Will at Work Learning

Neon Elephant Award 2011

The Neon Elephant Award 2011 went to a researcher whose work translates complicated research into instructional-design models with practical value.

Click here to see who won...

Click here to learn more about the Neon Elephant Award...

Immersive Learning University -- Upcoming Conference

This is going to be a great conference, first, because I'm doing a keynote address, second, because I'm also speaking on Situation-Based Learning Design, and third, because this conference will have some very unique elements.

In addition to me, the conference highlights other experts in learning and simulation. Dr. Richard Saetti will speak on using cinema and simulations. Brandon Andrews and Dean Fouquet will talk about mobile simulations. Phil Clements will speak on the business ethics of immersive learning. Mike Graham and Ken Spero will discuss how to blend soft and hard skills in simulations. Ron Kantor will speak on social media and immersive learning. And the list goes on.

This conference provides many unique advantages compared with other conferences, which aren't as focused on the development of simulations and immersive-learning environments. First and foremost, the folks who are leading the discussions provide a blend of practical wisdom. These folks don’t just talk about immersive learning; they’ve actually built simulations that work. The conference is designed to have two tracks, one more conceptual—to ensure that we learn the right mental models about simulation design and delivery—and one more focused on the how-to’s of authoring simulations—to help us understand the nuts and bolts of how to actually build simulations that work.The conference is also going to provide a great opportunity for learning and networking, because it's going to be a small, intimate affair. If you want a chance to hob-nob with learning and simulation experts, here is your chance.

The conference is sponsored by NexLearn, creators of SimWriter (a simulation authoring tool). All conference attendees will get a copy of SimWriter Simplicity--so even folks new to simulation authoring can build their own simulations.

EARLY-BIRD SPECIAL Ends Shortly in about a week.

To check it out or to register, click here.

Want to Contribute a Chapter (on social media in higher education)?

CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS - Do you use new technologies and social media to teach in higher education? Please consider submitting a chapter (by January 15, 2012) to the upcoming book "The Plugged-In Professor". Details, contact information and an easy-to-use template are all available at http://nova.wpunj.edu/wilderh/Plugged-in_Professor_Call.html.

Is Your Training Course Likely to Boost Performance? Free Course Review Template.

Despite decades of advocacy by our best trade associations, our wisest gurus, and our most practical researchers, most organizations today still rely on training courses that have little impact in promoting on-the-job performance.

As I mentioned in a recent article, we as learning professionals continue to fail in five major ways. You can access that article by clicking here.

I used to think that this was just a failure of knowledge, but in most of the organizations in which I've consulted, there are at least a few learning-and-performance professionals who understand that training alone is not enough. Part of the problem is the dead weight of tradition--the "old normal" continues to blind us to new possibilities. The enlightened few have a hard time pushing back against the gravitational pull of this mass hypnosis.

I recently had a new insight--a way of looking at this problem that I think might enable organizations to break out of their bad habits. The solution is that we have to gain control of the leverage points we have to push for change. We have to change the levers that warp and control our thinking. The big lever is learning measurement. I've been pushing this for years as our most important leverage point. If we measured better, we'd get better feedback, which would push us to create better learning interventions.

But learning measurement isn't our only lever and changing your learning measurement practices is not always easy politically. Beside learning measurement, I've compiled a whole list of other leverage points that  really matter. In fact, it was only recently that I had this incredible insight (one I maybe should have had 10 years ago), that we ought to figure out all the levers we have at our disposal and change them to help push our organizations toward a performance orientation. I'd like to reveal one of those levers today.

One of the things we do in our organizations is review our training courses from time to time--either intentionally or by osmosis and feeling. Well, instead of using the wrong metrics, why not use methods that we know--based on our understanding of learning-and-performance--are likely to be good indicators of whether our training course will support actual on-the-job performance.

The Course Review Template is something that can be used on any training course--classroom training or e-learning.It includes a set of questions that are indicators of how performance-based your training course is. Each rubric in this tool is inspired by research or proven practices which I've learned in my 25+ years in the workplace learning field. 

I should give you a warning. You're unlikely to be happy with what you find. If I bet each of you one dollar for each training course of yours that doesn't support performance, I'd be a millionaire overnight.

But to be fair, I'm going to let you try out the tool yourself. It's free. Use it. And, let me know how your training courses rate. Are they likely to improve on-the-job performance or not?

Click to Download the Course Review Template

After you review a course, post your results at the following link, and when we get enough responses, we'll let you compare your results to others.

Click to Post Your Course Review Results

Maybe I'm having a momentary bout of delusional cognition, but I'm thinking right now that this simple Course Review Template might just revolutionize our ability to simply review our courses to see how performance focused they are.

Such a grandiose statement will provoke eye rolls in some, so let me stipulate a few things. First, this is a first draft, so the Course Review Template is going to be imminently improveable. Second, the Course Review Template is NOT a precision instrument. It is not psychometrically derived, the numbers it assigns to each rubric are best guesses, and there was no super-committee here--just me. Third, the rubrics themselves are subject to interpretation. Instead of overcomplicating the form and making it unusable, I decided to keep it simple and make it less precise. Finally, course reviews are just one of the levers you'll need to completely transition from a course-focus to a performance-focus.

The bottom line is that we have to try some innovate new things to push our organizations to a performance focus. The old ways have not worked. The Course Review Template--or something like it--is worth a try. And seriously, I think it could revolutionize the way your organization views its training courses.

 

The Five Failures of Workplace Learning Professionals

To view this as a PDF, click here.

-------------------------

To improve, we must know our biggest failings.

In the training and development field, our five biggest failures are as follows:

1. We forget to minimize forgetting and improve remembering.
2. We don’t provide training follow-through.
3. We don’t fully utilize the power of prompting mechanisms.
4. We don’t fully leverage on-the-job learning.
5. We measure so poorly that we don’t get good feedback to enable improvement.

1. Minimizing Forgetting, Improving Remembering

It is not enough to help people understand new concepts or even to motivate them to utilize those concepts. If they don’t remember concepts when they encounter situations in which those concepts would be useful, then previous understanding and motivation is for naught.

There are three powerful mechanisms that support long-term remembering, (a) aligning the learning and performance contexts, (b) providing retrieval practice, and (c) utilizing spaced repetitions. Most of our learning interventions do a poor job of providing these mechanisms—resulting in training that may create awareness but doesn’t support remembering or performance improvement.

We need to give our learners more realistic practice using scenarios and simulations. We also need to space repetitions of learning over time—much more than we do now. Instead of trying to teach everything at a basic awareness level, we need to cover less content—but not just present it—instead giving our learners opportunities for deliberate practice.

2. Training Follow-Through

Providing training but no effort to ensure that learners will apply what they’ve learned is the height of professional malpractice. If we assume that learners remember what they’ve learned (which as we just saw is not a given), learners still must (a) remain motivated to apply what they’ve learned, (b) feel that there is some benefit to applying the learning, (c) have the resources and time to put their learning into practice, (d) get feedback and guidance to improve their performance, and (e) be prepared to overcome obstacles and frustrations in applying the learning.

Note how the first two failures create an additive effect—both significantly lessen the likelihood of on-the-job application of the learning. If learners don’t remember, they’re not going to apply what they’ve learned. If learners don’t receive after-training follow-through support, they are unlikely to provide the continuous and persistent focus needed to apply the learning in a way that creates sustainable success.

To reach a credible level of training follow-through we need to (a) engage our learners managers to enlist their support, (b) provide reminders to apply the learning, (c) provide relearning opportunities for that which has been forgotten, (d) enable additional learning to improve and elaborate on the performance, (e) ensure our learners have the resources and time they need to apply the learning and integrate it into their behavioral repertoire, (f) provide coaching support to guide the learning-and-performance process, (g) ensure the learners are incentivized either tangibly with money or perks or intrinsically by aligning efforts with personal values and sense-of-identity, and (h) encourage persistence even in the face of obstacles and frustration.

3. Prompting Mechanisms

Prompting mechanisms rely on one particularly powerful foible of the human cognitive architecture—that our working memories are triggered easily by environmental stimuli. Prompting mechanisms include things like job aids, performance support tools, signage, intuitive cues in our tools and equipment, and some forms of management oversight. They work because they prompt certain strands of thinking, and thus performance. For example, a job aid that lists 5 key interview goals, 10 key interview questions and their rationales automatically triggers in the interviewer a certain way of thinking about interviewing. For example, an interview template might remind its user that interviews are more telling if interviewees are asked to perform a work task or describe how they would perform a work task. Without such a prompt, the interviewer might focus only on how well they think the person would fit into the work culture, etc.

While we are aware of these prompting mechanisms, we are not aggressive enough in their use. If we utilized prompting mechanisms more often with our training and more often as a replacement for training, we’d create better outcomes. If we went looking for grassroots prompting mechanisms already being used and helped spread their use, we’d be more effective. If we evaluated learning facilitators on their use of prompting mechanisms, we’d be more likely to encourage the use of prompting mechanisms. If we asked learners in training to practice with prompting mechanisms, we’d see more being used on the job—and our learners would remember more of what they learned.

4. On-the-Job Learning

We as learning professionals tend to focus almost exclusively on the creation and delivery of training interventions even when we know that our learners are doing a great deal of their learning on the job without any training. Employees learn through trial-and-practice, getting help from others, through social media, by reading task instructions, by using help systems, and so forth. While we have much less direct influence on on-the-job learning than on training, we do have some influence and we ought to use it if we are serious about getting results.

Often the biggest impact we can have is by accessing managers and encouraging them to actively promote learning. Managers can improve learning in their direct reports by (a) making it a point to monitor their employees’ competencies and guide them toward learning opportunities, (b) being approachable and available for questions and advice, (c) creating a culture of learning and information sharing, (d) encouraging data-driven decision-making instead of opinion-driven decision-making, (e) utilizing an experimental mindset, for example by encourage pilot-testing and rapid prototyping, and (f) giving direct reports time for learning and exploration.

We can also have an influence on on-the-job learning by creating and maintaining social-media mechanisms that can be tailored to particular needs. For example, wikis can be used by project teams to get input from various parties and blogs can be used by senior folks to lay out a compelling vision.
We can encourage better on-the-job learning by improving people’s ability to coach their fellow employees. Too often people asked to coach others do a poor job because they just don’t know what good coaching looks like.

We can utilize diagnostic tools to help people in the organization see things about themselves—or about the organization—that they might not otherwise see. For example, if the organization engages in an effort to improve coaching ability, those being coached can be asked to take a short diagnostic survey on how well their coach is doing in coaching them. If an organization wants to change its culture to one that is more flexible and creative, we can utilize a diagnostic to track progress. We can also use a diagnostic to get the organization talking about specifics—so that employees know what behaviors represent the past culture and which represent the new culture.

There are, of course, other things we can do to directly influence on-the-job learning. In addition, we can change our brand by stopping our tendency to be order takers for training. By changing the way we define our role, we can encourage the business side to be fuller partners in organizational learning.

5. Measurement and Feedback to Spur Improvement

We as learning professionals suck at measurement, creating a vacuum of information that pushes us to make poor decision after poor decision in our learning designs. By only seeking learner opinions about the learning, we encourage a bias toward entertainment and engagement and away from content validity, remembering, and application. By measuring only when the learners are in the training context, we don’t learn whether the learning intervention would generate remembering in a work context that is not like the training situation. By measuring only during the learning event, we measure the learning intervention’s ability to create understanding, but we do not measure the learning intervention’s ability to support long-term remembering. We also fail to examine whether any training follow-through is utilized. By utilizing only low-level questions in our tests of learning, we fail to measure the ability of our learners to make decisions that relate to workplace performance. In short, we don’t get the feedback we need to make good learning decisions.

Maintaining ourselves in a state of permanent darkness, we continue to make terrible decisions in regard to learning design, development, and deployment. We design primarily for engagement and understanding, while ignoring remembering, motivation, and application. We hire and promote trainers and training companies who get great ratings but who don’t help learners remember or apply what they’ve learned. Because our measurement is focused only on training, we fail to engage our business partners to ensure that they are adequately supporting learning application—we also never learn what obstacles and leverage points face our learners when they go to apply the learning in their jobs. We build e-learning programs that encourage learners to focus on low-level trivia instead of focusing on the main points. By abstaining from diagnostics, we leave employees blind to conditions from which they might benefit. Poor measurement enables the first four failures.

The bottom line on measurement is that measurement should provide us with valid feedback. Unfortunately, because we haven’t taken the human learning system into account in our measurement designs—and in our measurement models—we are getting biased information and drawing inappropriate conclusions from poor data.

The Five Failures are Fixable

We as learning professionals—as a whole—though working honorably and with good intentions, are too often failing to maximize our impact. Our job is work-performance improvement. We can start by improving our own work performance.

But instead of focusing on everything—which will certainly overwhelm us—we should focus on the things that really matter. We should focus on our five failures. Instead of following willy-nilly prescriptions that pop like fads from a popcorn popper—we should focus on five things that are fundamental—and inspired by the learning research. We should focus on the five failures.

In this brief article, I have provided strong hints about how to rethink and redirect each of the five failures. While such a brief synopsis is certainly not sufficient to enable you to completely redesign your learning efforts, it should, I hope, motivate you to get started.

-------------------------

To view this as a PDF, click here.

 

External Battery for Your Laptop--A surprising find

My Dell Vostro laptop (after about 2 years of use) regularly runs 2 to 2.5 hours on its battery. It is a powerful laptop.

I bought the Lenmar external battery to help me work on long-distance flights and to take to coffee shops, meetings, etc. (where I'm not sure I'll be able to find an electric outlet). I used the battery only once on a 5 to 5.5 hour flight from San Diego to Boston. And it worked great (so far) so I thought I'd tell you about it.

I used my regular battery till I had about 20% charge left. I plugged the Lenmar into the place where my power-cord normally goes. It quickly (within about 30 minutes) boosted my battery capacity to about 98%--all the time I was still using my computer. I didn't have to reboot like I might have had to do if I was switching laptop batteries. I unplugged the Lenmar and continued to use my laptop and had about 50% left of it's capacity when the flight attendant told us to turn off all electronics. In other words, I probably had my computer on for about 5 hours, and it's likely it might have gone on for up to 5.5 to 6 hours.

I don't know whether this Lenmar external battery will always perform this well, but so far, it's perfect for what I need it for.

1. It doubled my battery life.
2. It's about one-third to one-half the price of an extra computer battery.
3. It's reasonably small, a little smaller than an Ipad.
4. It didn't get hot (a little warm maybe).
5. It's easy to use.
6. It is better than carrying a second laptop battery because you don't have to shut down your computer to install the battery--you just plug it in. It is bigger than a regular laptop battery.
7. You can also charge your cell phone (I think at the same time, though I haven't tried that yet)
8. And it looks good too.

In its first use, the Lenmar external battery appears to be a real find. I had no idea external portable batteries for laptops existed--and there seem to be only a few on the market that can handle laptops.

Poor New York Times piece on Education

Here is the comment I sent to the NY Times in response to their focus on a supposed research study that purported to show that gifted kids are being underserved.

I'm a little over the top in my comments, but still I think this is worth printing because it demonstrates the need for good research savvy and it shows that even the most respected news organizations can make really poor research-assessment mistakes.

Egads!! Why is the New York Times giving so much "above-the-fold" visibility to a poorly-conceived research study funded by a conservative think tank with obvious biases?

Why isn't at least one of your contributors a research-savvy person who could comment on the soundness of the research? Instead, your contributors assume the research is sound.

Did you notice that the references in the original research report were not from top-tier refereed scientific journals?

In the original article from the Thomas Fordham Institute (a conservative-funded enterprise), the authors try to wash away criticisms about regression-to-the-mean and test-variability, but this bone against the obvious--and most damaging, and most valid--criticisms is not good enough.

If you took the top 10% of players in the baseball draft, the football draft, any company's onboarding class, any randomly selected group of maple trees, a large percentage of the top performers would not be top performers a year or two later. Damn, ask any baseball scout whether picking out the best prospects is a sure thing. It's not!

And, in the cases I mentioned above, the measures are more objective than an educational test, which has much higher variability--which would make more top performers leak out of the top ranks.

NY Times--you should be embarrassed to have published these responses to this non-study. Seriously, don't you have any research-savvy people left on your staff?

We have scientific journals because the research is vetted by experts.