Being a Full Spectrum Provider
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
Blogs and Podcasts…revisioning
I’ve changed direction, again, on my dissertation. If you’ve been reading along you know that I dropped the blogs and wikis from my research fearing that the science would be messy. Not only that but the environment would also be messy and hard to isolate which factor would be superseding the others. The decision was not an easy one and it came with the cost of continuing to stew about the course change.
Admittedly, this has been a bit disabling. It is not easy to wonder if you made the right decision all the time and more difficult to separate the legitimate rationale for making another change from the invalid second guessing. I finally took some time away from my job to focus on myself and my work vs. them and their work (been feeling a little like they’re leeches lately). My reflections led me to recall an interview I gave recently about Web 2.0 and working environments. I don’t claim to be as much an expert as the few who are but I do consider myself a student of the phenomenon.
During the interview I remarked that blogs and podcasts are often seen together and rarely will you see a podcast without some sort of blogging component. I’ve never heard or used the phrase someone podcasted me back but have talked about people leaving comments or linkbacks to my posts. At the time I didn’t give it much thought but as the month wore on I really thought about that quip. Was there something to that? Could I combine the two and drop, what felt like a third wheel even at the beginning, wikis?
I inquired to my mentor. Our discussions led us to the conclusions that yes I could do anything I like and that the results will simply report what happens when you use blogs and podcasts together. I felt better about that. As such, I revisioned my dissertation to include blogs with podcasting. Now, I am writing up the thinking into a draft form so I can move forward.
The problem statement might need to change too. I am feeling that the problem might not be the ineffectiveness of classroom learning (although I feel that is a problem) but instead be the adoption of blogs and podcasts in corporate learning and no measurement on learning when using these technologies. I see a lot in terms of Kirkpatrick’s Level 1 and little in terms of measuring learning (Level 2), transfer (Level 3), or ROI (Level 4). All of this means, that I will be looking for some evidence to support what I feel is a problem (and of course, weighing the contrary evidence saying it is not a problem).
An Expansive Vocabulary
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
Testing. Both Pre and Post
In working with my mentor there has been many discussions that are clarifying the process of completing the proposal. One of the discussions was around the testing instrument. I am choosing to do a pre and post test for my instrument founded in Kirkpatrick’s Level 2 evaluation of training programs. A related issue is the creation of the testing device.
The nature of the training intervention suggests that a custom test is deployed to target the instructed skills both in the test and control groups. Kirkpatrick, in a speech delivered to my local ASTD chapter, talked about designing such tests to be directly linked to the instructed concepts. In fact, he suggested that instructors use the test as the syllabus and give it out ahead of time to allow students to use it for the learning.
My concern would be the reliability and validity of a pretest and posttest designed by the researcher. Is there an issue with that? I suppose that as long as the test mapped to the learning objective and both groups used the same objectives and test it would be fine but I am still a little unsure.
Using an established instrument would alleviate the bias concerns. How would that established pretest posttest instrument be applicable to the training being delivered?
Lots of questions.
Chickens and Eggs
As I delve into the proposal writing, I am finding numerous situations that come down to the chicken and egg argument. To determine the ful study, I need to know this thing, to know that thing I need to know another but to know the last I need to know the first. Frustrating? Kind of frustrating, to be sure.
I feel like I want a template that steps through the process and links to assistance so effective decisions can be made. UPX provides a dissertation checklist but it does not have the you need to know this first, then this. Rather, it gives you what should be included in each chapter.
For now, I need to make some decisions about the statisitical analysis and experiment design. I have a conversation this week with a colleague offering some advice on the study process, experiment population, and working student dissertation issues. I am looking forward to it.
Image Source: woodleywonderworks
Metalearning
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
Leading through Learning
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.
Beginning Again
I begin DOC/733 today, it is the second course with my mentor and one that I’ve been looking forward to completing for some time now. I had to delay the start due to some unexpected circumstances and bills. The purpose of the class is to prepare the proposal or Chapters 1, 2, and 3. This is a monumental undertaking for me. As most of you know, I stepped back on my research to focus solely on podcasted training and the learning impact of using podcasts.
This narrowing of focus should help my research but it does require me to get going and flesh out the research. I also need to get my research methods in order and secure an study group. Apart from that, I need to find a committee in the next few weeks so that my proposal can be thoroughly guided and built. There is a lot to do. Perhaps it is a good thing that I am being certified in FranklinCovey’s Focus Time Management series. I can use all the help I can get.
It feels like I am beginning again. It has been some time since my last class and the bad habits have snuck back in on me. I am breaking them now and it hurts. I know the road ahead is going to be a rough one but no doctoral program would be complete without these rites of passage. There are times that I wish I could be in a physical community of doctoral learners to keep the momentum. I realize, though, that would breed unhealthy competition for favor and attention from faculty. I also know that would mean being apart from my work and family; two things I am not willing to part with right now.
As I look ahead to the next 8, and likely 16, weeks I see clarification beginning to happen and a new sharpness and professionalism coming to this research. I know a lot of people are interested in the outcomes, so am I.
Image Source: LiveALittle.org
Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way
Throughout my career I’ve been exposed to various sorts of management and leadership. The exposure isn’t limited to the working arena either, many of my classes and studies have included intense examination of leaderhsip and management practice. But experience is always the best teacher.
Over the last months, I’ve come across a few management styles that I do not like.
The first is a stlye of Gotcha! Management. This is the person who sets people up in jobs to “earn” the support, resources, and tools to do the job. This manager feels that a total investment in people until they prove themselves is a risk or a waste of money.
The second style is Trend Leadership. You know these people. They have a core style of leadership that is driven by trends and the most recent seminar or book they’ve read. A key indicator of this style is someone who uses far too much jargon, slogans, and mottos to show off their leadership style.
Finally, the Black Hole manager. These managers allow information in, make no decisions, and don’t run information up the chain of command but require it all to come through them. I’ve been managed under this style in the past. This is the severly risk adverse, nay saying, in over their heads manager who needs everything to run through them but does nothing with it.
I’m tired of sitting idly by waiting for these leaders or managers to straighten up. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. I am leading my life, my career, and my home to success. I ask for no quarter or protection. Unlike many managers and leaders, I accept the good with the bad. Decisions need to be made or I will be the victim of others’ bad management styles.
Learning Taxonomies are Useful
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.