Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Search Results for: engag

Listening

by 1 Comment

Listening, as I mentioned, in this case to  Guy Wallace.  As one of the premier promoters of evidence-based design, he responded to my question  about what to post on with:

Any “How Tos” using methods, tools and techniques that you‘ve found to work in L&D and Performance Improvement.

Since I am a fan of Guy’s work, I thought I should answer!  Now, obviously I don’t work in a typical L&D environment, so this list is somewhat biased. So I mentally ran through memorable projects from the past and looked for the success factors. Besides the best principles I usually advocate, here are a few tips and tricks that I’ve used over the years:

  • Engage.  Obviously, I wrote a book about this, but some of the quick things I do include:
    • embed the decisions they should be making in contexts where they make sense
    • as Henry Jenkins put it: “put the player in a role they  want to be in”
    • exaggerate the context
    • minimize the distractions
    • hook the learners in emotionally from the start
  • Decisions. I find that working with the objectives for learning projects, it’s critical to focus on the decisions that learners will ultimately be making.  I argue that what will make the difference for organizations, going forward, will be better decisions. And it keeps the discussion from focusing on knowledge. Knowledge is needed, but it’s not central.
  • Brainstorming. When working a strategy session with clients, I seed the discussion before hand with the challenges and background material, and ask that everyone think on their own before we begin collaboration.
  • Better ‘Pair and Share’.  If, in brainstorming, you should think individually before collectively, so should you do so in all forms. So I trialed a ‘pair and share’ where I asked everyone to:
    • think on the questions (asking for 2 things) first,
    • then share with another,
    • and try to reach agreement
    • (I polled the first audience I trialed it on, and they said that the discussion was better, FWIW).
  • Shared language. I have found it valuable, when starting a new project, to run a little ‘presentation’ where I present some of the models that I’m bringing to the table (that’s why I‘m there ;), so we’re starting from a shared understanding. And of course I’ve reviewed materials of theirs beforehand so I can use their terminology.  Educating clients is part of a Quinnovation engagement!
  • Test.  In making the Workplace of the Future project with Learnnovators,  we were barreling along full tilt, working on the second module, and I was getting increasingly worried about the fact that we hadn’t tested the first.  We finally did, relatively informally, but still got valuable feedback that changed our design somewhat. Similarly on other projects, get feedback early and often.
  • Visualize. My diagramming bent had me map out the workflow of a client’s production process, to identify opportunities to tweak the process to bring in better learning science with minimal interruption.  In general, I will often jump up to the whiteboard and try to represent what I’m hearing to see if it’s shared.
  • Prototype.  Similar to the above, I will often mock up what I’m thinking about (in sort of a ‘ape with a crayon’ level of fidelity), to help communicate the idea; e.g. some sort of walkthrough.  I find that only a percentage of the audience can imagine what the experience will be without getting somewhat concrete. (And, yes, they do then complain about the production values, despite the tradeoff of cost versus value.  Sigh.)
  • Get the context.  I generally try to understand the whole ecosystem (ala ‘the revolution‘) before I engage in specifics.  What are the goals, stakeholders, what’s already being done and by whom, etc. It’s important to re-contextualize ‘best principles’, and that requires  knowing the context.
  • Architecture. Thinking through things using a design thinking approach and a systems-thinking perspective, I’ve tried to think of platforms, not just solutions. It might be content architectures, ecosystem elements, but it’s thinking in terms of systems, not just tactics.
  • Pragmatism. One final approach that has been beneficial is thinking about how to approximate the best with a budget.  I used to talk about ‘what would you do if you had magic’, and then see how close you can get with the resources to hand. It’s a heuristic that often has led to an innovative yet viable solution.

Looking at them, I see that they generally reflect my overall focus on aligning what we do with how we think, work, and learn. Your thoughts?

Let’s talk

by Leave a Comment

“Conversations are the stem cells of learning.” – Jay Cross

I recently read something that intrigued me. I couldn’t find it again, so I’ll paraphrase the message.  As context, the author was talking about how someone with a different world view was opining about the views of the author. And his simple message was “if you want to know what I, or an X, thinks, ask me or an X. Don’t ask the anti-X.”  And I think that’s important.  We need to talk together to figure things out. We have to get out of our comfort zone.

It’s all too evident that we seem to be getting  more divisive. And it’s too easy these days to only see stuff that you agree with.  You can choose to only follow channels that are simpatico with your beliefs, and even supposedly unbiased platforms actually filter what you see to keep you happy. Yet, the real way to advance, to learn, is to see opposing sides and work to find a viable resolution.

Innovation depends on creative tension, and we need to continue to innovate.  So we need to continue to engage.  Indeed, my colleague Harold Jarche points to the book  Collaborating with the Enemy  and argues that’s a  good thing.  The point is that when things are really tough, we have to go beyond our boundaries.  And life is getting more complex.

So I keep connections with a few people who don’t think like me, and I try to understand the things that they say. I don’t want to listen just to those who think like me, I recognize that I need to understand their viewpoints if we’re going to make progress.  Of course, I can’t guarantee reciprocity, but I can recognize that’s not my problem.

And I read what academic research has to say. I prefer peer-review to opinion, although I keep an open mind as to the problems with academic research as well. I have published enough, and reviewed many submissions, so I recognize the challenges.  Yet it’s better than the alternative ;).

This is, however, the way we have to be as professionals. We have to understand other viewpoints.  It matters to our world, but even in the small little worlds we inhabit professionally.  We need to talk.  And face to face. It matters, it turns out.  Which may not be a surprise.  Still, getting together with colleagues, attending events, and talking, even disagreeing (civilly) are all necessary.

So please, talk.  Engage.  Let’s figure stuff out and make things better. Please.

 

Reflections on 2017

by Leave a Comment

The end of the calendar year, although arbitrary, becomes a time for reflection.  I looked back at my calendar to see what I’d done this past year, and it was an interesting review.  Places I’ve been and things I’ve done point to some common themes.  Such are the  nature of reflections.

One of the things I did was speak at a number of events. My messages have been pretty consistent along two core themes: doing learning better, and going beyond the course.  These were both presented at TK17 that started the year, and were reiterated, one or the other, through other ATD and Guild events.

With one exception. For my final ATD event of the year, I spoke on Artificial Intelligence (AI). It was in China, and they’re going big into AI. It’s been a recurrent interest of mine since I was an undergraduate. I’ve been fortunate to experience some seminal moments in the field, and even dabble.  The interest in AI does not seem to be abating.

Another persistent area of interest has been Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR). I attended an event focused on Realities, and I continue to believe in the learning potential of these approaches. Contextual learning, whether building fake or leveraging real, is a necessary adjunct to our learning.  One AR post of mine even won an award!

My work continues to be both organizational learning, but also higher education. Interestingly, I spoke to an academic audience about the realities of workplace learning!  I also had a strategic engagement with a higher education institution on improving elearning.

I also worked on a couple of projects. One I mentioned last week, a course on better ID.  I’m still proud of the eLearning Manifesto (as you can see in the sidebar ;).  And I continue to want to help people do better using technology to facilitate learning.  I think the Quinnov 8 are a  good way.

All in all, I still believe that pursuing better and broader learning and performance is a worthwhile endeavor. Technology is a lovely complement to our thinking, but we have to do it with an understanding of how our brains work.  My last project from the year is along these lines, but it’s not yet ready to be announced. Stay tuned!

The Quinnov 8: An online course

by Leave a Comment

Ok, so I told you the story of the video course I was creating on what I call the Quinnov 8, and now I’ll point to it.  It’s available through Udemy, and I’ve tried to keep the price low.  With their usual discounts, it should be darn near free ;).  Certainly no more than a few cups of coffee.

It’s about an hour of video of me talking, with a  few diagrams and text placeholders.  I’ve included quizzes for each of the content sections. Also, I have assignments to go away and apply the principles to your own work.  Finally, I created a page or several for each section showing some ideas, models, and more.

I do  not recommend going through it in one run. I can’t control it, but as I mention in the course, you want to space it out. We know that that leads to better outcomes. Instead, I recommend spacing it out a section a week or so perhaps, and doing the work and coming back to reactivate before moving on.

The content is organized around what I’m terming the Quinnov 8, the eight elements I think are core to making the step to better elearning design.  While the ideal is to push to a robust iterative and prototyping model, I’m focusing mostly on the small steps that will give you the greatest leverage. The elements are:

  1. Performance consulting: what to do  before you decide to course
  2. Objectives: making the  right decisions about what to focus on
  3. SMEs: working with them for objectives and more
  4. Practice: making practice meaningful
  5. Models: the conceptual frameworks that guide performance
  6. Examples: the link between concepts and application.
  7. Engagement: wrapping the front and back to create  experiences
  8. Process: the extra steps to make this work

I’m trying to go  deep, that is to unpack the levels of cognitive depth to explain how the Quinnov 8 elements work.  I’ve identified the challenges I’ve faced, and I may well update it over time, but it’s at a stage I think I can at least give you the chance to explore.  I welcome your feedback, but I reckon this is one way you can further your understanding on a significant budget.

Solutions for Tight Cycles of Assessment

by 5 Comments

In general, in a learning experience stretching out over days (as spaced learning would suggest), learners want to regularly get feedback about how they’re doing. As a consequence, you want regular cycles of assessment. However, there’s a conflict.  In workplace performance we produce complex outputs (RFPs, product specs, sales proposals, strategies, etc). These still typically require human oversight to evaluate.  Yet resource limitations are likely in most such situations, so we prefer auto-marked solutions (read: multiple choice, fill-in-the-blank), etc.  How do we reconcile meaningful assessment with realistic constraints?  This is one of the questions I’ve been thinking about, and I thought I’d share my reflections with you.

In workplace learning, at times we can get by with auto-assessment, particularly if we use coaching beyond the learning event.  Yet if it matters, we’d rather them practice things that matter  before they actually are used for real work.  And for formal education, we want learners to have at least weekly cycles of performance and assessment.  Yet we also don’t want just rote knowledge checks, as they don’t lead to meaningful performance.  We need some intermediate steps, and that’s what I’ve been thinking on.

Multiple choice mini-scenario structureSo first, in  Engaging Learning, I wrote about what I called ‘mini-scenarios’. These are really just better-written multiple-choice questions.  However, such questions don’t ask learners to identify definitions or the like (simple recognition), but instead put learners in contextual situations.  Here, the learner chooses between different  decisions. Which means retrieving the information, mapping it to the context,  and then choosing the best answer.  Such a question has a story context, a precipitating situation, and then alternative decisions. (And the alternatives are ways learners go wrong, not silly or obviously incorrect choices).  I suggest that your questions should be like this, but are there more?

Branching scenarios are another, rich form of practice. Here it’s about tying together the decisions (they  do tend to travel in packs) and consequences. When you do so, you can provide an immersive experience.  (When designed well, of course.)  They’re a pragmatic approximation of a full game experience.  Full games are  really good when you need lots of practice (or can amortize over a large audience), but they’re an additional level of complexity to develop.

Another one that Tom Reeves presented in an article was intriguing. You not only have to make the right choice, but then you also choose the reason  why you made that choice. It’s only an additional step, but it gets at the choice  and the thinking.  And this is important. It would minimize the likelihood of guessing, and provide a richer basis for diagnosis and feedback.  Of course, no one is producing a ‘question type’ like this that I know of, but it’d be a good one.

An approach we used in the past was to have learners create a complex answer, but have the learner evaluate it! In this case it was a verbal response to a question (we were working on speaking to the media), but then the learner could hear their own answer and a model one.  Of course, you’d want to pair this with an evaluation guide as well. The learner creates a response, and then is presented with their response,  a good response, and a rubric about what makes a good answer. Then we ask the learner to self evaluate against the rubric.  This has the additional benefit that learners are evaluating work with guidance, and can internalize the behavior to become a self-improving learner. (This is the basis of ‘reciprocal teaching’, one of the component approaches in Cognitive Apprenticeship.)

Each of these is auto-(or self-) marked, yet provides valuable feedback to the learner and valuable practice of skills. Which shouldn’t be at the expense of also having instructor-marked complex work products or performances, but can supplement them. The goal is to provide the learner with guidance about how their understanding is progressing while keeping marking loads to a minimum. It’s not ideal, but it’s practical.  And it’s not exclusive of knowledge test as well, but it’s more applied and therefore is likely to be more valuable to the learner and the learning. I’m percolating on this, but I welcome hearing what approaches (and reflections) you have.

#AECT17 Conference Contributions

by 1 Comment

So, at the recent AECT 2017 conference, I participated in three ways that are worth noting.  I had the honor of participating in two sessions based upon writings I’d contributed, and one based upon my own cogitations. I thought I’d share the thinking.

For my own presentation, I shared my efforts to move ‘rapid elearning’ forward. I put Van Merrienboer’s 4 Component ID and Guy Wallace’s Lean ISD as a goal, but recognized the need for intermediate steps like Michael Allen’s SAM, David Merrill’s ‘Pebble in a Pond‘, and Cathy Moore’s Action Mapping. I suggested that these might be too far, and want steps that might be slight improvements on their existing processes. These included three thing: heuristics, tools, and collaboration. Here I was indicating specifics for each that could move from well-produced to well-designed.

In short, I suggest that while collaboration is good, many corporate situations want to minimize staff. Consequently, I suggest identifying those critical points where collaboration will be useful. Then, I suggest short cuts in processes to the full approach. So, for instance, when working with SMEs focus on decisions to keep the discussion away from unnecessary knowledge. Finally, I suggest the use of tools to support the gaps our brain architectures create.   Unfortunately, the audience was small (27 parallel sessions and at the end of the conference) so there wasn’t a lot of feedback. Still, I did have some good discussion with attendees.

Then, for one of the two participation session, the book I contributed to solicited a wide variety of position papers from respected ed tech individuals, and then solicited responses to same.  I had responded to a paper suggesting three trends in learning: a lifelong learning record system, a highly personalized learning environment, and expanded learner control of time, place and pace of instruction. To those 3 points I added two more: the integration of meta-learning skills and the breakdown of the barrier between formal learning and lifelong learning. I believe both are going to be important, the former because of the decreasing half-life of knowledge, the latter because of the ubiquity of technology.

Because the original author wasn‘t present, I was paired for discussion with another author who shares my passion for engaging learning, and that was the topic of our discussion table.  The format was fun; we were distributed in pairs around tables, and attendees chose where to sit. We had an eager group who were interested in games, and my colleague and I took turns answering and commenting on each other’s comments. It was a nice combination.  We talked about the processes for design, selling the concept, and more.

For the other participation session, the book was a series of monographs on important topics.  The discussion chose a subset of four topics: MOOCs, Social Media, Open Resources, and mLearning. I had written the mLearning chapter.  The chapter format included ‘take home’ lessons, and the editor wanted our presentations to focus on these. I posited the basic mindshifts necessary to take advantage of mlearning. These included five basic principles:

  1. mlearning is not just mobile elearning; mlearning is a wide variety of things.
  2. the focus should be on augmenting us, whether our formal learning, or via performance support, social, etc.
  3. the Least Assistance Principle, in focusing on the core stuff given the limited interface.
  4. leverage context, take advantage of the sensors and situation to minimize content and maximize opportunity.
  5. recognize that mobile is a platform, not a tactic or an app; once you ‘go mobile’, folks will want more.

The sessions were fun, and the feedback was valuable.

#AECT17 Reflections

by Leave a Comment

Ok, so I was an academic for a brief and remarkably good period of time (a long time ago). Mind you, I’ve kept my hand in: reviewing journal and conference submissions, writing the occasional book chapter, contributing to some research, even playing a small role in some grant-funded projects.  I like academics, it’s just that circumstances took me away (and I like consulting too; different, not one better). However, there’re a lot of benefits from being engaged, particularly keeping up with the state of the art. At least one perspective… Hence, I attended the most recent meeting of the Association of Educational Communications & Technology, pretty much the society for academics in instructional technology.

The event features many of your typical components: keynotes, sessions, receptions, and the interstitial social connections. One of the differences is that there’s no vendor exhibition. And there are a lot of concurrent sessions: roughly 27 per time slot!    Now, you have to understand, there are multiple agendas, including giving students and new faculty members opportunities for presentations and feedback. There are also sessions designed for tapping into the wisdom of the elders, and working sessions to progress understandings. This was only my second, so I may have the overall tenor wrong.  Regardless, here are some reflections from the event:

For one, it’s clear that there’s an overall awareness of what could, and should, be happening in education. In the keynotes, the speakers repeatedly conveyed messages about effective learning. What wasn‘t effectively addressed was the comprehensive resistance of the education system to meaningful change.  Still, all three keynotes, Driscoll, Cabrera, and Reeves, commented in one way or another on problems and opportunities in education. Given that many of the faculty members come from Departments of Education, this is understandable.

Another repeated emergent theme (at least for me) was the need for meaningful research. What was expressed by Tom Reeves in a separate session was the need for a new approach to research grounded in focusing on real problems. I’ve been a fan of his call for Design-Based Research, and liked what he said: all thesis students should introduce their topics with the statement “the problem I’m looking at is”. The sessions, however, seemed to include too many small studies. (In my most cynical moments, I wonder how many studies have looked at teaching students or teacher professional development and their reflections/use of technology…).

One session I attended was quite exciting. The topic was the use of neuroscience in learning, and the panel were all people using scans and other neuroscience data to inform learning design. While I generally deride the hype that usually accompanies the topic, here were real researchers talking actual data and the implications, e.g. for dyslexia.  While most of the results from research that have implications for design are still are at the cognitive level, it’s important to continue to push the boundaries.

I focused my attendance mostly on the Organizational Training & Performance group, and heard a couple of good talks.  One was a nice survey of mentoring, looking across the research, and identifying what results there were, and where there were still opportunities for research. Another study did a nice job of synthesizing models for human performance technology, though the subsequent validation approach concerned me.

I did a couple of presentations myself that I’ll summarize in tomorrow’s post, but it was a valuable experience. The challenges are different than in corporate learning technology, but there are interesting outcomes that are worth tracking.  A valuable experience.

Tom Reeves AECT Keynote Mindmap

by 1 Comment

Thomas Reeves opened the third day of the AECT conference with an engaging keynote that used the value of conation to drive the argument for Authentic Learning. Conation is the component of cognition that consists of your intent to learn, and is under-considered. Authentic learning is very much collaborative problem-solving. He used the challenges from robots/AI to motivate the argument.

Mindmap

Transparency

by Leave a Comment

I believe that transparency is a good thing. It builds trust, as it makes it hard to hide things.  And trust is important. So, in the spirit of transparency, it occurred to me to share a little bit about me and this blog. Here I lay out who I am, why I write it, and what I write about.

You can find out more via the ‘about Clark Quinn’ link in the right column, but in brief, I saw the connection between computing and learning as an undergraduate, and it’s been my career ever since. It’s not just my vocation, but it’s my avocation: I  enjoy exploring cognition and technology. And while I’ve done the science and track it, what I revel in (and have demonstrable capability for), is applying cognitive and learning science to create new approaches and fine-tune existing ones.  Learning engineering, if you will.

And, for a variety of reasons, I do this as a consultant. I make my living providing strategic guidance for clients.  I speak at events, and write books, but my main income is from consulting. Which means you  should hire me.  I assist organizations to improve their processes and products, both tactically and strategically. My clients have been happy, and find it’s good value. What you get are unique ideas that are practical and yet effective. Ideas you aren’t likely to have come up with, but are valuable. I really do Quinnovate! Check out the Quinnovation site for more.    Of course, I do have to live in the real world, and so I need to find ways to do this that are mutually beneficial.

Yet generating business isn’t why I write this blog.  I started writing this blog as an experiment and originally tried to write 5 days a week (but was happy if that ended up being 2-3 times a week).  My commitment now is 2 per week (which rarely yields 1 or 3).  And I haven’t monetized it: there’s no advertising, and while I occasionally talk about where I’m speaking or the like, I haven’t used this as a way to sell things. Hopefully that can continue.

So, the reason I write is to think ‘out loud’.  It’s largely for me: it makes me think. I’m just always curious!  I’ve previously recounted the story about how I was on a panel answering questions from the audience, and one of my fellow panelists commented that I had an answer for everything. And the reason is in the ongoing attempt to populate the blog, I’ve looked at lots of things. As my client engagements have been in many different areas, I also have wide-ranging experience to draw upon.  And I just naturally reflect, but getting concrete: diagramming and/or writing, provides additional benefits.

Thus, the process of continually writing (for over 10 years now) means I’m looking at lots of things, reflecting on them, and sharing my thoughts. I also make a point to look at related fields, and look for connections. I also look at what’s happening with technology. In general, I look with a critical eye, as I was trained as a scientist.  I think that’s valuable as well, because there still is a lot of nonsense trotted out, and there’s always some new buzzword that’s being loosely tossed about. Blogging’s given me cause to continue to tune my thinking, and at least some folks have commented that they’ve found it useful.

Mostly I write about things related to technology, learning, and individual and organizational implications. It includes diversions to innovation, design, wisdom, performance support, and the like, because they’ve implications for practice. In many ways I see approaches that aren’t well aligned with how we think, work, and learn, and that strikes me as both a shame, and an opportunity to improve. And that’s what I enjoy, finding ways to improve what we do.

So that’s it: I blog to facilitate my understanding, because cognitive science and technology  is my passion. It isn’t a direct business move.  I do need to make a living, and prefer to do it in the area of my passion, and fortunately have been successful so far.  (Which isn’t to say you shouldn’t find a reason to use me, there are never enough opportunities to assist in improvement, and I’m not a sales person ;).  And yes, this life is a learning experience all in itself!  I hope this is clear, but in the interests of transparency I welcome your inquiries and comments. Stay curious, my friends.

 

Innovative Work Spaces

by Leave a Comment

working togetherI recently read that Apple’s new office plan is receiving bad press. This surprises me, given that Apple usually has their handle on the latest in ideas.  Yet, upon investigation, it’s clear that they appear to not be particularly innovative in their approach to work spaces.  Here’s why.

The report  I saw says that Apple is intending to use an open office plan. This is where all the tables are out in the open, or at best there are cubicles. The perceived benefits are open communication.  And this is plausible when folks like Stan McChrystal in  Team of Teams are arguing for ‘radical transparency’.  The thought is that everyone will know what’s going on and it will streamline communication. Coupled with delegation, this should yield innovation, at the expense of some efficiency.

However, research hasn’t backed that up. Open space office plans can even drive folks away, as Apple’s hearing. When you want to engage with your colleagues and stay on top of what they’re doing, it’s good.  However, the lack of privacy means folks can’t focus when they’re doing heavy mental work. While it sounds good in theory, it doesn’t work in practice.

When I was keynoting at the Learning@Work conference in Sydney back in 2015, a major topic was about flexible work spaces. The concept here is to have a mix of office types: some open plan, some private offices, some small conference rooms. The view is that you take the type of space you need when you need it. Nothing’s fixed, so you travel with your laptop from place to place, but you can have the type of environment you need. Time alone, time with colleagues, time collaborating. And this was being touted both on principled and practical grounds with positive outcomes.

(Note that in McChrystal’s view, you needed to break down silos. He would strategically insert a person from one area with others, and have representatives engaged around all activities.  So even in the open space you’d want people mixed up, but most folks still tend to put groups together. Which undermines the principle.)

As Jay Cross let us know in his landmark  Informal Learning,  even the design of workspaces can facilitate innovation. Jay cited practices like having informal spaces to converse, and putting the mail room and coffee room together to facilitate casual conversation.  Where you work matters as well as how, and open plan has upsides but also downsides that can be mitigated.

Innovation is about culture, practices, beliefs,  and   technology.  Putting it all together in a practical approach takes time and knowledge to figure out where to start, and how to scale.  As Sutton and Rao tell us, it’s a ground war, but the benefits are not just desirable, but increasingly necessary. Innovation is the key to transcending survival to thrival. Are you ready to (Qu)innovate?