Search Results for: top 10

Is “Workflow Learning” a myth?

24 September 2024 by Clark 5 Comments

There’s been a lot of talk, of late, about workflow learning. To be fair, Jay Cross was talking about learning in the flow of work way back in the late 1990s, but the idea has been recently suborned and become current. Yet, the question remains whether it’s real or a mislabeling (something I’m kind of anal about, see microlearning). So, I think it’s worth unpacking the concept to see what’s there (and what may not be). Is workflow learning a myth?

To start, the notion is that it’s learning at the moment of need. Which sounds good. Yet, do we really need learning? The idea Jay pointed to in his book Informal Learning, was talking about Gloria Gery’s work on helping people in the moment. Which is good! But is it learning? Gloria was really talking about performance support, where we’re looking to overcome our cognitive limitations. In particular, memory, and putting the information into the world instead of in the head. Which isn’t learning! It’s valuable, and we don’t do it enough, but it’s not learning.

Why? Well, because learning requires action and reflection. The latter can just be thinking about the implications, or in Harold Jarche’s Personal Knowledge Mastery model, it’s about experimenting and representing. In formal learning, of course, it’s feedback. I’ve argued we could do that, by providing just a thin layer on top of our performance support. However, I’ve never seen same! So, you’re going to do, and then not learn. Okay, if it’s biologically primary (something we’re wired to learn, like speaking), you’re liable to pick it up over time, but if it’s biologically secondary (something we’ve created and aren’t tuned for, e.g. reading) I’d suggest it’s less likely. Again, performance is the goal. Though learning can be useful to support comprehending context and making complex decisions, what we’re good at.

What is problematic is the notion of workflow and reflection in conjunction. Simply, if you’re reflecting, you’re by definition out of the workflow! You’re not performing, you’re stopping and thinking. Which is valuable, but not ‘flow’. Sure, I may be overly focused on workflow being in the ‘zone’, acting instead of thinking, but that, to me, is really the notion. Learning happens when you stop and contemplate and/or collaborate.

So, if you want to define workflow to include the reflection and thoughtful work, then there is such a thing. But I wonder if it’s more useful to separate out the reflection as things to value, facilitate, and develop. It’s not like we’re born with good reflection practices, or we wouldn’t need to do research on the value of concept mapping and sketch noting and how it’s better than highlighting. So being clear about the phases of work and how to do them best seems to me to be worthwhile.

Look, we should use performance support where we can. It’s typically cheaper and more effective than trying to put information into the head. We should also consider adding some learning content on top of performance support in times where people knowing why we’re doing it as much as what we should do is helpful. Learning should be used when it’s the best solution, of course. But we should be clear about what we’re doing.

I can see arguments why talking about workflow learning is good. It may be a way to get those not in our field to think about performance support. I can also see why it’s bad, leading us into the mistaken belief that we can learn while we do without breaking up our actions. I don’t have a definitive answer to “is workflow learning a myth” (so this would be an addition to the ‘misconceptions’ section of my myths book ;). What I think is important, however, is to unpack the concepts, so at least we’re clear about what learning is, about what workflow is, and when we should do either. Thoughts?

The Damage Done

20 August 2024 by Clark Leave a Comment

There’ve been a recent discussions about misinformation. One question is, what does it hurt? When you consider myths, superstitions, and misconceptions (the breakdown in my book on L&D problems), what can arise? Let’s talk about the damage done.

So, let’s start with myths. These, I claim, are things that have been shown not to have value by empirical research. There are studies that have examined these claims, and found them to not have data to support them. For instance, accommodating learning styles is a waste. Yes, we know people differ in learning, but we don’t have a reliable base. Moreover, people’s choices to work for (or against) their style don’t make a difference in their learning. Some of the instruments are theoretically flawed as well as psychometrically invalid.

What’s the harm? I’ll suggest several ways in which myths harm us. For one, they can cause people to spend resources (money & time) addressing them that won’t have an impact. It’s a waste! We can also characterize people in ways that limit them; for instance if they think they learn in a particular way, they may avoid a topic or invest effort in an inappropriate way to learn it. Investing in unproven approaches also perpetuates them, propagating the beliefs to others.

Superstitions, as I define them, are beliefs nobody would claim to believe, yet somehow persist in our practices. For instance, few will claim to believe that telling is sufficient to achieve behavior change. Yet, we continue to see information presentation and knowledge test, such as “awareness” training. Why? This is a waste of effort. There aren’t outcomes from these approaches. Typically, they are legacies of expectations from previous decades, yet business practices haven’t been updated. Still, to the extent that we continue these practices, even while decrying them, we’re again wasting time and money. Maybe we tick boxes and make people happy, but we can (and should) do better.

The final category is misconceptions. These are beliefs that some hold, and others decry. They aren’t invalid, but they only make sense in certain circumstances. I suggest that those who defy them don’t have the need, and those who tout them are in the appropriate circumstance. What matters is understanding when they make sense, and then using them, or not, appropriately. If you avoid them when they make sense, you may make your life harder. If you adopt them when they’re not appropriate, you could make mistakes or waste money.

At the end of the day, the damage done is the cost of wasting money and time. Understanding the choices is critical. To do so best, you can and should understand the underlying cognitive and learning sciences. You should also track the recognized translators of research into practice who can guide you without you having to read the original academese. To be professional in our practice, we need to know and use what’s known, and avoid what’s dubious. Please!

Sleep & Walking

6 August 2024 by Clark 2 Comments

We interrupt our regularly scheduled blog for this public service announcement. We will resume normal broadcasting after this brief message.

My late friend, Jay Cross, once wrote a post that said something to the effect of: “if you want to have better health, lose weight…<and a litany of other health benefits>…start walking.” My reasons are in addition to that, actually. I also believe strongly in sleep. (Let me be clear, not sleep walking, of which I have no knowledge.) So here’re some thoughts on sleep & walking.

First, let’s talk sleep. I don’t know why (self-justification?), but I’ve regularly tracked the research on sleep. And, I find some robust results:

Most of us really are best off with 8 hours of sleep
Reading in the same place you sleep means you don’t read nor sleep as well
Keeping a regular sleep schedule helps
Naps are good

Also, of course, most people don’t do this. Personally, I try. It used to be about optimizing performance, but these days it’s more about maintaining performance! I can nap, though I usually don’t need to because of the first three. Also, I do try to get my eight hours (and am generally successful). I definitely don’t read in bed (tho’ occasionally I’ll get up to write something down so it’s off my brain and I can go back to sleep). And I try to be pretty regular in my sleep. I’m just following what’s recommended, and it seems to work. There’s more I’m not necessarily so good at, of course.

When it comes to walking, I don’t get it every day. That’s ok, because I try to exercise 5 days a week, and 3 of those are to use my torture device, er, exercise machine. Which I now do for 30 minutes 3 times a week, per the doc who asked for that much time at >100 beats per minute. As well as two strength things and some physio things to counteract my sedentary work life. I was doing 20+ minutes, with High Intensity Interval Training (10 of those mins are 30 secs intense, 30 secs not), and that’s still the case. I just extended the cool down.

The other two days a week I walk (sometimes more if we do it on our weekend). I have a set route, so my mind can be free. Annie Murphy Paul, whose book The Extended Mind I cited in my recent ‘post cognitive’ presentation (requires free membership) for the LDA, talks about the benefits of being out in nature. Of course, my walk is through my neighborhood, but it’s a bit wild (no sidewalks; wild animals can be spotted such as turkeys, hawks, quail, the occasional coyote).

My rationale for walking, however, in addition to health, is time to think! I come up with blog post topics, resolve questions, and more. Further, I don’t have headphones on, deliberately, so I’m aware but also allow what comes to mind. I also walk on the left side of the road, to face oncoming traffic, both a good idea and the law. (Too often I see folks walking with earphones, on the wrong side of the road, sometimes even with animals on a leash or a kid in a stroller! Yikes!)

We know that having time to reflect works. Being outside is also a boon. Together, it’s valuable time to think, as well as a healthy activity. I encourage you to follow good sleep practices and get in some walking (or equivalent, if there’re reasons that’s not possible). I’ve heard that walking conversations are also productive, but I work from home, so…

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

Emotions

30 July 2024 by Clark 2 Comments

Emotion matters. Yes, largely it’s a cultural construct, as Lisa Feldman Barrett tells us. Still, they can help or hinder learning. When designing games or creating meaningful learning, they matter. But they also affect us in our daily activities.

So, my previous post, on misinformation, is personal. I’ve frustration that family members are buying into some of it. I try to maintain a calm demeanor, but it’s challenging. Still, it’s a battle I’ve not yet given up on. Yet, I’m also not immune to the larger effects of emotion.

What we know, from the Yerkes-Dodson Curve, is that a little bit of arousal (read: emotion) can help, but too much can hurt. What isn’t clear from my conceptual rendering is what amount is the ‘right’ amount of arousal for optimal performance. I’ll suggest that for learning, it’s pretty low, as learning is stressful (another synonym for arousal). And I do suggest we manipulate emotions (which I admit is shorthand for motivation, anxiety, and confidence, which aren’t the regular definition) to successfully achieve learning outcomes.

However, even general functioning gets difficult when things are stressful. When I look at the design of casinos, for instance, (a way to cope with the too many times I have to go to Vegas for conferences), I note that they deliberately have low information, lights, no clocks, as an information-sparse environment. It is deliberate, so that you’re more focused on the enticements. They want you confused because you’re then more vulnerable to predations.

I fear that there’s a bit of this in our culture. For instance, fear sells: more alarmist headlines lead to more engagement. Which is good for the news business, but perhaps bad for us in several ways. For one, there’s a vested interest in focus on the alarming, not the bigger picture. Similarly, twisting stories to get emotional engagement isn’t unknown. That can be entertaining, but when it’s the information we depend on is manipulated, it’s problematic. Reducing support for education similarly reduces the intelligence people can apply to analysis.

I struggled to focus to find a topic this week, and I realize it’s because of the informational turmoil that’s currently in play. So, I thought I’d write about it (for better or worse ;). Exaggeration of issues for the sake of clicks and sales, I’ll suggest isn’t a good thing. I’m willing to be wrong, but I worry that we’re over-excited. Our emotions are being played on, for purposes that are not completely benign. That’s a worry. That’s what’s worrying me, what about you?

A Learning Science Conference?

9 July 2024 by Clark Leave a Comment

In our field of learning design (aka instructional design), it’s too frequently the case that folks don’t actually know the underlying learning science that guides processes, policies, and practices. Is this a problem? If it is, what is the remedy?

Consider that you wouldn’t want an electrician that didn’t understand the principles of electricity. Such a person might not understand, for instance, the importance of grounding, leavning open the possibility of burning down the house.

So, too, with learning. If you don’t understand learning science, you might not understand why learning styles is a waste of money, the lack of value of information alone, nor that you should make alternatives to the right answer reflect typical misconceptions. There’s lots more: models, context, and feedback are also included in the topics that most folks don’t understand the nuances of.

If you don’t understand learning science, you waste money. You are likely to design ineffective learning, wasting time and effort. Or you might expend unnecessary effort on things that don’t have an impact. Overall, it’s a path to the poorhouse.

Of course, there are other reasons why we don’t have the impact we should: mismatched expectations on costs and time, SME recalcitrance and hubris, and more. Still, you’re better equipped to counter these problems if you can justify your stance from sound research.

The way to address this, of course, also isn’t necessarily easy. You might read a book, though some can mislead you. And, you still don’t get answers if you have questions. Or, you could pay for a degree, but those can be quite expensive and ineffective. Too frequently they spend time on process and not enough on principles.

There’s another option, one we’re providing. What if you could get the core essentials curated for their relevance? Further, this content is provided for you asynchronously, buttressed by the opportunity for meaningful interaction, in a tight time frame (at different times depending on your location)? Then, the presentation is by some of the most important names in the field, individuals who’ve reliably demonstrated an ability to translate academic research into comprehensible principles? And, finally, this is delivered at an appropriate cost? Does that sound like a valuable proposition?

I’d like to invite you to the Learning Science Conference, put on by the Learning Development Accelerator. Faculty already agreed include Ruth Clark (co-author of eLearning & The Science of Instruction), myself (author of Learning Science for Instructional Designers), Matt Richter (co-director of the Thiagi group), and Nidhi Sachdeva (faculty at University of Toronto). The curriculum covers 9 of the most important elements of learning science including learning, myths and barriers, motivation, informal and social learning, media, and evaluation.

This event is designed to leave you with the foundations necessary to be able to design learning experiences that are both engaging and effective, as well as dealing with the expected roadblocks to success. Frankly, we see little else that’s as comprehensive and practical. We hope to see you there!

Break it down!

2 July 2024 by Clark 2 Comments

In our LDA Forum, someone posted a question asking about taking Cathy Moore’s Action Mapping for soft skills, like improving team dynamics. Now, they’re specifically asking about a) people with experience, and b) in the context of not-for-profits, so…I’m not a good candidate to respond. However, what it does raise is a more common problem: how do you train things that are more ephemeral. Like, for instance, leadership, or communication? My short answer is “break it down”. What do I mean? Here’re some thoughts, and I welcome feedback!

Many moons ago, I co-wrote a paper on evaluating social media impacts. There are the usual metrics, like ‘engagement’. That is, are people using the system? Of course, for companies charging for their platform, this could be as infrequent as a person accessing it once a month. More practically, however, it should be a person hitting it at least several times a week, or even several times a day! If you’re communicating, cooperating, and collaborating, you really should be interacting at a fair frequency.

I, on the other hand, argued for more detailed implications. If you’re putting it into a sales team, you should expect not only messages, but more success on sales, shorter sales cycles, etc. So you can get more detailed. These days, you can do even more, and have the system actually tag what the messages are about and count them. You can go deeper.

Which is what I think is the answer here. What skills do you want? For an innovation demo with Upside Learning, I argued we should break it down. That includes how to work out loud, and how to provide feedback, and how to run group meetings. (I’m just reading Alex Edman’s May Contain Lies, and it contains a lot of details about how to consider data and evidence.) We can look for more granular evidence. Even for skills like team dynamics, you should be looking at what makes good dynamics. So, things like making it safe yet accountable, providing feedback on behavior not on the person, valuing diversity, etc. There should be specific skills you want to develop, and assess. These, then, become the skills you design your learning to accomplish. You are, basically, creating a curriculum of the various skills that comprise the aggregated topic.

It may be that you assess a priori, and discover that only some are missing in your teams. That upfront analysis should happen regardless, but is too infrequent. The interlocutor here also mentioned the audience complaining about the time for analysis. Yep, that’s a problem. Reckon you have to sell the whole package: analyzing, designing, and evaluating for impact on performance, not just some improvement. Yet, compared to throwing money away? Seems like targeting intervention efforts should be a logical sell. If only we lived in a rational world, eh?

Still, overall, I think that these broad programs break down into specific skills that can be targeted and developed. And, we should. Let’s not get away with vague intentions, explanations, and consequently no outcomes. Let’s do the work, break it down, and develop actual skills. That, at least, is my take, I welcome hearing yours!

Diving or surfacing?

25 June 2024 by Clark Leave a Comment

In my regular questing, one of the phenomena I continue to explore is design. Investigating, for instance, reveals that, contrary to recommendations, designers approach practice more pragmatically. That’s something I’ve been experiencing both in my work with clients and recent endeavors. So, reflecting, are and should folks be diving or surfacing?

The original issue is how designers design. If you look at recommendations, they typically recommend starting at the top level conceptualization and work down, such as Jesse James Garrett’s Information Architecture approach (PDF of the Elements of User Experience; note that he puts the highest level of conceptualization at the bottom and argues to work up). Empirically, however, designers switch between top-down and bottom-up. What do I do?

Well, it of course depends on the project. Many times (and, ideally), I’m brought in early, to help conceptualize the strategy, leveraging learning science, design, organizational context, and more. I tend to lead the project’s top-level description, creating a ‘blueprint’ of where to go. From there, more pragmatic approaches make sense (e.g. bringing in developers). Then, I’m checking on progress, not doing the implementation. I suppose that’s like an architect. That is, my role is to stay at the top-level.

In other instances, I’m doing more. I frequently collaborate with the team to develop a solution. Or, sometimes, I get concrete to help communicate the vision that the blueprint documents. Which, in working with an unfamiliar team, isn’t unusual. That ‘telepathy’ comes with getting to know folks ;).

In those other instances, I too will find out that pragmatic constraints influence the overarching conceptualization, and work back up to see how the guidelines need to be adapted to account for the particular instance. Or we need to deconnect from the details to remember what our original objective is. This isn’t a problem! In general, we should expect that ongoing development unearths realities that weren’t visible from above, and vice versa. We may have good general principles, (e.g. from learning science), but then we need to adapt them to our circumstances, which are unlikely to exactly match. In general, we need to abstract the best principles, and then de- and re-contextualize.

I find that while it’s harder work to wrestle with the details (more pay for IDs! ;), it’s very worthwhile. What’s developed is better as a result of testing and refining. In fact, this is a good argument about why we should iterate (and build it into our timelines and budgets). It’s hubris to assume that ‘if we build it, it is good’. So, let’s not assume we can either be diving or surfacing, but instead recognize we should cycle between them. Start at the top and work down, but then regularly check back up too!

What I’m up to

4 June 2024 by Clark Leave a Comment

Ok, so it’s been a wee bit too much about me (my books, themes), yet it occurs to me that I should document what I’m doing. (Which I’ve done before, but this is looking forward, too.) Not just for me (though it helps ;), but it’s because I realized my thinking other than books is actually getting spread out in various places. So, here’s what I’m up to…

Mostly, it’s centering around applying the cognitive and learning sciences to the design of solutions. In a variety of ways, of course. I’ve been working with Upside Learning, serving as their Chief Learning Strategist. They want to do more than pay lip service to learning science (which I laud). I’m working with them on evangelism, internal development, and more. I’m also working with Elevator 9, in this case as advisor. They’re a platform solution to complement live events, again doing so in alignment with our brains. I’m also serving as co-director of the Learning Development Accelerator. That’s a society focused on evidence-informed L&D, and we explore what this approach means in practice. In each, I’ve been advancing my own understanding, and sharing the learnings.

So, at LDA, you can find our podcasts, blog posts (some of which are free to air!), and some programs (some likewise). For members, we’re running some internal programs as well. I’ve been pleased to augment my previous program on You Oughta Know with this year’s YOK Practitioner, where I get to interview some really amazing people. Then there’s also the Think Like A…series, where we talk to representatives of adjacent fields we (should) be plagiarizing. Then there are workshops, and we’re always developing more things.

At Elevator 9, while most of the work is behind the scenes, I did author, and David Grad (the CEO) read and taped, a series of ‘liftologies’. These are short videos talking about the learning science that goes into their offering. When they redo the website, they’ll be easy to find, but right now they’re visible through the E9 LinkedIn page posts.

Upside Learning, on the other hand, has been proactive. They do a podcast with the CEO, Amit Garg (yes, I’ve been on it). They have a blog (and I’ve written some for them). I’ve also done some quick videos on myths. In addition, I’ve written some of their ebooks (topics like impact, microlearning, scenarios). And, of course, some webinars as well. These continue.

All this in conjunction with continuing as Quinnovation! I continue with a few clients, on a limited basis. These, of course, are not public, though the thoughts can percolate out (e.g. in this blog). I’m still doing some events, mostly virtually. For instance, I’ll be talking about the alignment between effective education and engaging events at LXDCon on Tues the 11th (at 7AM PT ). I’ll also be at DevLearn and Learning 2024.

That’s all I can think of at the moment. There’s more in the offing, of course. But for now, that’s what I’m up to. This blog may be (more than) enough, but the other sites prompt different thinking. They’re worth knowing about on their own, too! If you’re interested, these are places to either become evidence-based, apply it, or get it done. Obviously, it’s something I think is important for our industry. (As is knowing the human information processing loop, which I’ve made freely available.) Whatever you do, however you do it, please do avoid the myths and apply the science.

My Themes

28 May 2024 by Clark Leave a Comment

While there’s a high correspondence between my books and what I believe, it’s not one to one. While there’s overlap, there’s also unique (outsider?) perspectives. So as much for me as you, here’re my themes. It’s about applying what we know about cognition and learning. That also includes the emotional side. Moreover, we also need to apply it to the design process. That is, we, as designers, are applying, but also are subject to, what’s known about how we think, work, and learn. That’s led to a variety of things that are covered here.

It starts with a core focus on learning. Which starts with the core of cognition, the human information processing loop, but goes beyond. I think that core, by the way, is a critical thing that really everyone who designs for people (and that’s everyone) should know. (Made a video freely available to that end.) The phenomena that arise from and augment that architecture play a role here. It covers, by the way, material in two of my books: the learning science one and my myths one. It’s also the basis for my participation in the Serious eLearning Manifesto. It’s about us applying, correctly, what’s known about creating learning experiences that lead to real outcomes. I still think my focus on activity-based learning is an important way to think about creating experiences.

A complement to that is my focus on engagement in learning. Here I’m reflecting what’s been studied about making experiences engaging, across games, theatre and film, fiction, flow, and more. The first manifestation was in my book on designing serious games, but it’s morphed. My latest book is a complement to the learning science side and as a generalization of those early principles on games. I’ll be talking about this at LXDCon.

However, when we talk about performance, the picture broadens. (A topic I’ll be discussing for Upside Learning.) Marc Rosenberg talked about going beyond (e)learning, and Jay Cross wrote about informal learning. I like to think of an ecosystem approach to meeting the full suite of performance needs. This includes not just courses, but also performance support. However, it also goes further, talking about innovation as well. As I like to say, when you’re doing research, design, trouble-shooting, etc, you don’t know the answer when you begin, so it too is learning. I tried to capture this in my book on where L&D should go.

An older theme, about mobile, is in some sense no longer relevant. Mobile (for corporations and universities) has become ubiquitous and is part of the performance ecosystem. In fact, part of the recognition of the ecosystem perspective came from thinking about mobile with the recognition that it’s least about courses on a phone, and about so much more. The frameworks I created then – augmenting learning, performance support, social/informal, and context-specific – however, strike me as still worthwhile to consider. It’s really about the alignment of technology with our minds, which includes interface design and more.

Thus, implicit in the ecosystem perspective is technology. One thing we lag in is being smart about our systems. While web spinners have been using tagged content and rules, we typically still create experience hard coded in their delivery. We thus neglect content engineering, and similarly content management (e.g. the lifecycle). I was on this theme a number of years ago (content and context), but it’s sadly still relevant. I think the advent of generative AI may get folks to start thinking more about discrete content for adaptive delivery, but I’d still use a different approach to implement.

Again, it’s the application of how we think, work, and learn, to the design of solutions. In my case, for performance outcomes for individuals and organizations. Not sure what my next theme will be (or whether there’ll even be one, these are still all too relevant). I’m not sure this is comprehensive, so hopefully this first stab will give me time to think about it more!

More on coaching

16 April 2024 by Clark Leave a Comment

Recently, the LDA had a debate about coaching, following on the podcast interview. The wise Emma Weber represented the pro argument, while the LDA’s own Matt Richter was con. (Note that these are false divides, we explore the topic for the sake of unpacking issues.) Superb moderating from Kat Koppett was a bonus! As the discussion went, it uncovered more on coaching, without yielding any finality (for reasons we’ll explore).

So, one of the problems emerged immediately, getting into definitions. Matt pushed a bit on the ‘like sport’ notion, where coaching has lots of specific knowledge, while Emma was more on the domain-independent side of coaching. What emerged was that different people have different definitions. Some folks (like me) put coaching further on the domain-dependent side, with mentoring being the more abstract. However, it’s clear others view coaching as the more advanced and deeper side.

This divide isn’t new, but it does provide some barriers, not least to research! As that issue came up, Kat pointed us to a study that began by saying “However, the coaching research suggests a large variety of processes and outcomes, lacking clarity on the primary psychological dimensions most impacted.” Their meta-analysis suggested that “executive coaching is a powerful instrument for organizations to support positive change and personal development.” Which is a good thing, for sure. Their definition does seem to err more on the general side, which is interesting. And, to my own understanding, an important lesson.

One issue that stuck with me was thinking through the range of development. After the formal learning experience, I think there’re times when folks need to be observed, and provided some feedback as they perform. It became clear that the domain-independent model wants the learner to recognize for themselves when they’re not doing well and need to ask for assistance. Yet, a crucial inflection point is making that transition, and I believe that folks aren’t there right away. Similarly, we may not have the resources to add in all the complexities to a particular model for this task initially. So, we expect coaches (read: supervisors and managers) to help develop understanding. Maybe that’s not coaching, by definition, but it’s a task.

I’ll agree at some point you can start guiding folks to their own improvements, but I suspect that only comes when some base level of understanding is reached. We should be clear about this type of interaction as well as the one advocated for coaching! Similarly, we need clarity on labelling! We didn’t end up coming to any finality on that, sadly.

An issue I hadn’t thought about, but became important in the discussion is the issue of appropriate coaching. Clearly, some approaches to coaching don’t work . Knowing when you can expect the coachee to be capable of domain-independent coaching would be one important criteria. Knowing how to ask questions appropriately is another. My concern here is that there are a fair few models about coaching, and with the terminological and empirical barriers, how do you determine the best methods? If we’re to be evidence-based, how can we be?

I can’t say we came to any conclusions, but I do feel we unpacked more of the issues, and did give ourselves some guidance as to what to do when, even if we don’t have agreed upon names for it all yet. Coaching is important, of both types. The data from that study shows coaching can help. We know also that extending the learning experience through feedback on performance helps. We just need to figure out how best to combine them so we know more about coaching. Those are my thoughts , at least, I look forward to yours.

« Previous Page