Will at Work Learning

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.

 

Are you being fooled by claims of brain-based learning?

What happens when people add scientific-sounding words to their arguments--even if the scientific-sounding words have nothing to do with those arguments?

Research now has the answer. Here's the research abstract from a recent publication:

Explanations of psychological phenomena seem to generate more public interest when they contain neuroscientific information. Even irrelevant neuroscience information in an explanation of a psychological phenomenon may interfere with people's abilities to critically consider the underlying logic of this explanation.

We tested this hypothesis by giving naïve adults, students in a neuroscience course, and neuroscience experts brief descriptions of psychological phenomena followed by one of four types of explanation, according to a 2 (good explanation vs. bad explanation) × 2 (without neuroscience vs. with neuroscience) design.

Crucially, the neuroscience information was irrelevant to the logic of the explanation, as confirmed by the expert subjects.

Subjects in all three groups judged good explanations as more satisfying than bad ones. But subjects in the two nonexpert groups additionally judged that explanations with logically irrelevant neuroscience information were more satisfying than explanations without.

The neuroscience information had a particularly striking effect on nonexperts' judgments of bad explanations, masking otherwise salient problems in these explanations.

So, if you're swayed by "brain-based learning" and other such scientifically-sounding arguments, you might ask yourself, was the argument really persuasive or was I just fooled into thinking it was.

Weisberg, Deena Skolnick; Keil, Frank C.; Goodstein, Joshua; Rawson, Elizabeth; Gray, Jeremy R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(3), 470-477.

Getting Journalist Skills (for us bloggers)

I'm thinking some of us bloggers ought to learn from journalists.

Here's a whole group dedicated to citizen journalism. AND, they have a book available to help us learn how to do it.

Industry Awards, Bias, and Outright Corruption.

Thanks to Bill Ellet, editor of the unbiased Training Media Review, writes about the awards in our industry and how hopelessly biased and corrupt they are.

Click to read Bill's excellent article.

Conferences Go Paperless -- How Learning, Remembering, and On-the-Job Application Suffer

Last week I spoke at one of the major conferences in the workplace learning-and-performance industry to a room filled with about 150 people. I am not including the name of the conference organizer because I don't want to single them out. They are not alone in the going-paperless practice.

Unfortunately, two of the conference decisions---(1) not to provide participants with paper handouts---(2) not to allow electronic handouts to include sufficient pages to provide images of the slides that are shown---may have hurt learning results. Perhaps ironic in a conference devoted to help people build better learning interventions.

Setting the Scene of My Presentation

I spoke on the topic of Situation-Based Learning Design and the session seemed to be well-received. I got the following emails afterward:

• "I found your session to be amazing!"
• "One of the highlights of the conference for me."

One of my friends, who sat in the audience, told me afterward that he knew the session was good because (1) hardly anybody left even after 90 minutes, and (2) many people were furiously taking notes.

But was it a successful learning experience? Isn't that the key question?

I could have been entertaining. People could have liked the session. They could have taken lots of notes. But probably the most important reason they came to the conference was so that they could go back and do something better and to think differently because they had attended.

I used some learning-design techniques to help them remember---to help them integrate the new learning with their current conceptions---but was this enough?

I think something was missing because of the paperless practices, but before I get to that, let me recount some of the design tactics I used specifically to ensure remembering and application to their work.

1. Content was verified (by research) to be effective in supporting good work practices around learning design. Some stuff you learn at conferences can actually make you less effective.
2. Participants were provided with realistic learning-design decisions to make before topics were introduced. By activating prior knowledge and situating the learning in situations similar to those folks would face in their work as learning professionals, the learning would become more usable and more memorable.
3. Examples of real-world e-learning courses were provided to again link realistic context cues to the learning points.
4. Learners were encouraged to specifically engage in trigger setting (what researchers call implementation intentions) to increase the likelihood that they would take action in implementing what they learned
5. Participants were presented with spaced repetitions of key learning points to support long-term remembering. Repetitions were achieved by providing (a) prequestions, (b) research explanations, (c) supporting metaphors, (d) real-world examples, (e) follow-up practice, (f) similar topics that reinforced points from previous topics, (g) a final summary, and (h) a reminder to link the learning to their future situations.

Good stuff to be sure, but was anything missing?

I think so.

The biggest thing that is missing is super-strong links back to the workplace. Even though I use great long-term retrieval support (better than most conference sessions provide I would think), having our learners rely only on the learning-remembering link when transportable cues are available is committing learning-to-performance malpractice. If learners could take their annotated slide images back to the workplace, they would remember more, share more, and apply more of the session content.

The Problem of Going Paperless.

Note-taking can prompt learners to engage in deep processing of their learning. By organizing the learning content during note-taking, learners will be more likely to fully understand what they're learning and remember it later. Note-taking has other benefits as well. Learners can go back and study their notes at a later time, providing themselves with spaced repetitions---a proven aid to long-term remembering. Finally, learners who take notes may be more likely to attempt to share what they've learned with others when they return to work. The process of preparing to teach others, provides further deep processing of the learning material and makes it more likely that the learning content will be remembered and utilized on the job.

When a conference goes paperless, it is likely to curtail note-taking. When I asked my 150 learners how many of them had paper copies or were looking at the handouts on their laptops, less than half raised their hands.

Just because participants can print out the handouts beforehand, doesn't mean that they will. This is a lame excuse for conference organizers.

Taking Notes with Slide Images versus Taking Notes on Plain Paper

The conference organizer only allowed us 8 pages of handouts. I could only fit 12 of my slides into these 8 pages, because some other things were required as well. For me, this meant that more than 85% of my slides were NOT provided to my learners.

Ironically, one of the research streams I talked about in my session was the importance of context in learning and remembering. Specifically, research is very clear that if stimuli are available in both the learning context and the retrieval context, people will be better able to remember what they learned. The contextual cues in the retrieval situation remind the learners of what they learned.

Slide images are such stimulus cues. If learners can transport slide images (and any notes they've added to those images) from the learning situation (my session) to their work situation, they will remember more of what they learned. So, conference organizers who deprive their participants (aka delegates) of slide images and concomitant note-taking are hurting learning.

This is compounded because learners will also be less likely to take back their learning to their coworkers. Just yesterday I did a web meeting with a prospective client and last night I got a request from that prospective client to get copies of my slides. They said they took notes, but they wanted the slides to ensure they didn't miss anything and also to prepare to persuade others in their organization.

Finally, if you've ever looked at a copy of somebody else's slide deck, you know how hard it is to make sense of it without the context provided by aural narration or annotations. People need to be able take notes so that they will later have the full context of the slides. Research also shows that labels, annotations, and notes must be geographically close to the objects of those textual elements---so that limited cognitive resources are not overtaxed, hurting learning. Bottom line here: Notes near the paper on slide images are more effective than notes taken without slide images.

The Push To Paperless

The paperless movement is bound to continue. It cuts into profits for conference organizers to print handouts. It goes against the rising tide of the green environmentally-friendly zeitgeist (which I am very sympathetic to).

If everyone brought their laptop to each session and had the slides available on their screens, they could take notes using Adobe Acrobat's commenting features, or perhaps some other program. What is needed is the ability to put a comment or note where you want it to be, and draw simple diagrams in case there is some visual meaning that should be captured. Note that PowerPoint, even the latest 2007 version, has no such capability. 

One must wonder if the environmental costs of laptop energy-use might outweigh the environmental costs of paper printing, shipping, etc.

If organizers expect participants to print their own copies, than there doesn't appear to be an environmental benefit. Just the costs are shifted to the conference participant.

I have found that I am sometimes able to annotate my own slides so that my audience members don't have to---this would create a minor learning benefit perhaps---but it doesn't really solve the underlying issues.

Academic conferences often have session-leaders write short papers that conference participants can access for later reading. This might be a way to transfer more of the learning content back to the workplace---but could we really make this cultural shift. Also, such short papers would provide a strictly post-learning intervention. It wouldn't fully compensate for the loss of context and note-taking.

Summing it Up

When conferences go paperless:

1. They either hurt learning, remembering, and on-the-job application,
2. Or, they create minor environmental improvements.
3. With current state of installed technology usage, they can't create good learning impacts and good environmental impacts (most people don't have a way to take notes on their slides on their computer).
4. Conference organizers save themselves a heap of money, increasing their profits, which probably doesn't trickle down to conference participants in the form of lower registration fees, especially if participants have to print and transport handouts to the conference and back by themselves.
5. You as a learner have to make a conscious decision to support your conference learning, and you can do this by getting a PDF of the slides beforehand and either printing them out or using Adobe Acrobat to take notes on the slides on your laptop.
6. If you as a conference goer want to maximize learning, you can contact conference organizers and complain, or vote with your dollars by not attending conferences that don't support your learning.

• Tell them: You want slide images.
• Tell them: You want a way to take notes on those slide images.

Bloggers Who Review Products Must Fully Disclose their Ties

Starting today, December 1, 2009, bloggers who review products will have to fully disclose their ties and reveal any free products they receive. See article in NY Times announcing the ruling.

Within the last year, I was sent a learning product worth over $500, presumably to try to entice me to use it and give it a good review. That product is still in its shrink wrap. I've also had several inquiries over the years about whether I'd be willing to review a learning intervention and say nice things. I won't make such a deal.

Do you ever wonder which workplace learning blogs are slanting their reviews? Me too.

Anyway, today such incentivized bias is supposed to stop.

We are Professionals, Aren't We?

Last year I was asked by Michael Allen--one of our industry's most influential creators and most successful entrepreneurs--to contribute a chapter to his first e-Learning Annual, which Pfeiffer had urged him to manage and edit.

Michael introduced my chapter as follows:

"In this article, one of the learning and performance field’s leading
visionaries looks back on his twenty-two years in the field with both love
and regret, while looking forward to the future by challenging all of us in
the field who see ourselves as learning-and-performance professionals.
Dr. Thalheimer’s challenge is simple. He asks every person in the field
to understand the forces that control their thinking and influence their
decision making. It’s as if the author wants to say: the unexamined
profession is not worth having." 

I'm still thrilled to hear Sir Michael call me a visionary--though I'm sure he was talking about hallucinations of some sort. Because the article still resonates for me, I thought I'd share it with you.

Download We_Are_Professionals_by_Will_Thalheimer_

I encourage you to take a look at the whole book. Michael Allen’s 2008 e-Learning Annual does a great job covering the historic and institutional foundations of the learning-technology field--with chapters from more than 20 luminaries who have been at the heart of the learning field for a long time, including folks like Thiagi, David Merrill, Allison Rossett, and Greg Kearsley, and so many more.

Here are some of my conclusions in the chapter:

1. Our graduate schools prepare
   technicians, not thoughtful
   scientist-practitioners who
   understand learning, think
   critically, and build wisdom over
   time.
2. We don’t measure the outcome of
   our work in ways that enable us
   to build effective feedback loops
   and make improvements that will
   lead to better learning, on-the-job
   performance, and business results.
3. The work pressures we face
   (for example, Internet-induced
   information overload and business
   demands for cheaper, faster
   results)—combined with our
   tendency toward professional
   arrogance—don’t predispose
   us to keep learning, to test our
   conjectures, to build a rich and
   complex knowledge base over time.
4. Our trade associations, magazines,
   and conferences provide us
   with information that sells, not
   information that necessarily tells
   the truth of how we should better
   design our products and services.
5. Our consultants and vendors are
   a large source of our information,
   and we tend to think uncritically
   about their offerings.
6. Learning-and-performance
   research is not utilized when it
   might provide substantial benefits.
7. Industry research is severely
   flawed, but we rely on it anyway.
8. Contests, awards, and best-of lists
   grab our attention and distort
   our thinking about what is most
   important.

Okay, those were the list of our failures. I also add a list that begs for hope for our profession.

What do you think of our current practices?

Of our future?

Geary Rummler Tribute at ISPI. Will's Notes and Reflections.

Tonight at the ISPI conference in Orlando, I attended a tribute to Geary Rummler, who recently died after a long and distinguished career in the “Performance-Improvement Field.”

I didn’t know Geary, so I didn’t know how I would react or how long I would stay. I brought my laptop to do emails while I listened. I sat in the back of the cavernous ballroom.

I became transfixed as speaker after speaker who had worked closely with Geary talked about his work and the contributions he made to the field.

The following is my stream of consciousness note-taking with some later annotations. Not worthy of a tribute, but perhaps enough to help me remember some of Geary’s work—and perhaps enough to encourage YOU to take a look at his books and writings.

Notes and Annotations

Entrepreneurial experimentation. Science and sweat. Learning through trial and error.
Creating one-week program on programmed instruction. Didn’t have time to tell, to present objectives, etc. Showed them, had them practice. Curiosity, interested in what did NOT work, not just what DID work. Pre-Testing then Programmed Instruction then Maintenance of Behavior. Annotation: Even way back in the 1960’s and 1970’s someone was thinking about maintaining performance after training, and we are still struggling to get most of the field to do this.

After the initial workshop was developed and deployed, then Management of Behavior Change Workshop. Then General Systems theory workshop. Started small and specific—built up to systems.
During 1960’s Geary and colleagues wouldn’t do training without a thorough front-end needs analysis. 

Annotation: Hmmm. With today’s pressures, many are eschewing FEA.

Geary rebuffed a man who insulted one of his woman colleagues by telling him, “Shut up, she knows more than you do.”

Praxis (a Geary company) had a mission (we didn’t earn that much money speaker said)—to make the world a better place by improving the place where people worked. Annotation:

One of Geary’s former colleagues sang a song in tribute (a tear-inducing moment).

Geary was an engineer. Geary worked with Tom Gilbert. Helped plan Motorola University. Did coaching of functional managers of manufacturing curriculum. One of nice things about Geary is that as a consultant as he learned—he would even tell about the mistakes he made.

Quote from Geary (paraphrased): “Beware of false prophets, the HR people, who would rank and rate you, but don’t really understand the organization.”

Article: “You want performance, not just training.”

Did Situation analysis. Asked these questions: (1) What is happening now? (2) What should be happening?, THEN Define desired outputs. “As-is” “To-Be”

This all become six-sigma, etc. Annotation: Several people said Geary’s work became basis for the Six-Sigma movement, TQM, etc.

Geary said: You’ve got a lot of white space on the org chart you need to manage.

Annotation: People like Geary and his colleagues have been doing very valuable stuff for years (For example, they got cycle time from 17 weeks to 5 days), but why hasn’t this spread? Why hasn’t this performance-based approach gradually knocked-out the dominant training-based approach?

Rummler stuff got repackaged into 6-sigma stuff. Motorola bought license from Geary Rummler’s stuff into 6-sigma and TQM.

Geary’s true legacy: Changed the lens we all look through, moving from training to performance improvement.

Provided a common language:
White space, disconnects, organization as a system, cross-functional processes.

Geary Rummler: Managing the whitespace:

Performance Design Lab (Came out of retirement and started/joined this company).
Geary retired, but had to come back and knew the world didn’t get it and had to get back in the game, forming Performance Design Lab in 2000, where they were focusing on performance management systems (maintaining  improvement after the performance improvement).

Serious Performance Consulting. A Geary Book.

Geary always had to have a vehicle for packaging  his insights into his workshops and his books in ways that would make sense for people.

A speaker said, “He believed that it could be possible to create a prosperous society by construction a good system that will hold successful organizations and generate superior results.”

Two places that Geary touched, who seem to want to use Geary’s work to improve the world. Performance Improvement Institute in Cd. Obregon. Sonora Inst of Tehcnol and norwest of Mexico.

Geary Quote: “We cannot continue working the way we are expecting to get different results.”
Speaker quote (paraphrased): “Geary would share his materials more than anyone I know, I think because he was a learner, he wanted us all to know enough so that he could  discuss with us and we could learn together.”

Drinking alcohol and developing relationships with good discussions was a recurring theme. Many stories about drinks being drunk.

“If you put a good performer in a bad system the system wins every time.” Quote from Geary Rummler.

One speaker, quieted by tears, haltingly spoke about imagining Geary becoming a star in the sky…

Annotation: I really didn’t know that much about Geary’s work, but now I am motivated to learn more. Also, I’m glad I went because it gave me nice perspective on the field, even knowing that this “history” was filtered through the lens of tribute protocol.

Bottom line: I was touched and I’m motivated to learn more. Thanks to ISPI for providing this, for all the speakers (who I apologize for failing to capture their names), and for all the people who came to Orlando especially for the tribute.

Here are two of Geary's most popular books:

Assessment Guru Hints at Trends Relevant to Learning Professionals

Learning professionals (like me) can often gain insights about our industry from people in the field who have different vantage points than our own. I recently talked with Eric Shepherd, CEO of Questionmark, to get a sense of our industry and how it has been affected by the bad economy. Eric has been a good friend and long-time supporter of my research over the years and I've come to value his counsel.

Questionmark is the leading provider of assessment software according to a recent eLearning Guild study. I thought from his perch overseeing all-things-assessment, Eric might be able to give us some unique insight into the learning-and-performance field in general.

Check out my interview with him at the recent Guild conference. I divided it into two parts to make viewing easier.

Part 1: What trends do you see that we may be missing? 

Women in Learning Technology

Great list by Janet Clarey of some of the most notable women in the Learning Technology field.

Click here to look at the list.