One of the things that I struggle with both professionally and in my doctoral studies is being in conversations with people who lack the skills needed or experience needed to see the vision and help craft the way. The red flag for me is someone who asks for your need, fails to respond to queues about possible enhancements, and delivers exactly what was originally outlined in the need.

Sometimes when I see the end goal or the vision, I cannot always see the intermediate steps or possible enhancements that could make the vision better. It is like seeing that tall building when you are in a city but not knowing exactly how to reach it. I like to work with people who have the skills and experience around a subject, product, service, or process so they can fill in the gaps and help map out the solution.

My last conversation with my mentor was one of the those golden conversation with someone that has vision. She was able to see the end and help me with the steps needed to get there. At the end of the conversation, I had a way and enhancements to make it better (along with some homework to do). Consequently, I am on my way to the proposal and ARB/IRB submission. Tremendous value!

Conversely, I’ve been working on some service offerings outside the classroom and find that the group I am working with do not have the “vision”. The service is being  hosted in some powerful and commonplace software for business knowledge management. However, most of the people that hold the keys are figuring out the software as they go and lack the experience or skills needed to really “get it”. They are well intentioned but just underdeveloped in regards to the software. Consequently, the products that come out look pieced together and rough. Tremendous opportunity cost!

Creative problem solving aside, sometimes we just don’t know what we don’t know and that has a cost associated with it.

There seems to be a value when we get people involved that actually possess the skills and experience necessary to bring a vision to life in a way that the original visionary might not have realized possible. At work this is a project that takes off and delivers outstanding results. In school this is getting over the hump or building an amazing project on something really cool.

I find it easier, more productive, and more valuable to vision with people who have vision and skills enough to help. It might have a direct cost associated with it but the indirect value far outweighs those costs.

Image source: rogiro

We’ve all spent time wondering what it is that training departments and trainers do all day. In fact, if you read my blog often enough you’ve probably caught some posts about the change in training departments from being all formal learning to being a full-service provider of learning including multiple modalities, multiple styles, and multiple approaches. My research is focused on one such activity: the learning impact of using blogs and poscasts in corporate training.

I’ve spent my career becoming a learning and performance professional. I study the profession, experience the profession, and think about the profession. A lot. Just as you study your jobs and careers, I study mine. It is, in fact, what makes us professionals. You won’t catch me going around claiming to be a professional in another venue and yet I often find people coming along to pretend to be professionals in mine without the experience, education, of skills to do so.

That said, or written, some recent activity in my experiencing of the profession has caused me to think about how best to work with professional training departments. For those in the know and not-in the know, feel free to add to the list below:

• Staff the department with people who demonstrate an understanding of learning and performance.
• Involve the department early in your projects and processes so they get the benefit of knowing what is going on and how to make that sound training for your people.
• Be a partner, not an autocrat, that listens to the advice of these professionals and works with them to a mutually beneficial end.
• Assist in finding performance benchmarks that can be used to evaluate learning beyond the ‘smile sheets’
• Get the group involved in communities of practice so they can continually enhance and evolve the learning in your organization
• Provide the department realistic resources to do the job expected of them
• Insist that learning and performance leadership ‘sit at the table’ with you
• Incorporate more learning modalities, styles, and approaches than PowerPoint driven classroom training
• Don’t send your cast offs into training departments. We don’t want them either.
• Don’t constantly ‘move the ball’ on the training department. Leaders stick to the plan.

I am sure there are a lot more, but the essence you should draw from this list is that this group should aid in leading your organization. Moreover, the new economy is going to be creative and thought leadership; you’d be well advised to position your organization for that change now.

Image Source: Scoobymoo

Clark Quinn, writing for TogetherLearn, posted an interesting response to criticism about the informal learning. Quinn’s point was simply that training is changing and a true professional will include elements of informal learning into the spectrum of services provided for clients and organizations. I couldn’t agree more.

In my research people often think that I am advocating the overthrow of classroom learning. I am not. Like Quinn, and others, I don’t think classroom learning will go away but it does need to change both in purpose and in implementation. Quinn talks about the purpose of classroom learning under the guise of formal instruction (which is more comprehensive than simply classroom learning):

there [is] a role for formal instruction (when you’ve new folks, or are moving to a new suite of skills)

he continues…

Most classrooms (live or virtual) focus on knowledge dump, don’t present appropriate practice, don’t assess in meaningful ways, and aren’t leading to the necessary changes in behavior.  Classrooms persist more because they’re efficient, not because they’re effective!

What you should be paying attention to is that expertise is no guarantee of quality.  Learning designed by listening to SMEs often is fact-heavy, and irrelevant. Experts don’t even know how they do things, and rely on the knowledge they’ve learned.

I’ve lived this all my training life, knowledge dumps, and it only sets me to take the materials and learn it on my own using informal techniques. Personally, this suggests the the role of formal instruction is to convey knowledge. In fact, I tell people this all the time…training closes knowledge gaps not performance gaps. I get a chuckle out of people that feel training is the hammer to fix all problems. It is expensive, time consuming, and according to research not meeting expectations or objectives.

When you think about how and what you learn everyday (and I mean really reflect on it) it is done through other means than formal instruction. Today that looks like website, web communities, podcasts, blogs, talking to people, emailing people, IMing people. Oh yes, people still attend the occasional class but that is to learning something new.

Quinn sums up, in a way I feel is spot on:

Yes, formal is part of the full spectrum, the full ecosystem, the full learnscape of solutions.  But the ‘classroom’ shouldn’t be the standard bearer.  We aren’t calling for the death of formal instruction, we’re calling for a) acknowledging and incorporating informal learning, and b) death of the classroom as a ’showup and throwup’ or ’spray and pray’ proposition.

Being a full spectrum provider means that you have a multitude of tools available that match the situation and need (not necessarily want). Think about where you’d rather shop. Do you want to drive all over town to hit the specializations you need or look for the mall or location that has the most things to offer. As a learning professional, I want to be the provider of as many things as possible, not a generalist but  a specialist in many areas. I also want to know about many things and have the connections to bring them in when needed.

For my dissertation this means that I am providing some further evidence to support one area of informal learning and help organizations make a conscious choice about what to use, when, and how.

Image source: tanakawho

All my life, I’ve been told to expand my vocabulary. The reasoning ranges from the fun of new words to the importance of being intelligent. As of late, I’ve been told that the words I use intimidate those that do not have expansive vocabularies. The feedback has come in combination with other feelings that the intelligence I portray in my speaking, writing, and everyday tasks make me appear aloof and intimidating.

I make no apologies for continually developing myself and moving into new realms of thought. My upbringing has encouraged me to be smart and let others know that I am capable of performing the tasks ahead.

What concerns me is that the feedback has been attached to possible negative repercussions associated with my job and performance. It strikes me as odd that people would label intelligence as a bad thing. Especially when working in learning and performance, as I do.

A friend told me last week that he has had to look up words used in some written and verbal communications with me. He said this as possible evidence of what others see but remained thankful for the improvements in his own vocabulary. Heck, I travel with my dictionary and access to web resources so that I can look up words used in communication so that I can both learn and keep up with the conversation without asking for it to be dumbed down. I don’t think that is a bad thing at all. I also don’t associate it with weakness. I see that as living a value of continual development.

I personally don’t think my vocabulary is that expansive. Evidence of this is how poorly I play scrabble and boggle. I truly don’t do well. Moreover, I know people with far more expansive vocabularies and never slighted them unless they were so far beyond normalcy that it warranted some regulation. Even still, I was more impressed than intimidated. I looked at it as a learning opportunity. I guess you could chalk that up to a Jesuit education.

I’m uncomfortable with being told to dumb down my language so others don’t think ill of me. I am uncomfortable with the idea that only simplistic words and phrasing are preferred vs. something more accurate and might potentially expand the vocabularies of others.

In a world that is changing, in an economy that is becoming more of a knowledge economy, intelligence needs to be rewarded. Vocabulary is one (albeit a small) aspect of the new economy. If you have to look words up, good. I do too.

Image Source: Drumaboy

I use the term metalearning alot when talking about the underlying principles in my training and development work. I used it yesterday and got a funny look (over the phone). The other party said “you mean learning, right?”

I responded in the negative and reassured the person I meant metalearning. But what is it?

Metalearning refers to the practice of learning how I learn or in your case, learning how you learn. Like metacognition, thinking about thinking, metalearning helps us become more powerful and thoughtful contributers to the organization. I post about leading through learning and how learning is the precondition to growth in the new economy but did not include my thoughts on metalearning. I simply hadn’t drawn the connection until my conversation late yesterday that leaders learn to learn.

Metalearning, for me, has enabled me to control and own my own learning and thus performance and productivity. I know how I learn and I control that in my interactions. The hard part is helping others understand that they do not know what is best for me in terms of learning.

For example, I was invited to review a training program and promptly agreed asking for the materials to be sent to me electronically so I can review them and offer insights. The response was a romantic posturing about how vital it was to see the delivery of the content, the nuances instructor’s banter, the pageantry of workgroups tackling problems, and a bunch of hokum about coming out for a week long program about a topic with which I am intimately familiar. The problem here is that the person feels that all people learn in one or few ways and that I, in fact, don’t know how I learn best.

As a Bill Kirwin, recent commenter added, “The state of knowledge work today can be summed up in one word. Overload.” I totally agree. Bill went on to offer guidance, “The key change that will allow innovation and creativity to arise is to reduce (not eliminate) the noise of email, info-feeds, social networks, etc.” Bill is talking about the influx of electronic media but the point goes well beyond that. It is about control what and how we learn and process knowledge for productive use in our environments.

Metalearning paves the way for you to own the learning and interact with knowledge in ways that are best and most productive. Moreover, it helps you to know when to switch the modality so you can get more. Probably the most powerful thing about metalearning is that you learn more about learning as you go. My mind is always on and I can absorb knowledge and process it at amazing rates, leaving some to wonder if I have got too much time on my hands.

So how do you learn to learn? I learned to learn in a Jesuit college. I mastered this when I took on the role of learning professional and began noticing how my information comes in, how it processes, and how it goes out. I took notes, I reflected on my learning, and began to practice and experiment with different modalities. It was almost like metacognition leading to metalearning.

Today’s task is for you to recognize when you are learning something and take a few notes about the modality of that experience and what you take from the situation. Do this a few times and you’ll be metalearning.

Image source: Envios

The March 2009 issue of Atlantic Monthly featured an article titled, “How the Crash will Reshape America” by Richard Florida, a professor at University of Toronto in Ontario, Canada. I caught the interview on NPR and the idea intrigued me to begin thinking about learning and creativity.

Florida’s primary tenet was that the economic reset the world is feeling know will result in a new economy driven by creativity and knowledge workers. As both a creative and knowledge worker, this was good news to me but caused some reflection about how learning can lead the economic reset and the next economic growth area — knowledge.

Tom Gram wrote about his reading of “The Elegant Solution: Toyota’s Formula for Mastering Innovation“, in a post named for one chapter, Let Learning Lead. Gram’s summary and captured points included how important learning was as the predeccessor for Toyota’s innovation, and in fact all innovation.

In it May argues that learning and innovation are intimately linked but that learning must come first–that it is a precondition for innovation. Through learning, ideas are converted into action.

A chief approach I use when leading training or learning interventions is that I want to create a thinking worker who can use learned knowledge, experience, and demonstrated skill to positively impact the organization. In other words, I don’t want robots, I want knowledge workers. Automatons just won’t do and if we heed Florida’s prophecy, automatons will not add value or grow the economy.

After reading Gram’s post, I headed off to Toastmasters, thinking about how learning was important to me. One of the speech’s delivered was titled, “Acres of Diamonds”. The speech, given by Jim Howe, was a throw back to Russell Conwell. Conwell was the founder of Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Jim’s speech summarized Conwell’s Acres of Diamonds speech which Conwell delivered over 6000 times to raise money to establish Temple University. Jim concluded with the primary point of the speech was that learning, knowledge, are the precursors to growth and riches.

Last night, I lay awake thinking about all these things and something Jim said in his speech. Jim said, “Mike knows”. Apart from the dramatic imagery of using knows in a speech about knowing, the point that I have my acres of diamonds, my precursor to growth, my precondition to innovation and sustainability, and the prerequisite skills for a new economy was particularly salient.

Leaders have long known that learning is a foundational skill to leadership itself. Learning is why my research is taking the profession to a new area so that we understand the impact of using technology in learning interventions. With this new (and old) importance shed on learning as the root of the future, I am re-doubling my efforts to complete my dissertation and get onto the next economy.

Tom Gram asked, in a recent post dubbed Fun with Learning Taxonomies:

Have learning taxononomies been useful or irrelevant in your own instructional design work?

The post serves as a nice summary of the most popular taxonmies for learning from Bloom to Merrill. As Tom points out many people use taxonomies as the end all be all of development following a rigidly prescribed methodology for determining learning. More adeptly, Tom points out that a skilled professional can adapt elements of several taxonomies to attain the right blend for achieving performance.

I’ve used taxonomies in many ways, from the prescribed through a blending of element to attain results. All of which have served my purpose at the time. What is important to understand is that everything has a purpose and use when in the right context. A colleague recently talked to me about having an understanding of many models, items, subjects, and then blending them to achieve the results required for the project, task, or job.

To Tom’s question. Yes, I find the understanding of many models of learning taxonomies helpful in my work. As an artisan of the trade, I find that pulling from here and there can be useful when the project calls for such activity. Moreover, I can often attain higher performance than anticipated when I use these models to capture authentic performance.

Right now, I am using Bloom’s taxonomy as the driving force behind my objectives development. Largely because the client is not sophisticated enough to see beyond some basic levels of assessment and performance. Can I move the needle on this? Yes, and over time I will broaden the thinking to really look at performance in terms of a blended model. Why not now? Like most things, I feel that some skill, experience, and tenure with taxonomies and in the trade lead us to the artisan level of blending models to serve our needs.

Last week I was speaking to a few people about podcasting as a form of learning intervention. My research is narrowing to look at the podcasting technology solely and this gives me the impetus to reflect on the tool in terms of learning and other aspects. I began to think about podcasting in the ways the literature I am reading suggests, as a standardized communication of a message to a massive or varied audience. In my experience, though, podcasting serves largely as a 1-way method of communication. I have something to say, I record it, I podcast it, you receive it, done. Podcasting, again in my experience, has not been a 2-way collaborative modality. The quote I delivered twice last week was “no one ever podcasts back”.

This is not entirely accurate. Podcasts often beget other podcasts, some retort from another podcaster but rarely will people interact with a podcast by sending a recorded comment directly to the producer. Instead, podcasts often serve as the front of a large collaborative community filled with blogs, wikis, and other social media. Podcasts alone are like radio stations, you may react but I won’t hear you.

On the other hand, I sit in a lot of teleconferences where I can interact with the hosts. However, I sit in a lot of teleconferences originating from the same source but with different hosts. Along with that, a slightly different message. Sometimes this is valuable and sometimes it is not valuable. Regardless of value, it is interactive and people comment or collaborate back and forth.

Do I see podcasting as an inferior technology for collaborative learning? Not really. Of course, research will bear this out quantitatively. I am truly neutral on this matter; curious really.

I don’t theorize that podcasting needs to be 1-way or non-collaborative in nature. With the advent of microphones, low/no cost recording software, built-in cameras, and the like, anyone can create a recorded comment and podcast back as it were. Podcasts are hot items these days and I wonder about the impact on learning.

Image Source: mag3737

Many years ago I made a decision to go into training and development. I loved the idea of educating job performers at something and watching it come to fruition on the floor (so to speak). A nice side benefit is the feeling of glory and pride when people know you and come to you for advice, counsel, and knowledge. What I quickly realized was that training departments and trainers were just the quickest path to knowledge and not necessarily the keepers of knowledge. It is a lesson I was happy to learn.

Harold Jarche blogged about Close the Training Department. Harold talks about the use of social media, or as I often call it collaborative learning technology, as a tool that is poorly used inside the traditional training mindsets.

I think that social media can be powerful tools for collaboration, working and learning, but they are rather useless inside a training box.

It is a trend to take social media devices and drop them into a training portal as if it were some oracle for people looking for learning services. I just completed a survey that showed a majority of people felt blogs, wikis, collaborative discussion forums, and the like were undesireable in a training portal (SharePoint in this case). However, the same respondent group felt that something being pushed to them would be more helpful. This went to another point Harold made:

Talk to the people at the coal face and find out what they really need. Few will say training. The days of developing & delivering are almost over. Connecting & Communicating should be the focus of learning and performance professionals in a networked environment.

I did and training was part of what they wanted but they wanted it delivered to directly to floor of the operation and not to some classroom. This leads me to believe that training is not a real need but a perceived need. People are smart, they need to know how to find knowledge quickly so it can be used effectively. So Harold’s point is well taken: connect people to knowledge and communicate it effectively for that group of people.

My realization of training as the quickest path to knowledge early on in my career enabled me to hone in my performance and deliver services that are needed. It is a paradigm shift for many training departments but as social media captures the interest of many in the training world, real learning and performance professionals are taking the reigns. We are trying to figure out if the tools impact learning, how the tools are used best, and what is needed by the performers of the job. Most importantly the transition needs to continue so that training departments become performance boosters.

The research I am doing helps address some of the popularity of social media devices with quantitative understanding of impact on learning. This can be expanded by looking at the real impact of using the tools in various ways.

Image Source: fredcavazza

I’ve been reading Harold Jarche‘s posts on change in the L&D industry, the future of training and development, and proficiency-based training. Harold is right on target with his predictions and sensitivity to the industry as it is happening now. I have no doubts Harold has been saying this for years and people looked at him like he had a third eye. I’m right there with him and have been saying the same things for some time.

By and large, learning and development professionals fail to understand performance and so they spend time teaching things without linking them to job or company performance. Thus, as Harold wrote,

Training is seen by this group of CEO’s (and I would wager many others) as superfluous to the company’s bottom line.

Harold’s simple advice is to be relevant to the business. Linking training and development to individual, departmental, and/or organizational performance is key to keeping the department relevant. Harold wrote,

I have met too few L&D professionals who can actually analyze work performance and come up with something other than training as the solution. Well, it seems that the days of the one trick pony are over.

Training is only one arrow in a quiver of available solutions for companies. Using it as a silver bullet (or one trick pony) will only lead you to buying a lot of silver bullets and not really looking at the problems and solutions.

Harold pointed me to another blog, Gram Consulting’s Performance by Design blog, and it too has had me reading and thinking. Tom Gram discussed what learning and development departments can do to stave off cuts during hard times. Tom gives five points to help grow training and development into a real learning and performance organization:Go and read the post for the full details, it is intriguing and valuable.

1. Expand your solutions: Break out of the training box
2. Improve your business processes
3. Consolidate your programs
4. Introduce (or improve) performance consulting
5. Develop a technology plan

Go and read the full post. It is intriguing and valuable but lengthy to copy directly into the Doc Blog.

Between Harold and Tom I found myself amongst kindred spirits of learning and performance. So much so that I took a hit list of posts and forwarded them to some folks I work with to get them thinking about what is possible. One person shouting for change is a lunatic on the corner, more people shouting for change is a movement to watch.

One post from Tom really got my juices flowing. I am working on developing a new model of learning and performance for an internal group that I serve. The group is unserved or underserved with regard to training and development but unlike a lot of companies, mine is investing. I was scooped up to lead the charge on this and thrilled for the chance. Still, this is an audience that is used to being in a classroom or flying for a seminar and cannot see how tools they use everyday for information can be altered to serve a real learning and performance need.

Tom’s post on Digital Performance Support: an alternative to e-learning captured just what I was thinking. The idea is that learning and performance professionals can be deploying digital tools that serve learning and job performance needs as they occur vs. scheduling a class or putting them through eLearning courses to no end. Tom’s point is simply that if we serve people with tools to help they will approach them at their own pace and eventually call on them less and less as they learn. Brillant! Give smart people smart information and they get smarter.

Part of my learning and performance model is just the thing Tom was writing about. If we create training and don’t support it or link it to performance we failed. As my fellow bloggers and industry colleagues have written, learning is changing and so should the services we offer.

As I continue to look into the impact of blogs, wikis, and podcasts on learning performance I am keeping an eye on how training is changing. Research will bear out some of the thinking here and hopefully move the industry into understanding what to adopt and how to use it more effectively.

Image Source: vito

I’ve been following the organizational learning and performance industry for over 10 years now. I am always amazed when folks spin training into something that it is not (like the cure all for every problem we face in a company). In the 10+ years of being a practitioner and leader I have come to one indisputable truth, people know how to learn on their own.

Training, then becomes a convenient one-stop shop for the knowledge required to satisfy the need. In other words, someone has gathered the knowledge objects into one location and developed a delivery mechanism to provide to those in need. That is not how I learn. Sure, I take classes at University of Phoenix and some of the information I need is in the class but the bulk of it requires me to search, collect, label, store, and deliver the knowledge to myself. In Jay Cross terms, this would be the creation of a Personal Learning Environment or PLE (although he did not develop this concept on his own…it is where I read it first).

I don’t think I am special and see people seeking out information and knowledge as needed, when needed, and where needed. For the most part, people know when they need to know. Rory posted a few weeks ago about his own quest for knowledge and how that flies in the face of his job as an instructional designer. He writes,

When I need to learn something I pretty much create my own little PLE of resources and information, documents, bookmarks … you name it. My LMS-of-choice (if I can call it that) is Google.

Now, I’m fond of saying that training addresses knowledge gaps. For the most par this is true. Performance changes come from a different set of solutions, for the most part (no absolutes here). If training is an information delivery system and the need can be met differently (more effectively, cheaper, and faster) then people will go that route.

Harold Jarche talks about the changing role of training to enable the performance of the individual worker and be extension the organization. Harold writes,

I think that a better approach would be for the organisation to focus on measurable performance and give workers the time and support to direct their own learning. The T&D function then provides support, but not direction, and also provides a feedback loop to develop better performance support from the organisation.

I agree, I have agreed, and as recently as this morning I stated the same. As a learning and performance professional my job is to get folks to learn what is needed and enhance their individual performance. I just bid a job where I said the same and you would have thought the seas parted and light shone down on the meeting. The folks in the meeting responded like they thought this is what they had wanted for a long time but never had the words to describe it.

It shows you that the clients of training departments want more than a classroom class that takes workers out of production, costs money, and delivers training in a vaccuum that then slams shut. Instead, training groups need to find and support devices that continue the learning of the individual or group of individuals. If someone can develop a PLE, the training departments job is to be the source of information for that individual’s PLE. It is a transition from delivery of training to the delivery of information or more adptly learning and performance.

In terms of my research, this means that Web 2.0 tools like blogs, wikis, and podcasts can become elements of someone’s PLE. What impact does this have on their performance? A pretty interesting question. It moves beyond my research into the realm of educational psychology. Does the creation of PLE’s increase learning and performance? Maybe that is a question to be answered in my second book (post-dissertation).

Image Source: mushon

I am traveling this week for work and had a chance to have an exceedingly late dinner with a manager from the company last night. It was a nice time to get to know a new-to-me person. The discussion turned to what training is provided to for the job. The idea of training being an all-encompassing terms meaning anything related to associate communication about how to do the job.

This gave me an opportunity to isolate the term training and expand how we work with associates to help them perform. Many companies use the word training in a general and broad sense. This rolls over into training associates to address all sorts of gaps and usually getting a low success rate. which in turn is attributed to the failure of the associate, not the failure of management or the company to address the gaps with the proper solution.

Training, in the most accurate sense, is the transfer of knowledge related to the job. Think about this in terms of classrooms, eLearning sessions, etc. It is usually held that the knowledge is contained in one party and transfers to another (new employee orientation, product knowledge, process changes, new skills).

Typically, people know what is needed and require assistance implementing that knowledge. This is where a performance intervention is more handy. Performance interventions are a more inclusive service offered by professionals that involves a variety of solutions. Interventions I’ve worked on often involved some training, process improvement, coaching, mentoring, tool modification, or some other adjustment that impacts how someone does the job.

For example, a poor sales performance is a common enough problem to think about. When we know that the sales associate knows the product, services, etc.; we need to think about why the associate is not performing. Is the Client Relationship Tool adequate for the job (note, not the ability to use it but the tool itself)? Are the performance benchmarks accurately capturing the performance? Is the marketing/sales material appropriate for the marketplace? Is the associate in need of some coaching when in front of clients?

Sound different than sitting the person in a classroom and forcing them to comply to knowledge transfer? Sure. Sound more complex than simply putting on a class? You bet. Does it take courage to talk about changes in the system? Absolutely.

Too often we get stuck in a substandard performance loop because we obey the edict of “we work with what we got”. It what we got isn’t working, say something and be courageous enough to make the changes needed to retain good people and improve our company. Being adherent to a substandard policy, process, product, or service only sets the company up for failure. Our people are our asset, not the product or service.

How does this relate to my dissertation? I am looking at blogs, wikis, and podcasts as components of performance solutions and the ultimate impact on worker performance. So training is only a small part of a larger system.

Summing up. Training addresses knowledge gaps. Performance Consulting addresses performance gaps.

Image source: flyzipper

The Chronicle, a higher education industry news source, published a blog post several weeks ago and I’ve been meaning to discuss it here. The post, Can Shorter Classes Mean More Learning?, was about a University of Texas study researching the impact of shorter classes.

The study, essentially researched the difference between traditional semester length courses and those of an accelerated time line. The doctoral student and research team looked at several courses and measured learning outcomes. The final conclusion, which in doctoral research is not entirely conclusive but rather evidence supporting a hypothesis, was that accelerated courses resulted in more learning. The factors included more focused time and stronger bond with instructor.

As someone who is in an accelerated format, I tend to agree that the shorter, more focused classes result in more substantial learning. However, it is important to understand that the University of Phoenix format scaffolds learning from one course to the next to further crystallize the learning outcomes. Additionally, the model calls for students to apply the learning outside the classroom and report the outcomes back to the class through papers, discussions, and projects.

Combine my own experience at University of Phoenix, with the University of Texas research and you find another set of research questions?

• What impact does scaffolding of accelerated courses have on student learning?
• What impact does experiential application of learning have in an accelerated course on learning outcomes?

On a little tangent, the comments on the Chronicle post are remarkably narrow-minded. I’ve been critical of the Chronicle, in the past, as a biased industry rag that does not embrace the evolution of higher education and seeks to preserve the legacy models of education that do not meet the changing demands of students/customers. I have also praised the Chronicle for telling unbiased stories about alternative models of education. However, the comments, largely, show the myopic nature of the commenters.

Comments range from cautionary notes to the researcher to control their own message vs. letting marketing confuse the real science being done (I agree) to let’s measure the learning outcomes one-year post class and a series of traditional educators disagreement with study using their own experience as evidence.

Measuring a student’s retention one year after class and using that as evidence is irresponsible science. Educational research shows that long term retention requires application of the learning through some experience. It is the old adage, if you don’t use it; you lose it. I would pushback to those commenters to allow for a blind survey of their students one year after classes and check retention.

In terms of the dissenters’ experience as evidence, we need to remember that course and curriculum design must consider time lines too. Having done accelerated classes at a semester-based and tradition-rich school and University of Phoenix, there is a difference. Most traditional schools will simply extend hours, talk faster, and skip things to make the 15 or 16 week course fit. However, structuring the course to accommodate the time is more than that. A professional educator would include activities and modalities that enhance learning while shortening time.

Is accelerated for every professor? No. Hell No. Dismissing the science simply because the model is not appealing to you, you haven’t been able to make it work, you lack the skills necessary to teach in such a model, etc. is poor discourse.

Can shorter classes mean more learning? The comments that say, let’s investigate further are on the mark. Good science means repeated trials and studies. On the surface I think the accelerated model works, at least for me, but I know that more study is needed.

Kudos to John V. Kucsera, Dr. Dawn M. Zimmaro and Avani G. Trivedi for taking up the research and I am hopeful to see more on the topic.

Image Source: Vito’

Someone asked me the other day when I thought the price of gas might impact the number of drivers on the road and thus the demand on petroleum. This question tells me that a lot of people are thinking about the same thing, the fuel budget.

Admittedly, I am thinking about it too. However, I am a telecommuter and my family has only one car that my wife and I share. We both need to leave the house for different things and rarely at the same time. Making the one-car family notion a reality in our home. But, this is not the case for most people. In fact, most people need to commute places for work and thus need more than one car and lots of fuel. Which explains the steady or increasing demand for fuel. Which takes us back to the question, when will gas prices adversely impact people’s driving habits?

The short answer is: when organizations, leaders, and managers are trusting, capable, and prepared enough to allow workers to telecommute (or at the very least consider a shorter work week and reduce the number of days needed in the office).

Telecommuting is a big scary word for employers because they feel that control over employee productivity will be lost or jeopardized if the employee is not in the office every minute of each working day. Certainly there is some legitimacy in this concern, but it is easily overcome with the use of technology, trust, and proper leadership.

A manager of an instructional design team once told me that the jobs he oversaw were not telecommuting positions because he felt the team needed to collaborate amongst themselves and other departments. This could be another reason, but the communication was phrased in such a way that it was easy to tell the big fear was that the team members would exhibit skills and autonomy that would render this manager irrelevant to the organization.

The reality is that telecommuters get as much or more work done in a week than people who work in an office. They do this in a shorter time frame because they are free of the politics, distractions, and sidelining present in every office.

It comes right down to the willingness and execution of employers to make telecommuting a reality for the workers. Once this happens people will not need to commute to work as often, reducing travel, and gas demand along with prices.

How does this relate to my dissertation? Simple, a collaborative training interventions have the possibility to link workers together remotely and in a robust environment of exchange and discourse. This, in turn, promotes performance and productivity. On the surface the research warrants some investigation into just how this could be accomplished. My research examines the link of these technologies through training to worker performance. Off shoots of my research could include the use of wikis, podcasting, and blogs to office communications, politics, and workplace dynamics. All of which might be part of the nudge needed to allow for telecommuting.

I telecommute and I am more productive, more focused, less stressed, happier, and a better employee because of it. Not to mention that I spend a total of $125 on gas each month now, can you say the same for you or your employees?

Image Source: veo_

I went downstairs today for lunch and found the television tuned to Mr. Rogers. I’d not seen the program in years. I guess that is what a 10 month old will do for us, remind us of the things we used to know in life.

What struck me today is the way Rogers asks questions. He does it in a simple, child-like, curious manner. This is not meant as an insult to the man or his technique; rather it is a mark of his expertise. Children are drawn to this kind, gentle, curious man because of the way he identifies with children. His actions are so similar to a child’s actions that he creates an instant connectedness. This reminds me of our job as learning professionals: identify with the learner.

Mr. Rogers is a timeless classic because he connects to the children on their level and through actions that are recognizable as their own. In the learning and performance industry we need to do the same thing. Perhaps this is why I am drawn to my work in Web 2.0. Because I want to help organizations identify with learners in their own ways.

My dissertation might be turning to target workers in general but the research questions targeting the learning and performance of different generations helps to answer the question of: how do we identify with learners?

Mr. Rogers did it, so can we.

Image Source: Medal of Freedom

If you do any sort of searches into Web 2.0 tools and learning you run into a lot of tools that companies and people can use. This ranges from complex knowledge management systems to personal virtual learning environments. It is amazing how fast people adapt new technology to serve perceived or real needs in the industry of learning and performance.

At one point someone suggested I look into some cutting edge development being done in think tanks and test some hypotheses on those. At the time, I thought that was a great idea. As I incubated I came to realize that no one is testing the basic tools. So, why develop or test the more complex tools?

People love gadgets, I am guilty of the same pleasures in getting a new tool or toy to play with; only to leave it by the wayside a short time later. It does not stop me from getting the next new thing though. Web 2.0 or rather Learning 2.0 is much the same thing. Learning and performance leaders are eager to make their mark, save the budget, dazzle the decision makers, or add some whizz-bang for students. When in reality simple tools, used in an innovative fashion can do the same thing but much cleaner, easier to manage, and cheaper.

I wonder if my choice of blogs, wikis, and podcasts is too simple. The tools, in technology terms, are quickly becoming common place and new toys are being launched. Scanning some training and development industry news shows that people are trying to adopt more complex technologies for their operations. Is my research already dated?

If a simpler tool can meet your needs at a lower cost and more innovation; is it worth it to get the simpler tool and employ it?

Can the learning and performance industry be satisfied with the implementation of a podcast for training lectures, a blog for institutional storytelling, and a wiki for knowledge management? Or, do we need something more complex?

Image Source: Andy Budd of Clearleft by way of Vincent Abry.

Laura, at Laura’s Blog posted a request for Web 2.0 ROI in training. I am thankful for Dan commenting that she should pop over to the Doc Blog and see what I am doing with my research.

It has been an exciting few days for the Doc Blog. Validation that my research is valuable and anticipated is wonderful. Sometimes as a doc student I get the feeling I might be the only one interested in my topic, aside from my mentor.

The question of what is the return on learning or ROL for Web 2.0 tools will be answered in some part by my research. As many people will find, there is not a lot of literature out there covering this phenomenon from a quantitative research perspective. As I posted before, there is a lot of qualitative evidence suggesting some value of using the tools but nothing concretely proven. This is a natural evolution in research; from identified trends to proven research. One cannot exist without the other.

Laura is an industry professional who is taking the right tack on this issue. Prior to implementing these technologies she wants to see the data. I commend her on that tack and I hope that the research being proposed will help her make the right decision.

I am steadily plugging along through my literature review and should have a draft posted in a few weeks. I hope you all will offer thoughts about it.

In the world of open collaboration, there are so many ideas that can help make us more successful, we must rely on the people to do so. Today in the Freakonomics Blog was an interesting post about Innocentive.

The main idea: organizations that have challenges can reach out to the open community and seek solutions to those challenges. In return, the successful solution developer can earn money.

Think of it like Consulting 2.0 (my term).

So, if you have ideas, cruise over and register. I am reading through my first challenge now.

I don’t normally blog about such things or rant on my blog, but this one just couldn’t go ignored.

A recent post at Get Schooled, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution blog on education, discusses a program in Fulton County, GA that pays kids to attend classes. The post highlights a long history of bribing students to be students.

With metro Atlanta public schools regularly offering goodies — such as MP3 players and bikes — to encourage students to attend classes, perhaps it was only a matter of time local educators decided to bait kids with cold hard cash.

According to a media advisory e-mailed to reporters this morning, Fulton County Schools will announce a new “Learn & Earn” initiative Thursday that will “test the hypothesis that extrinsic motivation (pay for attendance and participation) will improve academic performance….”

… For 15 weeks, 40 selected eighth-graders from Bear Creek Middle School and 11th-graders from Creekside High School — both in Fairburn — will be paid to attend free after-school tutoring in math and science.

This is an outrageous failure in education! Some Googling of Creekside High School shows a school that is performing lowly despite some promising stats.

• Ranked 160 of 340 public schools in Georgia
• 18:1 student-teacher ratio
• 2000+ students
• Free lunch for 60% of kids

The glaring thing here is that the classrooms are showing an 18:1 ratio for students to teachers. When I went to school, there were no less that 25-30 kids in my classes and I was still performing. K-12 educators cried foul when the ratios were high and now this group is got a reasonable and manageable ratio and is still failing. Why?

Kids were hungry because they couldn’t afford lunch. So we implemented a free lunch program to feed them and keep them properly fed for class (a great idea for those that must have it). Still, the schools are failing. Why?

I can only imagine the host of other benefits and support this school is getting in terms of federal, state, and community money/programs and still failing. Why?

Failing teachers is most likely the answer. Instead of rewarding students by providing proper teachers, classroom motivation, and a positive learning environment this district and school have resorted to bribery. Maybe the money should come from the paychecks of the failing teachers, at least let the teachers have some skin in the game. Instead, they cry foul and desperation that more is needed. BUNK!

The track record of offering MP3 players, bikes, and (now) cash is deplorable and shameful. This cash for class scheme is privately funded, but the implications are certainly not. Following the line of logic we would see that all students will demand money to come and learn. Moreover, the burden of that will be left to the taxpayers to shell out more money for a failing school system filled with failing teachers and failing administrators. Finally, the logic extends to refusals of students to learn without cash in hand. Shameful.

Instead of offering to bribe students to learn, we should be affording them the opportunity to earn money from their learning. Novel concept, right? This is what education is geared towards, providing the supporting mechanisms to allow people to earn money post-school. But not in Atlanta apparently, they are such low performers that we now need to continue to throw good money after bad and pay for the tutors required to run this cash for class program and pay the students to attend.

What’s worse, some half-rate education professionals are out there looking at this thinking this is a good idea and it should be implemented in their districts and schools. Get your hand out of my pocket!

Not being one to offer a problem without a solution. An alternative would be to engage students in opportunities to use current learnings to earn money for themselves and the school. Programs like student bookstores, fundraising, and more innovative entrepreneur-oriented/student-run businesses offer students this possibility; not bribing them to attend classes.

Sadly, it seems that like many groups of people, these students are learning to do nothing without their collective hands out first. This is a horrifying development in education. Each stakeholder in this scam should be admonished and ostracized; students, teachers, administrators, staff, benefactors, and parents.

Your comments are always welcome.

The professor of this course is practicing some great blended learning techniques incorporating contemporary messages appropriate to this learning group. Moreover, she is using YouTube as an educational tool, which shows perspective into how people learn and will learn.

Admittedly, I just began using YouTube for some family videos of my daughter for family living out of my vicinity. I still think a lot of it is bunk but still some messages are delivered well here and it can be a tool if used properly. Still, I am not able to embed the clips in the Doc Blog. So here is a link to this week’s posted clip.

A Vision of Today’s Student

Since this is along the lines of my own research, I have a plethora of materials about the subject of the gap growing between students and teachers in terms of learning preferences and techniques. So, I posted the need for learning leaders to develop curriculum that is more aligned to the needs and preferences of the digital generation.

A colleague from the class posted a rebuttal. Her concerns were for those students that did not have access, availability, or literacy in computing due to socio-economic conditions. This prompted some reflection and discussion in my home about the matter. As my wife and I discussed the matter we arrived at a variety of related results:

• Education as a privilege, not a right
• A famous Caddyshack quote, “Well, the world needs ditch diggers too
• Give people what they want

I wanted to address the question in the classroom but wanted to substantiate my thoughts with peer-reviewed journals. I found an interesting article that discussed the notion of not needing to address the digital divide. Essentially arriving at the conclusion that it is the advocates of those without things that cry foul but not those living without the thing in question. This is evidenced by research that asked members of groups without certain things others feel they need if the items were needed. The response was “no”. In fact members of subgroups often want only to become the best within that subgroup and achieve an excellence that is application to their lives. The article continued to follow the advocates line of logic to include needing large tracks of cattle grazing in New York City because people there are not afforded the opportunity to become cattle ranchers. Good point, I thought.

The article deconstructed the advocates logic and concluded that the society and economy needs people at varying levels of skills and education in order to be sustainable. Suggesting that if everyone were at the highest order of skillset the economy would collapse.

Here is the reference if you want to read the article:

Block, W. (2004, Sep). The “digital divide” is not a problem in need of rectifying. Journal of Business Ethics. 53(4), 393-406. Retrieved January 25, 2008 from EBSCOhost.

Certainly I agree that there is a digital divide. I also agree that measuring merely access to technology is not sufficient to capture the accurate width of the gap. I submit, though, that closing the gap by forcing digital technology on those that do not desire it will only spend good money on a bad result (ultimately the advocates would feel better but find some other reason the group is not attaining some prejudiced attainment).

I support people in the excellence they desire. I support people in learning in a way that is conducive and attainable to them as individuals.

So, I’ve been thinking about a possible mini-study. Something that could help me apply the lessons from RES/722 and lead to potential conference engagements.

Yesterday I wrote about Confabs and mentioned one on weblogging and social media. It is a conference that I would like to co-present at with Pete from Fifth+Main. Pete is a busy guy with his own freelance things going on. Not being one to sit and wait, I developed a few ideas for this conference, one that also gives me possibility for a mini-study.

The most likely project is one on the preferences for using Web 2.o technologies in training. The idea is to gauge the current Web 2.0 habits of Gen Y workers and their preference for using podcasts, wikis, and blogs in training. Then get some information on the likelihood of using such technologies if implemented. It would be a quick survey and give me some fodder for papers and presentations.

Now, to find a company willing to allow such a quick survey that is thinking about implementing such technologies in training

Howe and Strauss (2000, p. 414) estimate that 100.2 million Millennials exist U.S. (born or born and immigrated from 1982 to 2002.

This is a staggering number and I was so  happy to find it. Since finding it I have seen it listed in a number of peer-reviewed sources and this makes me feel more confident that the 100.2 million population number is more widely accepted.

BLS estimates that nearly 14 million people between the ages of 20 and 24 are employed in the U.S. job market. This is a harbinger of things to come, with nearly 84 million potential employees aging into employment, the world had better get ready.

My significant find, to me at least, was welcome as I build my prospectus and ready my presentations for residency in 2 weeks.

In a rare moment I was listening to the radio today. Typically, I am listening to the latest podcast or some collected music on the iPod.

Today I caught Talk of the Nation, a favorite NPR program. The story, Laying Down the Law on Laptops, dealt with a law professors contention with students using laptops during his classes. He conducted some research and discovered that a some of his students were actively disengaged in the classes while using laptops. Other students were strictly typing what was being said without participating, disengaged (vs. actively disengaged).

The story called me back to the discussion of technology in education, regardless of subject area. I can appreciate the issues this law professor brought to the surface and understand them in context of curriculum development devoid of evolved inclusions. The preface that the study of law requires Socratic discourse is acceptable, but to surmise that Socratic discourse must take place without the use of laptops is myopic.

Students today are digital natives, they grew up with a technology that previous generations see as revolutionary. To the digital natives, it is a matter of course and not revolutionary. This professor’s research, well founded, discovered something that was actually happening in the classroom. I submit the following alternative.

Students are bored in class.

Classes that do not cater to the learning preferences of students will suffer from lack of participation. This is a frustrating and depressing experience. I have taught classes that were not aligned to the students and suffered the consequences.

Today it is just the learning preferences, it is the contextual preferences. The context that exists for students now are far more complex and non-linear than they were for previous generations of students.

So, back to the law classes held at the professor’s institutions. Perhaps the answer is not to ban laptops in some archaic, autocratic, stance evidenced by potentially misinterpreted data. Perhaps the answer is to embrace the technology and make adjusts to outmoded curriculum and outmoded instruction. Easy to write, but what techniques could be employed?

Good question, here are a few collaborative learning techniques

• Record lectures and make them available via a private (or public) podcast
• Use seat time to engage students in using the Internet, online journals, current events, etc to create projects in the subject area
• Create a blog or wiki for students to engage in, during class or out of class, that creates knowledge and engages them in a way that is valuable for them and the class
• Develop class time as lab time for important projects

These techniques are closely associated with experiential and constructivist approaches to curriculum development and instruction. While these approaches are not appropriate for every type of class exercise or subject, they can make improvements to outmoded instruction.

Take a listen to the dialogue of the Talk of the Nation report. Comment.

In this episode I talk about the beginnings of research. Using my project as an example (Collaborate Learning Technology and Net Generation Employees), I explore the 5 stages of setting up the research.

• Passion. Be excited about your topic, own it, make it yours.
• Creating Knowledge. Make sure your passion will lead to the creation of knowledge not a regurgitation of old information
• Define the Problem. Get some facts to support what you see is a problem in your industry.
• Purpose. Understand what the point of your research will be regarding the problem you define.
• Create Questions. Questions guide your research and help you establish your methodology more concretely.

I also discuss the general differences between quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodology research.

Your comments, feedback, show ideas, and thoughts are always invited and appreciated. Please post them to the Doc Blog.

A recent discussion in class led me to map out some helpful tips in conducting a literature review. One of the tips was about something I’ve blogged about before: Grokking. One reason, I like to use the Grokker function is the visual nature of the search. It provides a network of articles in categories and I can drill down, shift left or just randomly select the articles I want to read. This is a helpful and it leads to another tip for the literature review, or anything that requires organization really: Mind Mapping.

I wrote about Mind Mapping in part of another blog: Collaborate and Learn. The technique evolves from the blueprints of the brain. The brain is constructed of interwoven and interconnected neural pathways. Mind Mapping is a technique that taps this natural construction and helps us recall, create, and learn more. I began Mind Mapping as part of my training in Accelerative Learning by a group once called Boulder Center for Accelerative Learning, now Transform Learning & Design, Inc.

The manual technique is pretty simple and you only need a few tools.

• Paper (any color, shape, size)
• Pens, Markers, Crayons, Pencils or Paint (many colors)

The technique follows some simple guidelines and there is no right or wrong mind map.

• Begin with a central theme, place it in the middle of the map and put a circle around it.
• From that circle, draw a thick line for the first main idea. (put a picture there if you would like)
• Repeat that until the main ideas are all listed; making sure that each idea has a different color.
• From each main idea, create secondary branches that have ideas attached (sticking to a theme color helps)
• Repeat the last step for each main idea.
• Keep building the map with additional branches, colors and pictures.

It took me a few maps to get the hang of it and now I use it for many things I do, here are some examples.

• Outlines
• Speech Prep
• Strategic Planning
• Shopping

Being a geek at heart, I like to incorporate technology into my routines, It took some time to find a tool that could help and was powerful enough to integrate into other aspects of my life. I’ve tried many types and keep coming back to MindManager from Mindjet. This is not a commercial for MindJet. I like the tool, so I am sharing it with you. Google can help list the many types of software available, I provided the link for you.

You can see an example of a mind map I did for my literature review above.

The idea is that the map is a living thing. It changes, grows, shrinks and evolves. I go back to the map often and make some edits, add a picture, change colors, whatever needs to happen. Each time I revisit the map, the theme gets better. My mind actually refreshes with each visit. I can tell you now what is involved without having to have the document with me, powerful recall.

If you give this a try, let me know, I’d love to see your mind maps and comments. Post away.