I write in several channels: my blog, my committed articles, and of course books. And, not surprisingly, I write them differently.  The blog comes out ‘as is’. I do reread it after it’s first done, typically, but as my lass discovered, it can have flaws. I reread my Trends article after posting, for instance, and noticed a couple of flaws. (I’ve fixed them, of course, similarly when folks comment in one way or another about something I’ve left confusing or wrong.)

My articles are different. I write them typically in one go, but I always hang on to them for at least a day, and reread with fresh eyes. I think that’s obligatory for such efforts. In one case, I have an editor who reads them with a careful eye, and always sends back a revised version. I don’t get to  see the revisions (which is frustrating), but the articles are always improved. Editing is valuable!

For books, as I mentioned, I outline it, then write sections. And, depending on the book, the experience changes. With  Engaging Learning, it had been percolating for so long it kind of flew out of my fingers onto the page.  For  Designing mLearning, it was different; I outlined, and wrote, and as I got further in I found myself rearranging the structure and going back to add things.  The Revolutionize L&D book was closer to the Designing mLearning book, with two changes. I didn’t reorganize as much, but I kept going back and adding stuff. It was hard to finish!

With my books, I’ve always had an editor. The ones from the publisher varied in quality (good experiences generally), but I also have m’lady serve as my first (and best) editor. And I’ve learned to truly value an editor. The benefit of a second eye without the assumptions and blinders the writer brings is great!

Topics

The ideas come differently as well. My blog tends to get whatever I’m thinking about (like this). My articles tend to be a deeper dive into whatever I think (or we agree, with my editor) is important. I keep a list of potential topics for each, and take whatever feels ‘right’ for the month.

Books, of course, are a bigger story. For one, you need a publisher’s agreement (unless you self-publish). My first book was based upon my research for years on games and engagement. The mLearning books were publisher requests, and yet I had to believe I could do a proper job. Revolutionize emerged from my work with people and orgs and looking at the industry as a whole, and was something I think needed to be said. My latest, on myths, was also requested, but also something I felt comfortable doing (and needed to be done).

(Interestingly, on the requested books, I first checked to see if someone else might write it instead, but when the obvious candidates declined, I was happy to step up. I got their voices in anyway. ;)

The hard part, sometimes, is coming up with topics. The commitment to two posts a week is a great catalyst for thinking, but sometimes I feel bereft. I welcome suggestions for topics for any of the above as well. Someone asked what my next book would be, and I asked them what they thought it should be.  However, I’m not ready to write a memoir yet; I’m not done!  Thoughts solicited on any or all of the above.

Mundanities

by Leave a Comment

This post is late, as my life has been a little less reflective, and a little more filled with some mundane issues.  There’re some changes here around the Quinnstitute, and they take bandwidth.  For a small update on these mundanities with some lessons:

standing deskFirst, I moved office from the side of the house back to the front. My son had occupied it, but he’s settled into an apartment for college, and I prefer the view out to the street (to keep an eye on the neighborhood). Of course, this entailed some changes:

My ergonomic chair stopped working, and it took several days to a) find out someone who’d repair it, b) get it there, wait for it to get fixed, and get it back.  It’s worth it (a lot less than replacing) and ergonomics is important.

Speaking of which, I also now could get a standup desk, or in my case one of those convertible desks that lets you raise and lower your workspace. I’ve been wanting one since the research has come out on the problems with sitting.  We’d previously constructed a custom desktop (with legs from Ikea!), for the odd shaped room, so it was desirable to just put it on top. So far, so good. Strongly recommended.

Also bought a used bookshelf (rather than move the one from the old office).  Real wood, real heavy.  Used those ‘forearm forklift’ straps to get it in. They work!  And, this being earthquake country, had to strap it to the wall. Still to come: filling with books.

At the same time, fed up with  all  the companies that provide internet and cable television, we decided to change. (We changed mobile providers back in January.)  As I noted previously, companies use policies to their advantage. One of the approaches is that they sell you a two year package, but then there’s no notification that the time’s up and the rate jumps up. And you can’t find just a low rate provider (I don’t even mind if it’s higher than the bonus deal). Everyone uses this practice. Sigh.

As I said, I can’t find anyone better, but just decided to change. That involved conversations, and research, and installation time, and turning off the old systems.  At least we’re getting a) a lower rate, b) nicer DVR, and c) faster internet.  For the time being. While the new provider promised to ping me before the plan runs out, the old provider says they can’t. See what I mean?  Regardless, I’ve got a trigger before it expires to sign up anew. Or change again.  That’s the lesson on this one.

And of course there are some conversations about some upcoming presentations. I was away last week presenting, and have one coming up next month (ATD China Summit, if you’re near Shanghai say hello) and several in November at AECT  in Jacksonville.  You’ve seen some of the AI reflections, more likely to come on the new topics.

And there’s been some background work. Reading a couple of books, and working on two projects. Stay tuned for a couple of new things early next year.

The lesson, of course, is trying to find time to reflect while you’re executing on mundanities is more challenging, but still a valuable investment.  I fight to make time, I hope you do too!