CLO: Huge Need for Angel Investing in Learning — from CEO’s

I was speaking to a CLO (Chief Learning Officer) today about research-to-practice stuff, and he made a statement that blew my mind. It was brilliant!

First, a little background.

He’s been a CLO at two organizations with over a decade of tenure in learning-executive positions. He knows what he’s talking about.

He talked persuasively about how many learning and development units are stuck in the old-world view of learning as delivering training (and training alone). In such learning cultures, L&D folks are order takers. A more enlightened approach includes training, but it also involves performance-consulting, performance-facilitation, knowledge management, improved evaluations, etc., with a key goal of helping to create a partnership between L&D and its organizational stakeholders.

Okay, that’s not news. We know this is the right thing to do.

Here’s what struck me as illuminating. He said that what’s really needed to make the leap from the old way to the new way, you need a large capital-like investment to get you started, to bring in committed change agents, to overcome inertia, to have resources and tools to let you leverage research-based methods. Without a large resource infusion, you get incremental change, but it’s just not enough to change the culture so you end up fighting long exhausting battles with only some success.

But what CEO’s are going to be so enlightened as to pony up the dough?

You’d think they might. After all, making huge investments upfront is what successful businesses do, what successful entrepreneurs do, what successful athletes do, etc.

We in L&D have to figure out a way to convince our CEO’s to make the investment. Otherwise, we’ll likely remain in the purgatory of order taking henceforth.

 

Interview with Connie Malamed about her book Visual Design Solutions

, ,

Connie Malamed is The eLearning Coach, an intriguing podcaster, and the author of two fantastic books on visual design. Here I interview her in regards to her most recent book, Visual Design Solutions.

 

Here is the book:

Here is Connie:

1.

Will:
Connie, in your book, Visual Design Solutions: Principles and Creative Inspiration for Learning Professionals, your goal seems to be to help learning professionals utilize effective visuals to improve their learning outcomes. Indeed, you dedicate the book to “the hard-working creative learning professionals who want to make a difference.”

Tell me about your hope for the book and the importance visual design has for learning professionals?

 

Connie:
My three goals in writing this book were to: 1) prove that it is possible to improve one’s visual design skills without being an artist, 2) demonstrate the benefits of using visuals to enhance and amplify learning, and 3) raise awareness about the importance of aesthetics in a learner’s experience.

For those with normal vision, the brain processes more sensory information from the eyes than from any other sense. So learning professionals should expect that the visual aspect of instructional materials would be of great importance to comprehension, retention and the user experience. The good news is that anyone can become more competent in visual design by learning, applying and practicing the foundation principles.

 

2.

Will:
Many learning professionals enter the field with little or no background or experience in graphic arts, visualization principles, or aesthetics—and yet you declare in your book that “you do not need drawing talent to work as a visual designer.” First, let me ask you, “Why not?” Second, let me ask you what key skills people do need to be effective at the visual aspects of learning design?

 

Connie:
Early in my career, I met an excellent designer who didn’t know how to draw. He told me he wasn’t an illustrator. I was shocked. Since then, I’ve met and read about many designers who do not illustrate. Visual design involves the arrangement of images and text in graphic space. To be able to do this, one doesn’t need to render with a pen or pencil. Of course, it’s always nice to brainstorm ideas with a pencil and sketchpad, but visual concepts can be communicated using geometric shapes and stick figures.

The skills that I think people need for visual design competence can be learned. Here is my list:

  • An understanding of how to think about and solve visual problems.
  • Foundation principles of design, such as use of white space, establishing a visual hierarchy and appreciating typography.
  • Awareness of design in the world around you to see how others have solved visual problems.

 

3.

Will:
I noticed in your book that you begin with lots of research supporting the benefits of using visuals. But certainly visuals can also be used in such a way that causes harm. What are some of the problems involved in using visuals? What are some of the most common mistakes learning professionals make?


Connie:
Right. Like anything else, it takes thoughtfulness to come up with an effective visual design. I think common problems are: cluttering a layout with too many flourishes, using irrelevant graphics that are distracting, and splitting attention so that the visuals and text or activity are not well integrated. One way to avoid common mistakes is to get your work critiqued by peers, sponsors and potential users.

 

4.

Will:
In the book, you emphasize white space, and yet I’ll bet this is one of the hardest things for us instructional designers to get. Just as we tend to cram content into our curriculums and don’t leave enough time for learning, I’ve often seen designs that cram content into our visuals without thinking about white space. What is white space and what are the top three things learning designers should realize about it?

 

Connie:
White space is also known as negative space. It’s the area in a visual that does not contain any images or text. It even includes the area in between letters. Here are three tips about working with white space.

  1. Think of white space as another element, just like text and images. These three building blocks of design have to work together to create a clear communication. Without white space, you can’t have form and without form, you can’t have white space.
  2. As you design, if you begin to focus on the shape of the white space, you begin to bring it into the foreground perceptually. Become conscious of the white space and make sure the shape is pleasing and that it’s not broken up into tiny little pieces.
  3. White space gives a viewer’s eyes a place to rest and allows a design to breathe. So don’t be stingy with your white space. Let your designs have some spaciousness.

 

 

 

5.

Will:
I put a ton of time into creating PPT slides for my workshops and presentations—and I’ve developed some beliefs over the years that may or may not be true. Would you comment and critique my visual-design prejudices?

  1. Never use clip art; photos are cheap, easily available, and convey more credibility.
  2. Using a transparency fade (for example when you take a photo but gradually fade one side of it into the background) is good looking, adds credibility, and enables room for pertinent text.
  3. It is better to have one major learning point per slide with a nice supporting visual, than to offer many ideas on the same slide.
  4. Using objects with some gradient is almost always preferred to no gradient.


Connie:

  1. It depends on what you mean by clip art. Although you want to avoid the silly smiling characters, there are wonderful collections of illustrated and simplified vector drawing that you can use to represent concepts and objects. You can make an entire presentation or eLearning course using this minimalist and distilled style.
  2. Adding a transparency fade is a good way to be able to add text. But it’s not the only way and if it looks very feathered, it could look dated. Other ways to add text are to use a large 1024×768 photo (the size of the entire slide) and then overlay a slightly transparent rectangle on part of the photo where you want the text. Place the text within that rectangle and ensure there is enough contrast to read it.
  3. I think you’re probably right about one point per slide. Don’t tell anyone but sometimes I might put three related points on a slide. Maybe I’m being lazy.
  4. A gradient can give an object a 3D appearance, but it’s not always necessary. The flat design trend has moved away from full gradients and you will now probably see more designs with flat or solid-looking objects. I don’t think there’s a wrong or a right way to fill in objects, but as trends change, a viewer’s idea of what is aesthetically pleasing will change.

 

6.

Will:
You mention perspective in your book. First, tell us what it is. Second, because you recommend it “to add realism to a story or scenario,” could you tell us if there is a secret to searching for photos with perspective in photo databases (so we don’t have to search through an endless array of photos)?

 

Connie:
Perspective is a way to trick the eyes into perceiving three dimensions on what is really a flat surface. I don’t know of any great way to find images with perspective other than to type that word into your photo database. Such as “street perspective,” for example.

7.

Will:
You mentioned distilled graphics. What are they and when should we use them?

Connie:
Distilled graphics are simplified, schematic or iconic visuals that represent objects or concepts. We perceive and understand them quickly, similar to the images on road signs. I think it’s a good idea to use these when you want to get an idea across quickly. Also, using a distilled graphic like a silhouette works like a visual suggestion of what it represents without getting into the detail. Another suggestion is to use distilled graphics instead of bullet points, placed near the text to represent the concept or fact. It’s tough to explain without a visual accompaniment!

 

8.

Will:
Connie, maybe you can help me. When I look for photos, sometimes I find myself spending half an hour or more just to find an image I deem acceptable. Am I nuts? Please help me! How long should I spend looking for an image?

Connie:
Will, I’m going to guess that you are a little nuts, but not because you take so long to find photos. But yes, searching for photos is one of the most time-consuming aspects of this career. Most stock photo sites that weren’t specifically made for eLearning seem to have an advertising/marketing focus. The photographers still have that mindset, where rather than showing people in realistic situations, they show people smiling at the camera or cheering. There’s not enough diversity in the image choices either. I got so frustrated one day, I sat down and wrote an article about this problem: 21 Reasons Why Stock Photo Sites Make Me Cry.

 

9.

Will:
I have a new favorite font, but while it’s in Microsoft Office, when some of the online meeting tools convert it, they replace my beautiful artsy font with a boring font often of the wrong size. Are there any ways to do a work around? Can I search-and-replace fonts for example?

Connie:
For those situations, you could make a second version of the presentation for online meeting tools and change the font to a similar but more common one in your template. Even though it might be boring, it everything will line up the way you want it to. If the online meeting tool is hosted by a professional association or a company, you can see if they would be willing to install the font on the hosting computer.

As to replacing fonts, I’ve always replaced the font in the Slide Master and that usually works. You may have to choose the Master Layout again in your slide though.

 

10.

Will:
Connie, I love the section in your book on creating a visual hierarchy. As you describe it, visual hierarchies send unconscious signals to our brains that prompt us to look at certain parts of the visual before other parts. I didn’t really know this until I read your book. Thank you! I’m a big believer in PowerPoint (or KeyNote, etc.) of revealing aspects of our visuals one at a time, which is probably cheating to get a similar effect to hierarchies—but sometimes there would be a huge benefit in having a visual hierarchy. Please educate us on how to create a visual hierarchy, and tell us why it’s so important.

 

Connie:
A visual hierarchy indicates where the viewer should look first, second and perhaps third. Make your most important element the first thing that people will look at. You can do this through contrast.  Make it larger, place it in the upper left or top of the screen, make the element more colorful or brighter or add movement (if appropriate to the learning). There are other ways, but that’s a good place to start.

 

11.

Will:
I notice you added humor into your book. I laughed out loud when you told me that to transform myself into an “expert designer” that I’d need to wear all black. LOL. Your book is extremely helpful—and one doesn’t even have to change their wardrobe.

What’s your most important message for us learning professionals? Besides reading your book, what else can we do to be more effective? And, are there any methods you’ve seen for getting evaluation feedback on our visual designs?

Connie:
There are a lot of things learning professionals can do in addition to reading my book, dressing in all black and getting piercings in weird places:

  • Analyze the visual design in your environment and see what works and what doesn’t. Think about what the designer was trying to achieve. Notice the layout, typography, color palette and focal point. This means studying the design of websites, apps, magazines, brochures, posters, books, catalogs, packaging, billboards, subway ads, store interiors, videos, icons and junk mail. You get the idea.
  • Start an online collection (via Pinterest, bookmark sites, etc.) of designs that you like. Then use these for inspiration the next time you are stuck.
  • Read design books. Although most design books focus on advertisements and branding, they still offer a lot of sound principles and inspiration.

 

12.

Will:
Finally, what’s the best way for people to get your book?

Connie:
Thanks for asking. My book is available on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and the ATD online bookstore, where it is discounted for members. I hope your readers understand that there are around 130 color graphics, which makes it a little more on the expensive side due to printing costs.

 

Will’s Note:
You can view the book on Amazon
by clicking the image below:

Instructional Designers’ Serenity Prayer

,

In my 30th year in the workplace learning field, I've seen in my own work — and in that of my clients — that I cannot control everything that happens. I can make recommendations to clients, and I can get better as a persuader, but I can't force change.

I've also seen my clients and instructional designers everywhere struggle to make small improvements against floodwaters of organizational lethargy, misunderstandings about learning, conflicting priorities, and more. I've seen the same thing with CLO's, training directors, and other learning executives as well.

I've come to know many dogged professionals who keep at it year after year against Sisyphean challenges, making improvements — even small improvements — wherever and whenever they can. I admire them greatly.

To be effective in our jobs as learning professionals, we not only have to know the research and know our craft, we also have to develop an ability to marshal our resolve, maintain our perseverance, and retain at least some semblance of equanimity.

Perhaps by sharing our laments and our aspirations, we can get a little closer to these ideals.

I'm not religious, but it seems that a "serenity-prayer" approach for instructional designers might prove valuable.

 

Give me grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things which should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.

 

Things that cannot be changed (in the short term):

    Examples:

  • Sometimes, I will need to crank out learning interventions that fail my standards for effectiveness.
  • Sometimes, I will need to fail to adequately evaluate my learning interventions.
  • Sometimes, I will need to do an inadequate job in doing needs assessment.
  • Sometimes, I will need to….

            List your "things that cannot be changed (in the short term)" below in the comments.

 

Things that require the courage to push for change:

    Examples:

  • Learning interventions that produce only awareness — should be improved to help learners be competent enough to perform a skill.
  • Learning interventions that don't utilize spaced repetitions — should be improved to space repetitions over time.
  • Learning interventions that don't provide substantial realistic practice — should be improved to provide skill practice that mimics the most salient aspects of the targeted (on-the-job) performance environment.
  • Smile sheets that utilize Likert-like scales or numeric scales — should be improved to utilize distinctive answer choices.
  • Et cetera…

 

Wisdom to know the difference:

    Examples:

  • By making a distinction between the short term and the long term, I can meet my task goals while pushing for lasting improvements.
  • By searching out the most dedicated learning professionals, by gathering together in a mutual effort to make the system work for better learning and performance improvement, I can maintain my motivation and energy to keep at it.
  • By meeting my organizational obligations with a steady excellence, I can develop the credibility and power to enable me to be persuasive and potent in pushing for improvements.
  • Et cetera…

 

These are just some examples… My hope is that you will add your thoughts and wisdom in the comments.

Workplace Learning-and-Performance — Four Responsibilities Initiative!

,

I just learned of a new initiative to push professionalization in the workplace learning-and-performance field. Because I'm a strong believer that we regularly fail in this, I'm signing on!

The Four Responsibilities of The Learning Professional

Here's what I wrote in my commitment statement:

Brilliant! And needed! The workplace learning-and-performance field is severely under-professionalized. When an organization asks an architect to design a building, the architect works from time-tested principles, from a code of ethics, from an architecture-first integrity. Certainly architects try to help their clients meet their goals, but they don't capitulate on the important stuff. I believe in the four principles!

Still, I think maybe we need to be even more directive. For example, we need to have a responsibility focused on working toward successive improvement, to doing effective measurement, etc. Maybe the four responsibilities can provide the umbrella hierarchy for more specific responsibilities… I'm a professional quibbler. Sorry about that! I wholeheartedly support your effort!

Check out the FOUR-RESPONSIBILITIES website by CLICKING HERE!

 

More Noble Causes in the Learning Field:

And, if you're the kind to sign up for noble causes, please check out the Serious eLearning Manifesto, which I worked on with Michael Allen, Julie Dirksen, and Clark Quinn.

Also, check out The Debunker Club, an effort to rid the learning field of myths and misconceptions. You can join the Debunker.Club too!

 

The Two-World Theory of Workplace Learning — Critiqued!

, ,

Today, industry luminary and social-media advocate Jane Hart wrote an incendiary blog post claiming that “the world of L&D [Learning and Development] is splitting in two.” According to Jane there are good guys and bad guys.

The bad guys are the “Traditionalists.” Here is some of what Jane says about them:

  • “They cling onto 20th century views of Training & Development.”
  • “They believe they know what is best for their people.”
  • “They disregard the fact that most people are bored to tears sitting in a classroom or studying an e-learning course at their desktop.”
  • “They miss the big picture – the fact that learning is much more than courses, but involves continuously acquiring new knowledge and skills as part of everyday work.”
  • “They don’t understand that the world has changed.”

Fighting words? Yes! Insulting words? Yes! Painting with too broad a brush? Yes! Maybe just to make a point? Probably!

Still, Jane’s message is clear. Traditionalists are incompetent fools who must be eradicated because of the evil they are doing.

Fortunately, galloping in on white horses we have “Modern Workplace Learning (MWL) practitioners.” These enlightened souls are doing the following, according to Jane:

  • “They are rejecting the creation of expensive, sophisticated e-learning content and preferring to build short, flexible, modern resources (where required) that people can access when they need them. AND they are also encouraging social content (or employee-generated content) – particularly social video – because they know that people know best what works for them.”
  • They are ditching their LMS (or perhaps just hanging on to it to manage some regulatory training) – because they recognise it is a white elephant – and it doesn’t help them understand the only valid indicator of learning success, how performance has changed and improved.”
  • They are moving to a performance-driven world – helping groups find their own solutions to problems – ones that they really need, will value, and actually use, and recognise that these solutions are often ones they organise and manage themselves.”
  • They are working with managers to help them develop their people on the ground – and see the success of these initiatives in terms of impact on job performance.”
  • They are helping individuals take responsibility for their own learning and personal development – so that they continuously grow and improve, and hence become valuable employees in the workplace.”
  • They are supporting teams as they work together using enterprise social platforms – in order to underpin the natural sharing within the group, and improve team learning.” 

Points of Agreement

I agree with Jane in a number of ways. Many of the practices we use in workplace learning are ineffective.

Here are some points of agreement:

  1. Too much of our training is ineffective!
  2. Too often training and/or elearning are seen as the only answer!
  3. Too often we don’t think of how we, as learning professionals, can leverage on the job learning.
  4. Too often we default to solutions that try to support performance primarily by helping people learn — when performance assistance would be preferable.
  5. Too often we believe that we have to promote an approved organizational knowledge, when we might be better off to let our fellow workers develop and share their own knowledge.
  6. Too often we don’t utilize new technologies in an effort to provide more effective learning experiences.
  7. Too often we don’t leverage managers to support on-the-job learning.
  8. Too often we don’t focus on how to improve performance.

Impassioned Disagreement

As someone who has enjoyed the stage with Jane in the past, and who knows that she’s an incredibly lovely person, I doubt that she means to cast aspersions on a whole cohort of dedicated learning-and-performance professionals.

Where I get knocked off my saddle is the oversimplifications encouraged in the long-running debate between the traditionalist black hats and the informal-learning-through-social-media white hats! Pitting these groups against each other is besides the point!

I remember not too long ago when it was claimed that “training is dead,” that “training departments will disappear,” that “all learning is social,” that “social-media is the answer,” etc…

What is often forgotten is that the only thing that really matters is the human cognitive architecture. If our learning events and workplace situations don’t align with that architecture, learning will suffer.

Oversimplifications that Hurt the Learning Field

  1. Learners know how they learn best so we should let them figure it out.
    Learners, as research shows, often do NOT know how they learn best, so it may be counterproductive not to figure out ways to support them in learning.
  2. Learning can be shortened because all learners need to do is look it up.
    Sometimes learners have a known learning need that can be solved with a quick burst of information. BUT NOT ALL LEARNING is like this! Much of learning requires a deeper, longer experience. Much of learning requires more practice, more practical experience, etc. Because of these needs, much of learning requires support from honest-to-goodness learning professionals.
  3. All training and elearning is boring!
    Really? This is obviously NOT true, even if much of it could be lots better.
  4. That people can always be trusted to create their own content!
    This is sometimes true and sometimes not. Indeed, sometimes people get stuff wrong (sometimes dangerously wrong). Sometimes experts actually have expertise that us normal people don’t have.
  5. That using some sort of enterprise social platform is always effective, or is always more effective, or is easy to use to create successful learning.
    Really? Haven’t you heard more than one or two horror stories — or failed efforts? Wiki’s that weren’t populated. Blogs that fizzled. SharePoint sites that were isolated from users who could use the information. Forums where less than 1% of folks are involved. Et cetera… And let’s not forget, these social-learning platforms tend to be much better at just-in-time learning than in long-term deeper learning (not totally, but usually).
  6. That on-the-job learning is easy to leverage.
    Let’s face it, formal training is MUCH EASIER to leverage than on-the-job learning. On-the-job learning is messy and hard to reach. It’s also hard to understand all the forces involved in on-the-job learning. And what’s ironic is that there is already a group that is in a position to influence on-the-job learning. The technical term is “managers.”
  7. Crowds of people always have more wisdom than single individuals.
    This may be one of the stupidest memes floating around our field right now. Sounds sexy. Sounds right. But not when you look into the world around us. I might suggest recent presidential candidate debates here in the United States as evidence. Clearly, the smartest ideas don’t always rise to prominence!
  8. Traditional learning professionals have nothing of value to offer.
    Since I’m on the front lines in stating that our field is under-professionalized, I probably am the last one who should be critiquing this critique, but it strikes me as a gross simplification — if not grossly unfair. Human learning is exponentially more complex than rocket science, so none of us have a monopoly on learning wisdom. I’m a big proponent of research-based and evidence-based practice, and yet neither research nor other forms of evidence are always omniscient. Almost every time I teach, talk to clients, read a book, read a research article, or read the newspaper, I learn more about learning. I’ve learned a ton from traditional learning professionals. I’ve also learned a ton from social-learning advocates.

 

Summary

In today’s world, there are simply too many echo-chambers — places which are comfortable, which reinforce our preconceptions, which encourage us to demonize and close off avenues to our own improvement.

We in the learning field need to leave echo-chambers to our political brethren where they will do less damage (Ha!). We have to test our assumptions, utilize the research, and develop effective evaluation tools to really test the success of our learning interventions. We have to be open, but not too-easily hoodwinked by claims and shared perceptions.

Hail to the traditionalists and the social-learning evangelists!

 

Follow-up!

Clark Quinn wrote an excellent blog post to reconcile the visions promoted by Jane and Will.

 

Share!

If you want to share this discussion with others, here are the links:

  • Jane’s Provocative Blog Post:
    • http://www.c4lpt.co.uk/blog/2015/11/12/the-ld-world-is-splitting-in-two/
  • Will’s Spirited Critique:
    • http://www.willatworklearning.com/2015/11/the-two-world-theory-of-workplace-learning-critiqued.html
  • Clark’s Reconciliation:
    • http://blog.learnlets.com/?p=4655#comment-821615

 

 

Wisdom from John Medina — and Lunch

,

John Medina, author of Brain Rules, and Development Molecular Biologist at University of Washington/ Seattle Pacific University, was today’s keynote speaker at PCMA’s Education Conference in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

He did a great job in the keynote, well organized and with oodles of humor, but what struck me was that even though the guy is a real neuroscientist, he is very clear in stating the limitations of our understanding of the brain. Here are some direct quotes from his keynote, as I recorded them in my notes:

“I don’t think brain science has anything to say for business practice.”

“We still don’t really know how the brain works.”

“The state of our knowledge [of the brain] is childlike.”

“The human brain was not built to learn. It was built to survive.”

Very refreshing! Especially in an era where conference sessions, white papers, and trade-industry publications are oozing with brain science bromides, neuroscience snake oil, and unrepentant con artists who, in the interest of taking money from fools, corral the sheep of the learning profession into all manner of poor purchasing decisions.

The Debunker Club is working on a resource page to combat the learning myth, “Neuroscience (Brain Science) Trumps Other Sources of Knowledge about Learning,” and John Medina gives us more ammunition against the silliness.

In addition to John’s keynote, I enjoyed eating lunch with him. He’s a fascinating man, wicked knowledgeable about a range of topics, funny, and kind to all (as I found out as he developed a deep repartee with the guy who served our food). Thanks John for a great time at lunch!

One of the topics we talked about was the poor record researchers have in getting their wisdom shared with real citizens. John believes researchers, who often get research funding from taxpayer money, have a moral obligation to share what they’ve learned with the public.

I shared my belief that one of the problems is that there is no funding stream for research translators. The academy often frowns on professors who attempt to share their knowledge with lay audiences. Calls of “selling out” are rampant. You can read my full thoughts on the need for research translators at a blog post I wrote early this year.

Later in the day at the conference, John was interviewed in a session by Adrian Segar, an expert on conference and meeting design. Again, John shined as a deep and thoughtful thinker — and refreshingly, as I guy who is more than willing to admit when he doesn’t know and/or when the science is not clear.

To check out or buy the latest version of Brain Rules, click on the image below:

 

 

 

 

Practice Firms — Giving People Real-World Experience

, ,

Today’s New York Times has a fascinating article on the mostly European concept of practice firms. As the name implies, practice firms give people practice in doing work.

This seems to align well with the research on learning that suggests that learning in a realistic context, getting lots of retrieval practice and feedback, and many repetitions spaced over time can be the most effective way to learn. Of course, the context and practice and feedback have to be well-designed and aligned with the future work of the learner.

Interestingly, there is an organization that is solely devoted to the concept. EUROPEN-PEN International is the worldwide practice enterprise network. The network consists of over 7,500 Practice Enterprises in more than 40 countries. It has a FaceBook page and a website.

I did a quick search to see if there was an scientific research on the use of practice firms, but I didn’t uncover anything definitive…If you know of scientific research, or other rigorous evidence, let me know…

 

 

Looking for Pilot Participants — Leadership Development

, , ,

Note: Pilot is Over… Post kept for historical reasons only…

 

Organizations Wanted to Pilot Leadership-Development Subscription Learning!!

I am looking for organizations who are interested in piloting subscription learning as a tool to aid in developing their managers and energizing their senior management’s strategic initiatives.

To read more about the benefits and possibilities for subscription learning and leadership development, read my article posted on the ATD (Association for Talent Development) website.

Potential Benefits

  • Reinforce concepts learned to ensure remembering and application.
  • Drive management behaviors through ongoing communications.
  • Utilize the scientifically-verified spacing effect to boost learning.
  • Enable dialogue between your senior leaders and your developing managers.
  • Inculcate organizational values through scenario-based reflection.
  • Prompt organizational initiatives through your management cadre.
  • Engage in organizational learning, promoting cycles of reinforcement.
  • Utilize and pilot test new technologies, boosting motivation.
  • Utilize the power of subscription learning before your competitors do.

Potential Difficulties

  • Pilot efforts may face technical difficulties and unforeseen obstacles.

Why Will Thalheimer and Work-Learning Research, Inc.?

  • Experienced leadership-development trainer
  • Previously ran leadership-development product line (Leading for Business Results)
  • Leader in the use of scenario-based questions
  • Experienced in using subscription learning
  • Devoted to evidence-based practices
  • Extensive experience in practical use of learning research

Why Now?

  • Subscription-learning tools are available.
  • Mobile-learning is gaining traction.
  • Substantial discounts for pilot organizations.

Next Steps!!

  • Sorry, the pilot is over…

 

Training Maximizers

,

A few years ago, I created a simple model for training effectiveness based on the scientific research on learning in conjunction with some practical considerations (to make the model’s recommendations leverageable for learning professionals). People keep asking me about the model, so I’m going to briefly describe it here. If you want to look at my original YouTube video about the model — which goes into more depth — you can view that here. You can also see me in my bald phase.

The Training Maximizers Model includes 7 requirements for ensuring our training or teaching will achieve maximum results.

  • A. Valid Credible Content
  • B. Engaging Learning Events
  • C. Support for Basic Understanding
  • D. Support for Decision-Making Competence
  • E. Support for Long-Term Remembering
  • F. Support for Application of Learning
  • G. Support for Perseverance in Learning

Here’s a graphic depiction:

 

Most training today is pretty good at A, B, and C but fails to provide the other supports that learning requires. This is a MAJOR PROBLEM because learners who can’t make decisions (D), learners who can’t remember what they’ve learned (E), learners who can’t apply what they’ve learned (F), and learners who can’t persevere in their own learning (G); are learners who simply haven’t received leverageable benefits.

When we train or teach only to A, B, and C, we aren’t really helping our learners, we aren’t providing a return on the learning investments, we haven’t done enough to support our learners’ future performance.

 

 

Kirkpatrick Model Good or Bad? The Epic Mega Battle!

, ,

Clark Quinn and I have started debating top-tier issues in the workplace learning field. In the first one, we debated who has the ultimate responsibility in our field. In the second one, we debated whether the tools in our field are up to the task.

In this third installment of the series, we’ve engaged in an epic battle about the worth of the 4-Level Kirkpatrick Model. Clark and I believe that these debates help elucidate critical issues in the field. I also think they help me learn. This debate still intrigues me, and I know I’ll come back to it in the future to gain wisdom.

And note, Clark and I certainly haven’t resolved all the issues raised. Indeed, we’d like to hear your wisdom and insights in the comments section.

————————–

Will:

I want to pick on the second-most renowned model in instructional design, the 4-Level Kirkpatrick Model. It produces some of the most damaging messaging in our industry. Here’s a short list of its treacherous triggers: (1) It completely ignores the importance of remembering to the instructional design process, (2) It pushes us learning folks away from a focus on learning—where we have the most leverage, (3) It suggests that Level 4 (organizational results) and Level 3 (behavior change) are more important than measuring learning—but this is an abdication of our responsibility for the learning results themselves, (4) It implies that Level 1 (learner opinions) are on the causal chain from training to performance, but two major meta-analyses show this to be false—smile sheets, as now utilized, are not correlated with learning results! If you force me, I’ll share a quote from a top-tier research review that damns the Kirkpatrick model with a roar. “Buy the ticket, take the ride.”

 

Clark:

I laud that you’re not mincing words!   And I’ll agree and disagree.  To address your concerns: 1) Kirkpatrick is essentially orthogonal to the remembering process. It’s not about learning, it’s about aligning learning to impact.  2) I also think that Kirkpatrick doesn’t push us away from learning, though it isn’t exclusive to learning (despite everyday usage). Learning isn’t the only tool, and we should be willing to use job aids (read: performance support) or any other mechanism that can impact the organizational outcome.  We need to be performance consultants! 3) Learning in and of itself isn’t important; it’s what we’re doing with it that matters. You could ensure everyone could juggle chainsaws, but unless it’s Cirque de Soleil, I wouldn’t see the relevance.

So I fully agree with Kirkpatrick on working backwards from the org problem and figuring out what we can do to improve workplace behavior.  Level 2 is about learning, which is where your concerns are, in my mind, addressed.  But then you need to go back and see if what they’re able to do now is what is going to help the org!  And I’d counter that the thing I worry about is the faith that if we do learning, it is good.  No, we need to see if that learning is impacting the org.  4) Here’s where I agree, that Level 1 (and his numbering) led people down the garden path: people seem to think it’s ok to stop at level 1!  Which is maniacal, because what learners think has essentially zero correlation with whether it’s working (as you aptly say)).  So it has led to some really bad behavior, serious enough to make me think it’s time for some recreational medication!

 

Will:

Actually, I’m flashing back to grad school. “Orthogonal” was one of the first words I remember learning in the august halls of my alma mater. But my digression is perpendicular to this discussion, so forget about it! Here’s the thing. A model that is supposed to align learning to impact ought to have some truth about learning baked into its DNA. It’s less than half-baked, in my not-so-humble opinion.

As they might say in the movies, the Kirkpatrick Model is not one of God’s own prototypes! We’re responsible people, so we ought to have a model that doesn’t distract us from our most important leverage points. Working backward is fine, but we’ve got to go all the way through the causal path to get to the genesis of the learning effects. Level 1 is a distraction, not a root. Yes, Level 2 is where the K-Model puts learning, but learning back in 1959 is not the same animal that it is today. We actually have a pretty good handle on how learning works now. Any model focused on learning evaluation that omits remembering is a model with a gaping hole.

 

Clark:

Ok, now I’m confused.  Why should a model of impact need to have learning in its genes?  I don’t care whether you move the needle with performance support, formal learning, or magic jelly beans; what K talks about is evaluating impact.  What you measure at Level 2 is whether they can do the task in a simulated environment.  Then you see if they’re applying it at the workplace, and whether it’s having an impact.

No argument that we have to use an approach to evaluate whether we’re having the impact at level 2 that we should, but to me that’s a separate issue.  Kirkpatrick just doesn’t care what tool we’re using, nor should it.  Kirkpatrick doesn’t care whether you’re using behavioral, cognitive, constructivist, or voodoo magic to make the impact, as long as you’re trying something.

We should be defining our metric for level 2, arguably, to be some demonstrable performance that we think is appropriate, but I think the model can safely be ignorant of the measure we choose at level 2 and 3 and 4.  It’s about making sure we have the chain.  I’d be worried, again, that talking about learning at level 2 might let folks off the hook about level 3 and 4 (which we see all too often) and make it a matter of faith. So I’m gonna argue that including the learning into the K model is less optimal than keeping it independent. Why make it more complex than need be?  So, now, what say you?

 

Will:

Clark! How can you say the Kirkpatrick model is agnostic to the means of obtaining outcomes? Level 2 is “LEARNING!” It’s not performance support, it’s not management intervention, it’s not methamphetamine. Indeed, the model was focused on training.

The Kirkpatricks (Don and Jim) have argued—I’ve heard them live and in the flesh—that the four levels represent a causal pathway from 1 to 4. In addition, the notion of working backward implies that there is a causal connection between the levels. The four-level model implies that a good learner experience is necessary for learning, that learning is necessary for on-the-job behavior, and that successful on-the-job behavior is necessary for positive organizational results. Furthermore, almost everybody interprets it this way.

The four levels imply impact at each level, but look at all the factors that they are missing! For example, learners need to be motivated to apply what they’ve learned. Where is that in the model? Motivation can be an impact too! We as learning professionals can influence motivation. There are other impacts we can make as well. We can make an impact on what learners remember, whether learners are supported back on the job, etc.

Here’s what a 2012 seminal research review from a top-tier scientific journal concluded: “The Kirkpatrick framework has a number of theoretical and practical shortcomings. [It] is antithetical to nearly 40 years of research on human learning, leads to a checklist approach to evaluation (e.g., ‘we are measuring Levels 1 and 2, so we need to measure Level 3’), and, by ignoring the actual purpose for evaluation, risks providing no information of value to stakeholders… (p. 91). That’s pretty damning!

 

Clark:

I don’t see the Kirkpatrick model as an evaluation of the learning experience, but instead of the learning impact.   I see it as determining the effect of a programmatic intervention on an organization.  Sure, there are lots of other factors: motivation, org culture, effective leadership, but if you try to account for everything in one model you’re going to accomplish nothing.  You need some diagnostic tools, and Kirkpatrick’s model is one.

If they can’t perform appropriately at the end of the learning experience (level 2), that’s not a Kirkpatrick issue, the model just lets you know where the problem is. Once they can, and it’s not showing up in the workplace (level 3), then you get into the org factors. It is about creating a chain of impact on the organization, not evaluating the learning design.  I agree that people misuse the model, so when people only do 1 or 2, they’re wasting time and money. Kirkpatrick himself said he should’ve numbered it the other way around.

Now if you want to argue that that, in itself, is enough reason to chuck it, fine, but let’s replace it with another impact model with a different name, but the same intent of focusing on the org impact, workplace behavior changes, and then intervention. I hear a lot of venom directed at the Kirkpatrick model, but I don’t see it ‘antithetical to learning’.

And I worry the contrary; I see too many learning interventions done without any consideration of the impact on the organization.  Not just compliance, but ‘we need a course on X’ and they do it, without ever looking to see whether a course on X will remedy the biz problem. What I like about Kirkpatrick is that it does (properly used) put the focus on the org impact first.

 

Will:

Sounds like you’re holding on to Kirkpatrick because you like its emphasis on organizational performance. Let’s examine that for a moment. Certainly, we’d like to ensure that Intervention X produces Outcome Y. You and I agree. Hugs all around. Let’s move away from learning for a moment. Let’s go Mad Men and look at advertising. Today, advertising is very sophisticated, especially online advertising because companies can actually track click-rates, and sometimes can even track sales (for items sold online). So, in a best-case scenario, it works this way:

  • Level 1 – Web surfers says they like the advertisement
  • Level 2 – Web surfers show comprehension by clicking on link.
  • Level 3 – Web surfers spend time reading/watching on splash page.
  • Level 4 – Web surfers buy the product offered on the splash page.

A business person’s dream! Except that only a very small portion of sales actually happen this way (although, I must admit, the rate is increasing). But let’s look at a more common example. When a car is advertised, it’s impossible to track advertising through all four levels. People who buy a car at a dealer can’t be definitively tracked to an advertisement.

So, would we damn our advertising team? Would we ask them to prove that their advertisement increased car sales? Certainly, they are likely to be asked to make the case…but it’s doubtful anybody takes those arguments seriously… and shame on folks who do!

In case, I’m ignorant of how advertising works behind the scenes—which is a possibility, I’m a small “m” mad man—let me use some other organizational roles to make my case.

  • Is our legal team asked to prove that their performance in defending a lawsuit is beneficial to the company? No, everyone appreciates their worth.
  • Do our recruiters have to jump through hoops to prove that their efforts have organizational value? They certainly track their headcounts, but are they asked to prove that those hires actually do the company good? No!
  • Do our maintenance staff have to get out spreadsheets to show how their work saves on the cost of new machinery? No!
  • Do our office cleaning professionals have to utilize regression analyses to show how they’ve increased morale and productivity? No again!

There should be a certain disgust in feeling we have to defend our good work every time…when others don’t have to.

I use the Mad Men example to say that all this OVER-EMPHASIS on proving that our learning is producing organizational outcomes might be a little too much. A couple of drinks is fine, but drinking all day is likely to be disastrous.

Too many words is disastrous too…But I had to get that off my chest…

 

Clark:

I do see a real problem in communication here, because I see that the folks you cite *do* have to have an impact. They aren’t just being effective, but they have to meet some level of effectiveness. To use your examples: the legal team has to justify its activities in terms of the impact on the business. If they’re too tightened down about communications in the company, they might stifle liability, but they can also stifle innovation. And if they don’t provide suitable prevention against legal action, they’re turfed out.   Similarly, recruiters have to show that they’re not interviewing too many, or too few people, and getting the right ones. They’re held up against retention rates and other measures.  The maintenance staff does have to justify headcount against the maintenance costs, and those costs against the alternative of replacement of equipment (or outsourcing the servicing).  And the office cleaning folks have to ensure they’re meeting environmental standards at an efficient rate.  There are standards of effectiveness everywhere in the organization except L&D.  Why should we be special?

Let’s go on: sales has to estimate numbers for each quarter, and put that up against costs. They have to hit their numbers, or explain why (and if their initial estimates are low, they can be chastised for not being aggressive enough). They also worry about the costs of sales, hit rates, and time to a signature. Marketing, too, has to justify expenditure. To use your example, they do care about how many people come to the site, how long they stay, how many pages they hit, etc. And they try to improve these. At the end of the day, the marketing investment has to impact the sales. Eventually, they do track site activity to dollars. They have to. If we don’t, we get boondoggles. If you don’t rein in marketing initiatives, you get these shenanigans where existing customers are boozed up and given illegal gifts that eventually cause a backlash against the company. Shareholders get a wee bit stroppy when they find that investments aren’t paying off, and that the company is losing unnecessary money.

It’s not a case of ‘if you build it, it is good’! You and I both know that much of what is done in the name of formal learning (and org L&D activity in general) isn’t valuable. People take orders and develop courses where a course isn’t needed. Or create learning events that don’t achieve the outcomes. Kirkpatrick is the measure that tracks learning investments back to impact on the business.  and that’s something we have to start paying attention to. As someone once said, if you’re not measuring, why bother? Show me the money! And if you’re just measuring your efficiency, that your learning is having the desired behavioral change, how do you know that behavior change is necessary to the organization? And until we get out of the mode where we do the things we do on faith,  and start understanding have a meaningful impact on the organization, we’re going to continue to be the last to have an influence on the organization, and the first to be cut when things are tough. Yet we have the opportunity to be as critical to the success of the organization as IT! I can’t stand by seeing us continue to do learning without knowing that it’s of use. Yes, we do need to measure our learning for effectiveness as learning, as you argue, but we have to also know that what we’re helping people be able to do is what’s necessary. Kirkpatrick isn’t without flaws, numbering, level 1, etc. But it’s a clear value chain that we need to pay attention to. I’m not saying in lieu of measuring our learning effectiveness, but in addition. I can’t see it any other way.

 

Will:

Okay, I think we’ve squeezed the juice out of this tobacco. I would have said “orange” but the Kirkpatrick Model has been so addictive for so long…and black is the new orange anyway…

I want to pick up on your great examples of individuals in an organizations needing to have an impact. You noted, appropriately, that everyone must have an impact. The legal team has to prevent lawsuits, recruiters have to find acceptable applicants, maintenance has to justify their worth compared to outsourcing options, cleaning staff have to meet environmental standards, sales people have to sell, and so forth.

Here is the argument I’m making: Employees should be held to account within their circles of maximum influence, and NOT so much in their circles of minimum influence.

So for example, let’s look at the legal team.

Doesn’t it make sense that the legal team should be held to account for the number of lawsuits and amount paid in damages more than they should be held to account for the level of innovation and risk taking within the organization?

What about the cleaning professionals?

Shouldn’t we hold them more accountable for measures of perceived cleanliness and targeted environmental standards than for the productivity of the workforce?

What about us learning-and-performance professionals?

Shouldn’t we be held more accountable for whether our learners comprehend and remember what we’ve taught them more than whether they end up increasing revenue and lowering expenses?

I agree that we learning-and-performance professionals have NOT been properly held to account. As you say, “There are standards of effectiveness everywhere in the organization except L&D.” My argument is that we, as learning-and-performance professionals, should have better standards of effectiveness—but that we should have these largely within our maximum circles of influence.

Among other things, we should be held to account for the following impacts:

  • Whether our learning interventions create full comprehension of the learning concepts.
  • Whether they create decision-making competence.
  • Whether they create and sustain remembering.
  • Whether they promote a motivation and sense-of-efficacy to apply what was learned.
  • Whether they prompt actions directly, particularly when job aids and performance support are more effective.
  • Whether they enable successful on-the-job performance.
  • Et cetera.

Final word, Clark?

 

Clark:

First, I think you’re hoist by your own petard.  You’re comparing apples and your squeezed orange. Legal is measured by lawsuits, maintenance by cleanliness, and learning by learning. Ok that sounds good, except that legal is measured by lawsuits against the organization. And maintenance is measured by the cleanliness of the premises.  Where’s the learning equivalent?  It has to be: impact on decisions that affect organizational outcomes.  None of the classic learning evaluations evaluate whether the objectives are right, which is what Kirkpatrick does. They assume that, basically, and then evaluate whether they achieve the objective.

That said, Will, if you can throw around diagrams, I can too. Here’s my attempt to represent the dichotomy. Yes, you’re successfully addressing the impact of the learning on the learner. That is, can they do the task. But I’m going to argue that that’s not what Kirkpatrick is for. It’s to address the impact of the intervention on the organization. The big problem is, to me, whether the objectives we’ve developed the learning to achieve are objectives that are aligned with organizational need. There’s plenty of evidence it’s not.

 

So here I’m trying to show what I see K doing. You start with the needed business impact: more sales, lower compliance problems, what have you. Then you decide what has to happen in the workplace to move that needle.  Say, shorter time to sales, so the behavior is decided to be timeliness in producing proposals. Let’s say the intervention is training on the proposal template software. You design a learning experience to address that objective, to develop ability to use the software. You use the type of evaluation you’re talking about to see if it’s actually developing their ability. Then you use K to see if it’s actually being used in the workplace (are people using the software to create proposals), and then to see if it’d affecting your metrics of quicker turnaround. (And, yes, you can see if they like the learning experience, and adjust that.)

And if any one element isn’t working: learning, uptake, impact, you debug that.  But K is evaluating the impact process, not the learning design. It should flag if the learning design isn’t working, but it’s not evaluating your pedagogical decisions, etc. It’s not focusing on what the Serious eLearning Manifesto cares about, for instance. That’s what your learning evaluations do, they check to see if the level 2 is working. But not whether level 2 is affecting level 4, which is what ultimately needs to happen. Yes, we need level 2 to work, but then the rest has to fall in line as well.

My point about orthogonality is that K is evaluating the horizontal, and you’re saying it should address the vertical. That, to me, is like saying we’re going to see if the car runs by ensuring the engine runs. Even if it does, but if the engine isn’t connected through the drivetrain to the wheels, it’s irrelevant. So we do want a working, well-tuned, engine, but we also want a clutch or torque converter, transmission, universal joint, driveshaft, differential, etc. Kirkpatrick looks at the drive train, learning evaluations look at the engine.

We don’t have to come to a shared understanding, but I hope this at least makes my point clear.

 

Will:

Okay readers! Clark and I have fought to a stalemate… He says that the Kirkpatrick model has value because it reminds us to work backward from organizational results. I say the model is fatally flawed because it doesn’t incorporate wisdom about learning. Now it’s your turn to comment. Can you add insights? Please do!