Search Results for: align

Culture Before Strategy

9 September 2015 by Clark Leave a Comment

In an insightful article, Ken Majer (full disclosure, a boss of mine many years ago) has written about the need to have the right culture before executing strategy. And this strikes me as a valuable contribution to thinking about effective change in the transformation of L&D in the Revolution.

I have argued that you can get some benefits from the Revolution without having an optimized culture, but you’re not going to tap into the full potential. Revising formal learning to be truly effective by aligning to how we learn, adding in performance support in ways that augment our cognitive limitations, etc, are all going to offer useful outcomes. I think the optimal execution stuff will benefit, but the ability to truly tap into the network for the continual innovation requires making it safe and meaningful to share. If it’s not safe to Show Your Work, you can’t capitalize on the benefits.

What Ken is talking about here is ensuring you have values and culture in alignment with the vision and mission. And I’ll go further and say that in the long term, those values have to be about valuing people and the culture has to be about working and learning together effectively. I think that’s the ultimate goal when you really want to succeed: we know that people perform best when given meaningful work and are empowered to pursue it.

It’s not easy, for sure. You need to get explicit about your values and how those manifest in how you work. You’ll likely find that some of the implicit values are a barrier, and they’ll require conscious work to address. The change in approach on the part of management and executives and the organizational restructuring that can accompany this new way of working isn’t going to happen overnight, and change is hard. But it is increasingly, and will be, a business necessity.

So too for the move to a new L&D. You can start working in these ways within your organization, and grow it. And you should. It’s part of the path, the roadmap, to the revolution. I’m working on more bits of it, trying to pull it together more concretely, but it’s clear to me that one thread (and as already indicated in the diagrams that accompany the book) is indeed a path to a more enabling culture. In the long term, it will be uplifting, and it’s worth getting started on now.

Designing mLearning in Korean

3 September 2015 by Clark 1 Comment

It actually happened a while ago, but I was pleased to learn that Designing mLearning has been translated into Korean. That’s kind of a nice thing to have happen! A slightly different visual treatment, presumably appropriate to the market. Who knows, maybe I’ll get a chance to visit instead of just transferring through the airport. Anyways, just had to share ;).

Modelling

2 September 2015 by Clark 1 Comment

So, I found an interesting inconsistency. I had to submit my deck for my DevLearn workshop on Cognitive Science for Learning Design last week, but oddly, for every thing I was recommending I had a diagram, except for the notion of using models. This is ironic, since diagrams can be used to convey models. It bugged me, so I pondered.

And then I remembered that I gave a presentation years ago specifically on diagrams. Moreover, in that presentation I had a diagram for a process for creating a diagram (Department of Redundancy Department). So, I finally got around to trying to apply my own process to my lack of a model. And voilÃ :

ModelReasoning The process is to identify the elements, and the relationships, and then additional dimensions. Then you represent each, place them (elements first, relationships second, dimensions last), and tune.

Here the notion is that you have a mental model of a concept, capturing elements and causal relationships. When you see a situation, you select a model where you can map the elements in the model to elements in the context. Then you can use the model to predict what will happen or explain what happened. Which gives you a basis for making decisions, and adapting decisions to different contexts in principled ways.

Models are a powerful concept I’ve harped on before, but now I’ve an associated diagram. And I like diagrams. I find mapping the conceptual dimensions to spatial dimensions both helps me get concrete about the models and then gives a framework to share with others. Does this make sense to you, both the concept behind it, and the diagram to represent it?

I’ll be presenting this in the workshop, amongst many other implications from how our brains work (and learn) to the design of learning experiences. Would love to see you there.

Concrete and Contextual

19 August 2015 by Clark 3 Comments

I’m working on the learning science workshop I’m going to present at DevLearn next month, and in thinking about how to represent the implications of designing to account for how we work better when the learning context is concrete and sufficient contexts are used, I came up with this, which I wanted to share.

Concrete deliverables and multiple contexts The empirical data is that we learn better when our learning practice is contextualized. And if we want transfer, we should have practice in a spread of contexts that will facilitate abstraction and application to all appropriate settings, not just the ones seen in the learning experience. If the space between our learning applications is too narrow, so too will our transfer be. So our activities need to be spread about in a variety of contexts (and we should be having sufficient practice).

Then, for each activity, we should have a concrete outcome we’re looking for. Ideally, the learner is given a concrete deliverable as an outcome that they must produce (that mimics the type of outcome we’re expecting them to be able to create as an outcome of the learning, whether decision, work product, or..). Ideally we’re in a social situation and they’re working as a team (or not) and the work can be circulated for peer review. Regardless, then there should be expert oversight on feedback.

With a focus on sufficient and meaningful practice, we’re more likely to design learning that will actually have an impact. The goal is to have practice that is aligned with how our learning works (my current theme: aligning with how we think, work, and learn). Make sense?

The New Business Imperative

28 July 2015 by Clark 7 Comments

Learning is the new business imperative. It is now an indisputable business reality: companies must become more nimble and agile. As things move faster, new processes arise, and the time to copy a new business approach drops, it becomes clear that continual innovation is the only way to not just survive, but thrive. And this doesn’t, can’t, come from the status quo.

And if the answer isn’t known, as is inherent in situations like problem-solving, trouble-shooting, new product/service creation, and more, then this, too, is a form of learning. But not the type addressed by training rooms or eLearning courses. They serve a role, but not this new one, this needed approach, We need something new.

What we need are two things: effective collaboration and meta-learning. Innovation comes, we know, from collaboration. Collaboration is the new learning, where we bring complementary strengths to bear on a problem in a process structured to be optimally aligned with how our brains work. And we need to create a culture and set of skills around continually learning, which means understanding learning to learn, aka meta-learning.

Accelerating the development of these capabilities means doing things different and new. It means sowing the seeds by instigating a learning process that develops not only some specific needed capabilities, but also the meta-learning and collaboration skills. It means understanding, valuing, and explicitly developing the ability of people to learn alone and together. It means making it safe to share, to ‘work out loud’. And finally it means scaling up from small success to organizational transformation.

This is a doable, albeit challenging move, but it is critical to organizations that will excel. Learning is no longer a ‘nice to have’, or even an imperative, it is the only sustainable differentiator. The question is: are you ready? Are you making the new learning a strategic priority?

A Nurturing Culture #blimage

23 July 2015 by Clark 2 Comments

My colleague Jane Hart dobbed me (and several other colleagues) in for the #blimage challenge. I usually resent when someone publicly asks me to do something, but fortunately this is easy and, well, it is Jane ;). She presented the following image and our task is to blog about it:

So my take is how things grow in a nurturing environment. Here plants are flourishing under the energy of the sun. This to me is a metaphor for the benefits of creating a culture in which learning can flourish. I’ve earlier detailed what the research says about the elements of a learning organization, and it’s clear that you need a culture with several elements.

First, learning independently has to be enabled. The resources to learn need to be there, as does the time for learning. Further, the ability to learn on one’s own shouldn’t be taken for granted; identify, model, evangelize, and develop these abilities.

In addition, learning is social. The possibilities to learn together need to be facilitated. There need to be ways to find individuals with complementary skills to learn together. This in particular means collaboration: learning while innovating on solving new problems, devising new solutions, and more. It also means being willing to share. It has to be safe to ‘show your work’! Again, don’t assume skills for learning together, but scaffold the development of these abilities.

It is really important that leadership reinforces learning, both by supporting and more importantly by practicing visibly! There’s evidence that when leadership doesn’t share, others won’t truly believe it’s valued.

So there’s my blog on the image. Two colleagues also were challenged with this image and have replied; you can see what they came up with:

Jane Bozarth

Charles Jennings

Rather than dob in anyone in particular, I will simply recommend that you take your own stab, and here’s a proposed image:

I hope to hear what you come up with; drop a link in the comments if you do!

Locus of the Revolution?

15 July 2015 by Clark 1 Comment

If we’re talking about beginning to use IT in alignment with how we think, work, and learn, a question arises about who should be in the lead? It could be HR, it could be L&D, it could be IT, or it could even be the business units that are taking advantage of the opportunity. What makes sense?

In one sense, it’s about using IT well, and that theoretically is IT’s job. They’re supposed to provide an infrastructure that supports the business. They typically have not only the back end engineers, but the front end designers for any custom applications, and should be evaluating any off-the-shelf solution for viability as well. Of course, this typically isn’t the case, as an eminent IT guru opined to me that IT doesn’t understand people. In general, IT folks are highly selected to be able to do things most people can’t, and they’re not necessarily valuable when they can think like other people.

Well, then, maybe it’s HR; the whole talent development perspective should include considering the tools to hand. Unfortunately, HR isn’t particularly astute about people nor technology. They are more about administration and control than about empowerment and success. The HR policies we tend to see are almost antithetical to the culture that most promotes innovation.

It could also be the business units themselves; they are being seen to create solutions to self-learning and collaboration rather than wait for them to emerge from other environments. And they certainly (should) understand their own needs. Unfortunately, they’re not likely to really understand people or IT either. Too often they don’t realize what is effective.

Let’s be clear, there are successes in all the categories above, but they’re typically more from an astute leader rather than a systematic organizational strategy. And that’s not a repeatable approach. We need better.

Ideally, L&D should own it. They (should) understand people, and be able to work with IT in a product relationship to develop a full performance ecosystem that integrates learning, performance support, and social into a coherent whole. Where the environment is optimized for an organization to not just survive, but thrive. This comes from the people, but it requires knowing how to help people perform and deliver.

It requires new skill sets for sure, including working with IT, culture and change, facilitating innovation, performance consulting, and more (organizations like ATD & LPI are updating their competency definitions in these directions). It requires getting strategic about metrics, impact, and business goals. The vision of L&D being the critical core to organizational success through delivery of optimal execution and facilitation of continual innovation is what the Revolution is trying to achieve. This is a chance for L&D to move from the periphery to the center. It’s worthwhile, but there isn’t infinite time; organizations need solutions, and they’ll get them wherever anyone can seize the opportunity to make a productive improvement. L&D has the opportunity, and here’s to hoping they don’t squander it.

Being Deliberate

14 July 2015 by Clark Leave a Comment

This past week, I took off a few days to get into the wilderness with some colleagues. Five of us got dirty, smelly, and sweaty while hiking in the backcountry. These are smart, successful, interesting, and funny folks, so the conversation was not PCâ„¢, but wise and witty. And, of course, we got to places like this. But, in addition to beauty and wisdom, there was a lesson for me, too.

The first day out in the wilderness, the sky was threatening, and close to dinner time it suddenly turned worse. I was rushing to finish pumping water, couldn’t find the bag for the outflow (to keep it separate from the inflow) and didn’t quite make it back to the tent before the skies opened up. I got a bit damp, and worse when the zipper on the fly wouldn’t close. Every time I reached out to try again, I’d get even more drenched. The worry, of course, is that you get your down sleeping bag wet, and it will lose all insulation capability!

Well, the bag stayed dry, and the next morning we dried everything out, and were fine for the rest of the trip. The interesting opportunity for me, however, was how I proceeded from then on.

The next time I had to pump water, I took my time. I very deliberately found a good place to sit, and took special care to work with setting up the inflow and then the outflow. I did so similarly with firing up the stove and boiling water for dinner and breakfast. There was a pleasure in taking time to do it carefully and right. Now, there are certain things I naturally do the deliberate way, and other things I rush through. My realization is that there’s value in thinking more carefully about which things to do deliberately, and there’s an inherent pleasure in doing the things right that matter to you.

There are the arguments that the internet is making us stupider, and value in doing things the hard way. I think that the important thing is to choose for yourself which things to ‘outsource’ or do just good enough, and those which to take on and do a personally good job on. For example, I used to work on my cars myself (I could rebuild a carburetor, gap a distributor, etc; skills that are irrelevant now :), but as things have changed it’s not a worthwhile role for me anymore. So the lesson for me was to pay more attention to which things I’m doing carefully and which I will choose to decide quick enough is good enough (and which to have others or apps do).

The Learning Styles Zombie

23 June 2015 by Clark 5 Comments

It’s June, and June is Learning Styles month for the Debunker’s Club. Now, I’ve gone off on Learning Styles before (here, here, here, and here), but it’s been a while, and they refuse to die. They’re like zombies, coming to eat your brain!

Let’s be clear, it’s patently obvious learners differ. They differ in how they work, what they pay attention to, how they like to interact, and more. Surely, it make sense to adapt the learning to their style, so that we’re optimizing their outcome, right?

Er, no. There is no consistent evidence that adapting to learning styles works. Hal Pashler and colleagues, on a study commissioned by Science in the Public Interest (read: a non-partisan, unbiased, truly independent work) found (PDF) that there was no evidence that adapting to learning styles worked. They did a meta-analysis of the research out there, and concluded this with statistical rigor. That is, some studies showed positive effects, and some showed negative, but across the body of studies suitably rigorous to be worth evaluating, there was no evidence that trying to adapt learning to learner characteristics had a definitive impact.

At least part of the problem is that the instruments people use to characterize learning styles are flawed. Surely, if learners differ, we can identify how? Not with psychometric validity (that means tests that stand up to statistical analysis). A commissioned study in the UK (like the one above, independent, etc) led by Coffield evaluated a representative sample of instruments (including the ubiquitous MBTI, Kolb, and more), and found (PDF) only one that met all four standards of psychometric validity. And that one was a simple one of one dimensions.

So, what’s a learning designer to do? Several things: first, design for what is being learned. Use the best learning design to accomplish the goal. Then, if the learner has trouble with that approach, provide help. Second, do use a variety of ways of supporting comprehension. The variety is good, even if the evidence to do so based upon learning style isn’t. (So, for example, 4MAT isn’t bad, it’s just not based upon sound science, and why you’d want to pay to use a heuristic approach when you can do that for free is beyond me.)

Learners do differ, and we want them to succeed. The best way to do that is good learning experience design. We do have evidence that problem-based and emotionally aware learning design helps. We know we need to start with meaningful objectives, create deep practice, ground in good models, and support with rich examples, while addressing motivation, confidence, and anxiety. And using different media maintains attention and increases the likelihood of comprehension. Do good learning design, and please don’t feed the zombie.

« Previous Page