Search Results for: engag

“Engaging Learning” Book review

27 July 2006 by Clark 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.

Two things I’m currently on about

15 September 2026 by Clark Leave a Comment

I’ve been talking a fair bit about AI, but that’s not really what I’m interested in right now. So maybe it’s worth talking a bit more about two things I’m currently on about. I’d welcome your feedback!

So, first, I’m on about bridging. For obvious reasons, I’ve been thinking about the gap between training and sustained impact on the business. That includes spacing (warning: PDF), reflection, planning, after-action reviews, coaching, evaluation, and more. I’ve already expressed some thoughts on these, and it’ll of course continue. The main thing is that too many orgs aren’t thinking about it. And they should, because without concrete plans to facilitate the initial learning, it’s lost. Not a good investment!

For one way my thinking on bridging will continue is that we’re beginning to see results from analyzing data being collected by the use of the Elevator 9 platform (caveat, I’ve been involved in the initial design). It appears that following the recommended spacing works. The corollary, of course, is that not following the recommended spacing doesn’t work. That includes not doing the reactivations, and also trying to do them in a rush at the end. Not surprising, but interesting nonetheless.

The other area I’m increasingly thinking is important is meta-learning, or learning to learn (see diagram). I like Harold Jarche’s Personal Knowledge Mastery, simplified, as a framework. Now, I’ve been a fan of meta-learning since at least grad school (took Jean Mandler’s class on it), and probably before. Right now, of course, I think it’s essential to make good decisions about how to use generative AI, if you’re going to. However, I reckon it’s also important in more general terms. It’s the key to innovation, for one, because (as I maintain), it’s a form of learning. (Can’t find where I’ve stated it in my blog, which doesn’t mean I haven’t, because I’m pretty sure I have!) It’s also the key to continual personal development, which means doing better at anything you care about. And you do care about something!

There likely is a third area (besides the general long-term interest in learning, technology, design, engagement, etc that are where my interests and experience lie). It’s just that I haven’t expressly thought about it, like I have the two above. I still think there’s not enough interest in the alignment between engagement and learning, which I explored in both my first book and my next to most recent one. For that matter, there’s not even sufficient understanding of learning science (topic of my sixth book), too many myths (my fifth book), and overall the wrong focus for L&D (my fourth book, if you happen to notice a trend :).

Of course, I’m basically on about helping orgs apply the cognitive and learning sciences to identify, understand, and provide remedies to problems they’re not quite sure whether or why they exist. (Hence the Learning Development Accelerator’s Learning Science Conference.) That’s the bigger picture. But, life’s short and there’s only so much one can focus on at any one time. So, bridging and meta-learning are two things I’m currently on about, while I continue to track what’s happening in all the related fields I care about. Am I missing anything?

Theory and Practice into Practice

1 September 2026 by Clark 1 Comment

One of the things that goes into my work is taking research and theory, and putting it into practice. Which manifests in a number of ways, but I thought I’d share one. Credit goes to the team at Elevator 9, because this is definitely a team effort. That is, others take my initial stabs, theory and practice, and turn it into practice. And the results are inspiring.

So, Elevator 9 is about taking what’s done in training events, and augmenting that to actually yield change that sticks. Importantly, also to document same. To do that, they started with my interpretation of the impact of spacing on learning, to yield an initial set of predictions. We moderated that on the basis of practicality.

They have some initial data, and it actually supports the premises. When folks follow the learning recommendations, they learn. When, for instance, they instead try to address all the interventions in one batch at the end, it doesn’t work. Of course, if learners don’t do it at all, they don’t become performers.

One barrier to all this is that people are busy. When the intervention recommendations come, it may not be at a suitable time. That led the team (e.g. COO Page Chen and Elizabeth Dalton primarily, in this case) to look at research on what leads people to actually choose to engage. Naturally, the recommendations, including from CEO David Grad, were to have a ‘pause’ button that would allow the learner to have the recommendation come later the same day. More importantly, the recommendation was to specify a particular time that would be good.

The premise is that when folks can commit to another time, they’re more likely to actually do it. If they actually specify a time, they’re making an even stronger commitment. That’s all to the good! (And that outcome wouldn’t have come from one person, but it comes from partnering.) This is theory again translating into practice.

It makes sense; research on spaced learning typically is done by college students in psych or education classes, in controlled studies. We’re instead looking at real people in real contexts. The reality we all face is different than the controlled conditions most research is conducted in. To be fair, we want those controlled conditions first, to give us predictions, but then we need to adapt to the current circumstances.

In fact, that’s the reason to pay attention to learning science (*cough* The Learning Science Conference *cough*), to get the first best guess and then refine through testing. If you don’t pay attention to the science, either you’re tuning will take longer, or you’ll be so wrong you abandon the initiative (or fall back on mistaken folklore). Neither’s optimal. So, to take theory and practice into practice, you need to take your interpretations of learning science, and then test and refine. It’s work, but the outcome is better. And, that’s what we’re about after all, right?

On ‘cognitive presence’

7 July 2026 by Clark Leave a Comment

I recently opined that while I thought the ideas in an article by Dr. Page Chen (COO of Elevator 9, the startup I advise, and very smart) were brilliant, I had reservations about the term ‘cognitive presence’. And maybe I should explain why. So let me do some riffing on cognitive presence.

First, it’s a well-regarded concept. In typical formulations, it’s part of a three-element model of learning under the concept of ‘community of inquiry‘, in conjunction with social presence and teaching presence. Further, it has a well-known definition, with specific phases that are part of my concern about going all the way from learning to application. Specifically, it includes triggering of the idea, exploration of the concepts, integration of the ideas, and resolution into a coherent whole. It is a bit academic, in that it doesn’t necessarily imply ‘doing’, but that’s obviously where it’s being taken.

One issue is that it’s well-known in education. That is, it’s known there, but it’s not necessarily cognizant to other audiences. In particular, I wouldn’t expect organization executives to know it. Frankly, I’m not sure all L&D folks know it! Thus, it’s a concept that’s accurate, but maybe not understood when talking to customers (or investors).

So why my concern? Because the label feels a bit ‘inert’. Presence means, to me, “I’m present”. I’m here. Which doesn’t mean I’m engaged, applying, and closing the loop. It’s absolutely the right idea, it’s just not a good label. That is, for those who don’t about the concept, this label isn’t going to inspire them. And, to be fair, I’m totally willing to be wrong on this. It’s just that I fear that the term, without explanation, isn’t going to lead to the insights about what we’re doing that we want.

Thus, I’m leery of the term, and somewhat keen to find another. Of course, I don’t have an immediate alternative to offer. What would be good? It’s about capturing progress along the trajectory from knowledge to application. Is that the right term, application trajectory? Or…? I’m not (yet? ;) at the stage of having answers, but felt like I should explain my thinking (learning out loud, after all!). What’re your thoughts?

Presentation Process

7 April 2026 by Clark Leave a Comment

What is my process for creating a presentation? I realize that it’s at least two parts, that interact. First, there’s a story needing telling. What is it? What is the goal, and what story will get us there? Then, there’s the question of communicating the story. What are the important points to communicate? Together, it prompts some thinking on how to put it all together. It’s also to establish that creating a presentation is much different than just fronting up to an interview or conversation; there’s work! So, this is a reflection on the presentation process.

So, first, there needs to be a story. It typically comes from something I want to talk about. There are a number of things that I talk about, being old and having ideas (strong opinions loosely held ;). That includes learning science, meaningful engagement, design processes, the performance ecosystem, and more (most of which I’ve written books on). Lately, that includes AI, though no book. Still, there’s an audience, and I confer with the organizing body about what’s the right topic.

From there, there’re two parts. One is figuring out what story to tell. In one sense, it’s reaching back to what I’ve said on it before, but…it’s also influenced by new thoughts. The world isn’t static, and so too my presentations generate afresh. I do start anew, unless I’m deliberately asked to redo a previous topic (and even then, I revisit). The main question is where do I want to end, and how do I want to get there.

The second part are the steps along the way. This means, basically, what points do I want to make, and how to make those points? I resort to two typical mechanisms, I confess. I’ll use images (read: photos) to communicate ideas (rather than bullet points). This is deliberate, as I believe (and I welcome research pro/con) that the lack of implicit connection opens up the attendees thoughts prior to me making the link. Then there are diagrams to communicate the underlying models. These, I’ve been led to know requires me to build them. Most are complex enough that it helps to start with a core and then elaborate.

Sometimes I provide some examples, usually in my discussion, but occasionally with screen captures. That’s a good thing, and I should do it more! Of course, there’s a small problem that sometimes I’m talking about things that are proprietary. Or, that are far enough ahead that they haven’t yet seen the light of day.

It’s important to recognize that this doesn’t happen linearly. I move forward, and backward, multiple times as I create a presentation. I move chunks around, change representations, etc. Really, presentations are a chance to reflect, and have even led to me changing my thinking (and so, my diagrams!). Research on design actually shows people cycling between bottom-up and top-down behaviors, and I resemble that remark! BTW, I could use AI in parts of this, except for the fact that the AI runs on stolen IP, amongst other problems, so not yet.

Also, I practice delivery. I do not shoot for an exact presentation, because those inevitably feel canned. I confess, I like TedTalks and good keynotes, but if they’re word-perfect, I do note that as well, negatively. What I want to ensure is that the message stays consistent, even though my presentation varies each time. That’s ok, and makes for a more natural presentation (and also allows for audience participation, so questions can be addressed). That’s not necessarily true for keynotes, which I do, but there’s evidence I do tell engaging and meaningful stories for those as well! So, some thoughts on presentation process. What did I miss? How does this reflect your process?

Going it alone?

31 March 2026 by Clark Leave a Comment

I’ve been an independent consultant for the past quarter century. Which would make you think I go it alone. And, occasionally, I do. I’ve written my books myself. I’ve gone into consulting engagements on my own. I typically do my presentations on my own. Yet, not really. And, it’s not what I recommend. So, why do we think we should be going it alone?

It’s easy to think I’ve done much of my activities alone (and sometimes it feels like it). Yet, when you think about it, it’s really not. I’ve had publishers and editors on books. Also, of course, I’m building on the work of others (that I cite; academic holdover). Plus, I’ve had folks provide feedback that has improved my thinking. That includes on presentations and articles, which tend to have editors as well, or at least program managers. And, then there’s the feedback by the victims, er, audience. And even consulting I’m engaging with the clients and having them help me understand the context and review drafts of reports before acceptance. It’s essentially not alone!

Folks thinking about social, like Mark Britz (co-author of Social By Design) or Harold Jarche (of Personal Knowledge Mastery fame) remind us that we’re better together. That can be what is determined either authoritatively or collectively, and then there’s what’s offered freely. Still, the benefits of working together, of social cognitive processing, are that we are highly likely to get better when we get others’ feedback.

Which is why I feel bad when I hear about the lone L&D practitioner in an org, or someone doing a course by themselves. Ok, for the former, ideally they’re interacting with the SMEs at least, but hopefully they’re also getting support in connecting with peers at events like conferences or chapter meetings. For the latter, there at least could be checkpoints where your work gets review and feedback. Heck Watts Humphrey noted this in software engineering, we should likewise worry about it. We need feedback to improve, and that comes from others. (In a tighter loop than quarterly.)

I also worry as people more and more seem to be choosing, or being ‘voluntold’, to use tools that minimize interaction. It’s already been seen that this diminishes personal development. It’s also concerning for building culture, and more. In short, we don’t want people not collaborating; that’s where new ideas come from! While some of the tools may help the less-than-average person be better in the moment, they’re not developing over time. That’s not a long-term path to success.

You simply shouldn’t be going it alone. You should continually be learning, and that means getting feedback. And, of course, learning to learn from that feedback in all forms, and reading or watching something can be that. It can be challenging (says the introvert) to work with others, but when it happens the outcome is almost always better. At least if you follow good process! So please, find someone to be your partner in your endeavors. I’m trying, I hope you will too!

Why aren’t things changing?

24 March 2026 by Clark Leave a Comment

Change is everywhere. We’ve heard again and again that the pace of change is increasing. Certainly we’re seeing more chaos in our society. Yet, some things don’t seem to change, L&D in particular. Why is that? Why aren’t things changing?

For one, I’m not alone in advocating for more. Jay Cross was promoting Informal Learning, and Marc Rosenberg was talking Beyond eLearning before I came out with Revolutionize L&D. Since then, (and, of course, before) there’s been a growing number of people talking about how we need to stop being ‘order takers’ and start being strategic about our energy and use of technology. Guy Wallace and the whole Performance Consulting industry is one facet. We see books from the likes of Lori Niles-Hoffman, Jess Almlie, and even Keith Keating, amongst others. We hear from folks as wise as Jane Bozarth, David Kelly, Connie Malamed, Ruth Clark, Will Thalheimer, Julie Dirksen, Don Taylor, Michael Allen, Nigel Paine, Megan Torrance, Matt Richter, and more (the list goes on). The message is pretty clear: only do courses when they make sense, and then do them well.

So why do we continue to see companies producing and consuming ‘info dump’ elearning? Training that’s just bullet points? Why do we have tools that continue to make it easy to put up content and add a knowledge test, let alone having ‘click to see more’? Why are there ice-breakers and ‘team-building’ activities that have no meaningful relation to the topic? Where’s the spaced learning? How come we continue to have learning experiences that are engaging, but not effective?

On reason, of course, is the industry. The vendors do tend to focus on producing ‘content’; even their touted uses of AI are to make content faster and cheaper (but the missing leg of the engineering stool is ‘better’, why is that?). Let’s track completions, rather than impact, eh? We don’t have to talk across silos that way, so it’s easier. And, it’s less work to make content tools than to engineer learning experiences. But…isn’t that our real mission?

Another reason, of course, is stakeholder awareness. There are expectations that we should build courses quickly, and that information leads to behavior change. Both are wrong, of course. But why do these beliefs persist? Aren’t we, and shouldn’t we be, extinguishing them? It’s more than a quarter century into the 21st one, you’d think folks would know better. Particularly when it affects their ability to succeed!

Our own awareness may be a barrier too. That is, there are lots of folks who come into ID without preparation. As Cammy Bean noted, folks are starting as the Accidental Instructional Designer. It’s also hard to buck the hierarchy when you’re new. And it’s rewarding to get high scores on our courses by attendees. Particularly if we don’t know better. Still, it’s painful to bear.

Now, I do believe, and see, gradual change. It is getting better. Yet, while I’m not known for patience, it’s still taking way too long! We have the opportunity to be making our orgs so much better. We could be extending learning, developing learning-to-learn skills, fostering innovation, and meeting real needs, instead of dumping information worthlessly. We’re wasting money! So, yes, I’m frustrated. Are you? Why aren’t things changing? What am I missing?

My technology for performance

24 February 2026 by Clark 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

20 January 2026 by Clark 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

6 January 2026 by Clark 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.

« Previous Page