Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Search Results for: engag

“Engaging Learning” Book review

by Leave a Comment

I found a review of my book Engaging Learning, by Jon Alekson, who I don’t know. It’s a fair review; he gets what I’m trying to accomplish (making the learning experience more effective), but criticizes my writing as a bit heavy, and bemoans the lack of focus on graphics.

I’ll wear the first one, but remark that it’s remarkably light considering I was trained as an academic and rewarded for dense prose for many years. Besides, my editor praised my ‘warm tone’ :). Your mileage may vary.

As for the graphics, I’ll admit it doesn’t have as much as I’d like. On the other hand, you can actually play a couple of games mentioned in the book on the web (check out the ‘Examples’ here). I’m not a graphic designer, and had little to do in regards to the final appearance as they were done by professionals. And, on the pragmatic side, copyright permissions aren’t much fun.

I haven’t seen many reviews, so it was good to find this one.

My technology for performance

by Leave a Comment

I’ve talked in the past about my tools for learning, as Jane Hart’s survey prompts. Yet, Christy Tucker asks about software stacks (for consulting), and I realize there’s a different answer when I’m talking about doing versus learning. Yes, as Harold Jarche says, “work is learning and learning is the work”, but there are times I’m using tools to keep myself on track rather than to render my ongoing thinking. I augment my abilities with tech, and some is just about executive function rather than learning. So what is my technology for performance?

Personally, I use Apple’s Reminders to render ‘ToDos’. As I’ve said, if I’ve promised you something and it doesn’t get into my digital world, we never had the conversation. That also is true for Apple’s Calendar. I used to use them separately, but now I’m coordinating between them. I used to block out time to get things done, but I’ve now set up a cal.com to book time, and it looks at my calendar. So, I now use timing on reminders to get things done that are urgent, and save the calendar for time-specific things.

Financially, I use Quickbooks to send/receive invoices. I should switch, but haven’t yet. The problem is that you’re kind of locked in unless you change on your calendar boundary. I also use my bank’s app or website to dod things like send/receive payments. Occasionally I use PayPal, too.

I’d mention Notes, as a way to mull things, but that’s really learning. Though I do grab and store recipes there (and share with fam). Not that I make ’em all, but it’s where I can keep the ones I find online. Likewise I take notes on biz meetings with Notability, but again that’s not really performance, it falls more into the ‘learning category’. I do have some templates that I’ve created in Word, e.g. proposals, reports, and schedule of fees. Probably should migrate to a platform that’s more open. Libre? Open Office? There I go, standing up again…

Now, that’s for me, myself, and I, but I also do things with Elevator 9 and the Learning Development Accelerator (LDA). For both, I’m using Slack to talk to people. I have separate channels for both, but am glad they’re both using the one platform. Email too, of course. Teams was part of a a previous engagement, and am frankly glad to step away. I also use Zoom, a lot. Again, happy to not use Teams or Google Meet for that purpose.

Collaborative docs are different. They’re writing, but for others, so they begin to cross the chasm (really, it’s a continuum, but…). So, I’ve used Google Docs. I really haven’t collaborated using 360, because I don’t have that type of license. I also have used Apple’s Pages with the folks who do run Macs.

Usually, my browser’s for learning, but I also use it to get things done. That’s one of the reasons I recently made the switch from Safari to Vivaldi. For one, it’s a ‘Chrome’-equivalent browser, but doesn’t have the ownership probs that Brave suffers from. It also doesn’t have the ‘tracking’ problems Google introduces (it’s why my search engine is DuckDuckGo, too).  It’s problematic, in that it’s (too) customizable, for power users, but the defaults aren’t bad. Still learning about it, but I’ve mostly got it under control (e.g. I think I’ve a solution to the microphone issue that was bedeviling an LDA vid attempt). Though I’m reasonably tech savvy…

One other tool of note is Notion. I wouldn’t necessarily choose it myself, but it works. You can imagine I’m not keen on the strong pushes it (and everything else) are making towards AI, but it’s in use for LDA project and knowledge management, and it’s working. We’re a) probably not making full use, and b) could’ve used something simpler, but…we have someone familiar with it coaching us, so it’s all good.

So that’s my technology for performance. It’s not sophisticated, but it’s manageable, and affordable. Thoughts? Yours?

A celebration of the tablet

by Leave a Comment

OK, so I’ve been around for a few turns around the sun. And, I’ve seen a fair bit of change, in technology in particular. My first job out of college was programming these new-fangled ‘personal computers’. This came after holding down jobs programming mainframes (Algol/Burroughs 7600) and mini-computers (Pascal/PDP-11s). As such, I’ve watched as the computers have shrunk to pocket and wrist-size (and more, but that’s not in common use), while increasing in capability. But there’s one device that I forget to marvel at, and so here’s a celebration of the tablet.

Why tablets, why not smartphones? There’re overlaps; they’re both much more intimate than a desktop; they”re held and controlled by touch. Yet, there’s a difference. Ok, for me. For many around the world, the phone is their only internet connection. And we are seeing larger and larger phones. But while I carry my phone with me almost all the time*, a tablet is my preferred relaxation device. I use my laptop (as a desktop, it’s usually plugged into a monitor/keyboard/mouse unless I’m traveling) for work, and my phone goes with me everywhere. But, when I’m mostly looking to be mentally engaged, my tablet is the preferred option. So, why?

I haven’t pondered that except just before going to bed, but then I’m amazed as I contemplate it. Here’s a screen big enough to engage with, on a device that’s amazingly thin. On it, I have books I can read, and games I can play. I don’t watch movies on it usually, but I have when I’ve traveled. And of course there are the information resources: web, weather, & time, and ways to generate info: notes, a way to comment on PDFs. In short, it’s intimate but pretty much fully capable.

That’s not what my phone or desktop sport as abilities. My phone (I err on the side of a smaller one, to fit easily in my pocket) is intimate, but it’s not fully capable given its limited screen. On the other hand, m laptop is powerful, but not intimate. My tablet is both. Now, I’m not going down the road of a super powerful tablet that substitutes for a laptop, that’s a bridge too far. I like having a desktop to do full work. It’s just that for many things, e.g. pondering and querying, the tablet is better. I think it’s about time frames for task, and maybe the cognitive complexity.

Still, while I like all my devices, the laptop to me is akin to the computer as I know it. The phone is a useful devices for usage on a short time frame. It’s the device in-between that, for me, is the sweet spot. A place to escape, a place to do preliminary thinking, a place to reflect. I write this on my laptop, because writing long screeds is easier with a keyboard (I eschew the keyboard cases for my tablet, as I have a laptop), but the preliminary thinking came from my intermediate device. So here’s a celebration of the tablet, the device that wasn’t going to be. I’m glad it exists.

* Recently my phone had 1% charge, I’d not completely plugged it in. Thus, for my walk I went phone-less (m’lady had hers). It was mostly ok, just a few moments of reaching for it and realizing it wasn’t there!

Looking into 2026

by Leave a Comment

First, of course, happy new year! Relatively arbitrary deadline, but signification matters, and marking a new year is also a new chance. So, what’s happening? Here are some of the things I’m thinking about, looking into 2026!

So, first, a brief look back to set the stage. This was a year without any sustained engagements for Quinnovation, so that meant being a bit more agile. Not a problem, I was on lots of podcasts about a variety of things, and of course engaged with clients. I did spend considerable time and effort, however, in my side gigs.

For one, the Learning Development Accelerator (LDA) had a variety of things going on: conferences, books, webinars, podcasts, and more. Plus, they’re great people to work with! I think it’s a worthwhile investment of my time, focusing on helping people get more exposed to evidence-informed design.There are signs that we’re moving more that way (though it is a small case of two steps forward, one step back; learning styles and other myths still haunt our industry; there’s a continuing need!). I’ve also done some ‘free’ consulting to our platinum members, and that seems to be valuable for them, and I find it really rewarding!

I also continued to spend time with the Elevator 9 (E9) folks. They’re now ready for prime time (check ’em out!), but there’s been lots of work along the way. That includes developing a real platform, and I’m continuing to learn heaps about what goes into a startup. And why I haven’t been the one to do it! It’s been great, however, to be in association with folks who really do want to care about learning science; all too rare in the learning technology space (sadly).

Of course, my association with both continues.

With LDA, we’re already planning this coming year. We’re deep into thinking about what to do with the spring conference, and potential series for blog posts, and more. We already have our first Meet the Author on the schedule, and more are in the works.  There are some changes afoot, so stay tuned!

With E9, I will be using them again for my next mini-scenario workshop (with LDA) as a followon. Did it last year, as a trial, and it worked. Always room to improve, of course. Still, if you’re running a live event, and not following it up to extend the learning, why? There are other solutions – e.g. coaching – but please be doing something! There are worse solutions than E9, including nothing.

Of course, I’ll be doing more. I’ve been working on a couple of short books, likely eBooks (too short for print). I don’t want to go live yet about them, as they’re still in process. Of course they’d be with LDA Press. Besides online, I may be running a workshop or two live, too. As to conferences, well, I never say ‘never’, but right now there’s nothing I’m particularly excited about. We’ll see. And, of course, I’m always keen to help organizations, so do reach out if there are any ways I can be of assistance.

As you might expect, ideas continue to percolate. I’m always exploring more about technology, design, engagement, and more, and of course about learning. As always, you’ll probably hear about them here first, as this is where I learn ‘out loud’. There’re breadcrumbs from the past pointing forward, so it’s time to be looking into 2026. What are you seeing? In the meantime, stay curious my friends.

Thinking about motivation

by Leave a Comment

So, I haven’t been a big Self-Determination Theory (SDT) person, simply because I hadn’t really known about it. I learned about it enough to mention in my most recent tome (highlighting the importance of motivation in learning), but that’s about it. However, it’s been popping up more and more (not least with the Motivation Summit the LDA’s putting on; the live sessions will be past, but you can still register to watch the presentations and recordings thereof). And, I am increasingly thinking that there’s some real ‘there’ there, so here’s some thinking about motivation.

SDT posits, quite simply, that there are three consistent elements that contribute to motivation. They are:

  • Competence: the ability to do something, maybe with support, but also development to get better
  • Relatedness: other people who are there believing similarly and supporting you
  • Autonomy: the ability to be who you are

(These are my definitions, by the way, not the official ones, which are no doubt better.) Importantly, they’ve been verified by research across cultures, age ranges, and every other demographic difference. It’s pretty much a human universal. Also importantly, they have practical implications for how you do things.

Quite simply, motivation plays a role in pretty much everything we do! Our motivations include exercising, eating, and sleep; work tasks and job environment; and for us, intent to learn. It’s that latter I was tapping into for designing games, lo those many decades ago. I didn’t at the time know about the SDT framework (in fact, it hadn’t really emerged yet ;), but I was tapping into the elements when I was talking about goals, appropriate challenge, relevance, and more. So when I write about the education/engagement alignment, SDT is a higher-level framework. Simple alignment would have challenge = competence, goals = autonomy, relevance = relatedness. Social learning, too.

Increasingly, as ‘leadership’ becomes a topic, it plays a role as well. I’ve been interested in culture and social for many years as a function for L&D. Leadership is how you create a culture, by how you are socially. How well do you support those elements? I’m not a leadership expert, but I’m increasingly seeing those factors, crossed by types of situations being faced. For instance, in a crisis you have to make a decision, which reduces autonomy for others, but then you should rebuild it. Importantly, I’m finding out that efforts are yielding valuable outcomes, which alone is a reason to pay attention!

So, I’m looking more into it, as an aspect of making a good environment, organizationally and societally. If we’re thinking about motivation, we can start being wise about it. That is, not just for me, and you, but for others. Not just short term, but also long-term. And, explicitly considering our values. Which may be the most important part of it! I think the values that empirically lead to the best for all is a good basis. What say you?

Still the myths

by Leave a Comment

Over on LinkedIn, about the last site worth visiting (I do use Bluesky and Mastodon, but they’re not really ‘sites’ so much as channels), I am still seeing quotes about people believing in misinformation. Learning styles, generations, attentions spans dropping, etc, all these things that aren’t valid are still being touted. Despite our debunking efforts, it’s still the myths!

To be fair, we do seem to be seeing a bit of an ‘anti-science’ movement. Which would be not only silly, but sad! Sure, there are problems with science, but it still beats every other process we have. Anecdotes don’t surpass real evidence, and personal opinion isn’t superior to what proper research tells us.

For one, as Naomi Oreskes makes clear in her book Why Trust Science, what makes science work isn’t just the process. So, yes, scientists conduct experiments, and others review them, and it’s a collective decision to publish them. And, yes, bad papers are still submitted (I used to serve on editorial boards, and my rejection rate was about 95%; but it was a good journal ;). Also, it’s hard to bring in new viewpoints. What Oreskes points out, however, and aptly, is that over time, these processes advance our understanding. We may have fits and spurts, but for the long game we win. For instance, how are you able to read this offering of mine, over miles and minutes? Because science.

So, science denial is counter-productive, but it exists. Gale Sinatra and colleague Barbara Hofer, in their book Science Denial, outline the reasons how this happens. Based upon research into the situation, they document our minds have biases, and how we can be swayed. We can also have our own beliefs, and our tendency to confirmation bias means we only look for evidence that supports our views. Fortunately, they discuss ways to address these problems, but we need to put some of these into place (as with Brian Klaas’ recommendations for fighting corruption).

We have good data that there are things we should avoid. There really aren’t any psychometrically valid instrument for learning styles, and no evidence that should use them if we did. Categorizing people by generations is, basically, a form of stereotyping. Our attentions spans can engage for hours even, as we play games, read novels, watch movies, etc. And so on!

Sometimes, it feels hopeless. But I look and see that we’re getting more attention to learning science. It really is about communication, and it seems we’re (slowly) making headway. So, I’ll keep keeping on (heck, I wrote the book!), despite ‘still the myths’. Hopefully, fewer and less over time. Fingers crossed!

Conference season

by Leave a Comment

Conference season has commenced. Two are already in the books. Three I know about are coming up, and I’m playing a role in two. So, what’s up, and when? Here’s what I know.

So, first, the Learning Development Accelerator (LDA) is running the Creating a Motivating Work Environment Summit. This is in conjunction with the Center for Self-Determination Theory, so it’s scrutable. I’m not part of this, except as a participant. It follows the usual LDA format: access to videos created by the presenters, followed by live sessions at two different times. The videos are already up, and the live sessions are coming soon, Nov 3 – 7!  It’s all online, which makes it easy to attend, and the live sessions will be recorded. There’s a stellar lineup of speakers, naturally! I’m increasingly finding the value in the theory, so I look forward to the session. Caveat: I’m a Co-Director of the LDA, so I have a vested interest in the success, but I still think it’s of interest (at least to me).

Then, the Learning Guild is holding the next DevLearn conference, and I’ll be doing several things. My Wed is pretty full, as I’m starting by hosting a Morning Buzz on building a learning culture. Hosting isn’t the same as presenting, but instead just facilitating the conversation.  Then I’m presenting on the spacing of learning. I’ve been actively engaged in developing a spaced learning strategy, and will be sharing the key principles from learning science research. As well as what’s not (yet) known! I’ll be signing books right after that at the event bookstore. On Thursday, I’m part of a panel on AI (which will probably be interpreted as Generative AI), and will be my usual critical self ;). Of course, I’ll also be wandering the halls and expo. If you’re there, say hello!

Finally, the LDA is also running our second Learning Science Conference. (If you attended last year, you get a big discount!). It uses the same format asa the Motivation Summit, above, that is with specifically curated content in presentations, and live sessions Dec 8 – 12. It starts 3 Nov, and I’m active in this one too. I’ll again be presenting two sections. The first will be on getting information into, and out of, long-term memory, specifically generative and retrieval practice. I talked about the latter, last year, so I’m refining that (my own understanding evolves as does the field), and adding more on generative. Similarly with social and informal learning, which I’ll be presenting again. That is, I’ll be rehashing the old, and adding a bit new.

There’re new speakers, too. We’ve the honor of having Gale Sinatra and Jim Hewitt, and Rich Mayer will be doing a special session with Ruth Clark. Other presenters include my fellow co-Director, Matt Richter, along with Stella Lee and Nidhi Sachdeva. There’ll be special sessions, such as with Will Thalheimer.  Of course, we’ll have a debate, here with me going head to head with authors Bianca Baumann and Mike Taylor on marketing and motivation.  We also will have a panel with greats Julie Dirksen, Jane Bozarth, and Koreen Pagano. And more.

Sure, there’re lots of ways to get on top of learning science and good design. There’s the Serious eLearning Manifesto, books (e.g. my recommended reading list), blogs (like this one), magazines likeTraining, eLearn, journals, and more. However, getting together with your fellow practitioners, live or online, is a real boon, and so conference season is a great opportunity. Hope to see you somewhere soon!

Creativity and rigor

by Leave a Comment

As I’m wont to do, I was thinking in the middle of the night. About creativity, in this case.  Specifically, that I have repeatedly demonstrated the ability to integrate creativity and learning science. And, I tend to forget about it. (Which means you may, too!) Of course, I push the rigor of the cognitive and learning sciences, and advocate for the integration of emotion. However, it’s been decades since I’ve really emphasized my portfolio of work on games and engagement. Maybe since my first book on engagement? So, maybe it’s time to talk about creativity and rigor.

To be clear, I believe it’s important to get both learning and engagement right. Sure, pure computer games are fun (heck, I play them!). And, many have stories that are actually relevant, too. But serious games, ones that actually achieve an outcome, require integrating learning science with engagement. Which isn’t necessarily easy! But, it’s something I’ve reliably done, and I don’t want to forget it!

So, fresh out of college, my first real job was designing and programming educational computer games. (This was for Jim Schuyler at DesignWare.) I created Micro Discovery, a set of games based upon the Computer Discovery series but with my own little set. I then went on to FaceMaker for Spinnaker, before coding Spellicopter and Creature Creator for ourselves. (All before I headed off to grad school.) They weren’t great, as we only had 48K and were targeting the home market, but they were notable. Both FaceMaker and Creature Creator had graphic designers who assisted my lack of visual design capability!

From my graduate work on analogical reasoning, during my post-doc I built a game that required using the stories to solve problems, with a coherent theme. I even published a paper about Voodoo Adventure!  This was all on my own, and the graphics weren’t great, but they were ‘good enough’. Hey, two kids at an open house played it all the way through and won (many others tried it out and gave up, to be fair).

At my first teaching position post-grad, I was asked to build a game that helps kids survive on the streets. Quest achieved many things: it achieved the goal of engaging the audience and driving them to important conversations with their counselors; it made it onto the local science program; it sparked a journal article that’s led to my subsequent books, Engaging Learning and then Make It Meaningful; and it’s still arguably the most rewarding professional thing I’ve ever done. It was assisted first by a talented student in programming, and then by graphic talents who addressed the look and feel.

I went on to build first a linear scenario and then a full game on project management (for non-project managers) for a major government organization. This was in conjunction with a team of graphic artists and a software engineer (a bit of that story is also here). I also led design of scenarios for psychiatric nursing. Then I went on and designed a demo game to go with textbooks.

Ok, so I also designed a course that used comics to start off each section, ran a web competition for school kids, did a compelling demo of how to do a good course on the cheap with Learnovators, created mobile games for a NASA test, and…have designed workshops on game design and more. I’m sure there’s more, but that’s off the top of my head. I have regularly combined creativity and rigor, it’s just hard to remember sometimes. And, if you can think of a useful way for me to continue, I welcome hearing!

Learning science on tap

by Leave a Comment

In the interest of the continuation of Quinnovation, Learnlets, and me, this is a solicitation post. If it’s not for you, kindly ignore. However, it may be for your boss; if so, please pass it on! 

Do you run an L&D department, or make L&D decisions, and don’t have sufficient learning science background? You know, you get asked to make decisions that involve learning – responding to vendors, stakeholders asking “why”, etc – and you’re not sure how to respond. That’s not uncommon! While you know how to select technologies, design solutions, create strategies, etc in other areas, you don’t necessarily know how to do that with an enlightened view of how we think, work, and learn. L&D is unique because it deals with learning – skills, social, informal, and more. And your school experience is not a good guide. How do you cope? Learning science on tap!

Let me offer this solution, specifically Clark Quinn, Ph.D., on tap. There are reasons why: I’ve been recognized for my depth of knowledge and breadth of experience in translating learning science into practical terms. That includes writing books, keynoting, awards, and, of course, consulting.  I’ve applied that background for literally decades in the design of solutions: games, mobile, strategy, processes, policies, and more. So, that’s available. For instance, you could send me something that needs a learning science perspective – an RFP, a memo, an organizational initiative, and I’ll break it down from a learning science perspective, and provide you with same. Or we can talk on a call. What’s more, as I’m wont to do, I’ll provide the underlying thinking. That is, you learn as you go, too! (Just how I roll.)

Of course, you don’t have to take my advice. You’ll have it, and can factor it into your thinking. And, I can adapt my thinking to specific constraints. I am known to come up with better ideas than had been proposed initially. But it’s up to you. I’ll give you my feedback, and you can do with it as you will. This service is for those that can’t come up with that advice on their own, and it’s an important perspective. What I’ll suggest as recommendations will be grounded in evidence-based approaches. I’ll research anything I need to know and don’t (no extra charge), so I learn too. But I have been involved in thinking at most levels and areas of an organization, in a multitude of roles. 

I won’t be an employee (nor want to become one). And, I’m not generating new things (that’s a different engagement, we can talk about it), but I’ll review and opine, to your needs. So, I won’t write an RFP or a whitepaper for you; I won’t design a learning experience; nor will I read an article and summarize it for you. Those’d be different engagements. But I’ll review an RFP or whitepaper (incoming or outgoing) for the necessary learning science. I will review the rules and practices around such a design.  If someone sends you an article and asks your opinion, I’ll give you the perspective on that. In particular, I’ll help evaluate any claims that you’re faced with, again either coming from inside or outside.

In short, I’m your learning science advisor. Anything you need. Of course you’ll also get any other thoughts my experience provides: how to deal with issues or people, possible solutions, and more. Comes with the territory.

I also know to respect confidentiality. Heck, my IP has been used to train LLMs, and that doesn’t sit well with me. I will also likely want to write up any learning I attain. I can anonymize it or profile you, your choice. Obviously, I won’t share anything proprietary. And my advice is yours, and you can choose to acknowledge me or keep my participation out of it; I really don’t care. 

I’ve, over time, learned to be efficient. One of the benefits of knowing how our minds work is that I know what we’re not good at, and have developed practices to ensure that I don’t fall down on commitments. I have my own project management approach, which, coupled with my natural “just do it” inclination, means that you won’t be waiting weeks for a response. I’ll commit to 48 hours max on anything less than ebook length, and as folks who are using me in other ways (*cough* LDA and Elevator 9 *cough*) will tell you, I tend to do things in a matter of hours if it’s not too long. 

So, what would such an engagement entail? I’d like to keep it simple and fair. I reckon there’s anywhere from 3 to 10 such things a month. Some will be short, some will be longer. Some months more, some less. My initial ask is $1K per month, and an initial $500 retainer (just to make sure payment systems work, and that’ll cover a call to set the context). If you want to sign up for a year, it’s $10K (9999.99 if necessary to stay under a cutoff ;). Either of us can terminate at any time; in the case of a year purchase, I’ll prorate. What I do for you is yours, what I know and learn is mine. I’ll prod you weekly to remind you to take advantage, and you don’t have to. (Heck, you can always think of it as supporting your friendly neighborhood research translator!)

This may not be you, but if it is, think through the tradeoffs. No overhead – taxes, benefits, etc – the cost is the cost. What you get is yours and your department’s. It’s an investment in learning, for that matter, because you will have the opportunity to improve your understanding as we go. My goal in this (and every) engagement is to remove the need for me in the loop, and learning about learning isn’t just for those developing learning, it’s a good practice for everyone. It’s even a competitive advantage.

Oh, one other thing. I reckon, what with my other commitments, I can only take on 10 such relationships. So, first come, first served. Learning science on tap. Your move! You can reach out here.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled day, already in progress.

Training Organization Fails

by Leave a Comment

I’ve worked with a lot of organizations that train others. I’ve consulted to them, spoken to them, and of course written and spoken for them. (And, of course, others!) And, I’ve seen that they have a reliable problem. Over the years, it occurs to me that these failures stem from a pattern that’s understandable, and also avoidable. So I want to talk about how a training organization fails. (And, realize, that most organizations should be learning organizations, so this is a bigger plea.)

The problem stems from the orgs’ offering. They offer training. Often, certification is linked. And folks need this, for continuing education needs. What folks are increasingly realizing is that much of the learning they’re offering is now findable on the web. For free. Which means that the companies not seeing the repeat business. Even if required, they’re not seeing loyalty. And I think there’s a simple reason why.

My explanation for this is that the orgs are focusing on training, not on performance solutions. People don’t want training for training’s sake, by and large. Sure, they need continuing education in some instances, so they’ll continue (until those requirements change, at least). Folks’ll take courses in the latest bizbuzz, in lieu of any other source, of course.  (That’s currently Generative Artificial Intelligence, generically called AI; before that as an article aptly pointed out it was the metaverse, or crypto, or Web 3.0, …)

What would get people to do more than attend the necessary or trendy courses? The evidence is that folks persist when they find value. If you’re providing real value, they will come. So what does that take? I posit that a full solution would be comprised of three things: skill development, performance support, and community.

Part 1: Actual learning

The first problem, of course, could be their learning design. Too often, organizations are falling prey to the same problems that belabor other organizational learning; bad design. They offer information instead of practice. Sure, they get good reviews, but folks aren’t leaving capable of doing something new. That’s not true of all, of course (recently engaged with an organization with really good learning design), but event-based learning doesn’t work.

What should happen is that the orgs target specific competencies, have mental models, examples, and meaningful practice. I’ve talked a lot about good learning design, and have worked with others on the same (c.f. Serious eLearning Manifesto). Still, it seems to remain a surprise to many organizations.

Further, learning has to extend beyond the ‘event’ model. That is, we need to space out practice with feedback. That’s neglected, though there are solutions now, and soon to be available. (Elevator 9, cough cough. ;) Thus, what we’re talking about is real skill development. That’s something people would care about. While it’s nice to have folks say they like it, it’s better if you actually demonstrate impact.

Part 2: Performance support

Of course, equipping learners with skills isn’t a total solution to need. If you really want to support people succeeding, you need more than just the skills. Folks need tools, too. In fact, your skill development should be built to include the tools. Yet, too often when I ask, such orgs admit that this is an area they don’t address.

There are times when courses don’t make sense. There are cognitive limits to what we can do, and we’ve reliably built ways to support our flaws. This can range from things performed rarely (so courses can’t help), through information that’s too volatile or arbitrary, to things done so frequently that we may forget whether we’ve taken a step. There are many situations in pretty much any endeavor where tools make sense. And providing good ones to complement the training, and in fact using those tools as part of the training, is a great way to provide additional value.

You can even make these tools an additional revenue stream, separate from the courses, or of course as part of them. Still, folks want solutions, not just skill development. It’s not about what you do for them, but about who they become through you (see Kathy Sierra’s Badass!).

Part 3: Community

The final piece of the picture is connecting people with others. There are several reasons to do this. For one, folks can get answers that courses and tools are too coarse to address. For another, they can help one another. There’s a whole literature on communities of practice. Sure, there are societies in most areas of practice, but they’re frequently not fulfilling all these needs (and they’re targets of this strategic analysis too). These orgs can offer courses, conferences, and readings, but do they have tools for people? And are they finding ways for people to connect? It’s about learning together.

I’ve learned the hard way that it takes a certain set of skills to develop and maintain a community. Which doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it. When it reaches critical mass (that is, becomes self-correcting), the benefits to the members are great. Moreover, the dialog can point to the next offerings; your market’s right there!

There’s more, of course. Each of these areas drills down into considerable depth. Still, it’s worth addressing systematically. If you’re an org offering learning as a business, you need to consider this. Similarly, if you’re an L&D unit in an org, this is a roadmap for you as well. If you’re a startup and want to become a learning organization, this is the core of your strategy, too. It’s the revolution L&D needs ;). Not doing this is a suite of training organization fails.

My claim, and I’m willing to be wrong, is that you have to get all of this right. In this era of self-help available online, what matters is creating a full solution. Anything else and you’ll be a commodity. And that, I suggest, is not where you want to be. Look, this is true for L&D as a whole, but it’s particularly important, I suggest, for training companies that want to not just survive, but thrive in this era of internet capabilities.