Life is Short

Yesterday was Memorial Day and I spent some time thinking about how important it is to honor all our service members who have passed. That led me to think about life and how things can change in an instant. How it is important to recognize what is important to us. As they say, “life is short.” As I get older I realize life is getting shorter and shorter. Now a days I stop and try every so often to take stock. Am I doing what I want to be doing? Am I satisfied with what I have accomplished? Are my personal and professional goals in need of review? Is something missing from my life? Do I want to try something new? Do I want to stop doing anything? If yes, what actions can I take?

I have always been a bit of heads-down workaholic, but of late I have begun to take more time out to smell the roses. As well as to ponder how life is different for all of us. But at our core I believe humans need to have both purpose and fun in life. In today’s society I believe we all need to find ways to slow down and enjoy entertainment, nature, and most of all, interacting with friends and colleagues. But that doesn’t mean we don’t need to still be committed to whatever it is that allows us to enjoy our downtime. We all need to engage in productive activities, whatever that means to each of us. I hope you are able to enjoy your downtime activity of choice on this day and many others.

Personally, I love to walk and hike local trails. Even walking though different local neighborhoods shows me different interesting things. When I travel I like to explore by walking through different towns. While shopping areas and restaurants are often the same across the country, there are almost always hidden gems to explore. But, for me, the walking in and of itself is very enjoyable and helps me regenerate and go back to what needs doing.

I also love the theater. In recent months I’ve seen “The Night of the Iguana” by Tennessee Williams with James Earl Jones; “My 80-year-old boyfriend” conceived and performed by Charissa Bertels, and a really great performance of the Mel Brooks musical, “The Producers”.

What all three of these plays had in common for me, was that, like all good entertainment, it made me think about issues that other people face and how they deal with them. Although they all had at least a bit of drama and a bit of comedy. I walked away from each of these plays with several things to think about. When I get the combination of good entertainment and fruit for thought I consider it a win.

With all of the above said, I am going out for a walk. More next time.

Memorial Day Musings

Hello everyone,

Today I want to say a few words about Memorial Day. When I think about Memorial Day, I can’t help but think about family. So many of my family have served in the military. My husband, my father-in-law, three of my uncles, both of my brother-in-laws and so many more, all served and so many have passed. I remember and honor their lives today along with all the other soldiers, sailors, and marines who served. Tomorrow I’m going to expand a little more on these thoughts. I’ll talk about learning again soon. For now, I wish everyone a peaceful Memorial Day.

We don’t need any more Snake Oil

A chemist usually knows what will happen when they combine certain chemicals. A mathematician knows the formulas to use to solve certain types of problems. A writer can follow a standard to include references in a publication. But, a learning professional doesn’t always know whether their development or delivery techniques will produce the desired end results.

It seems like a day doesn’t go by without someone or some organization promoting the miracle new method for designing, developing, or delivering training. Why do we continue to look for new ways to train people? Why haven’t we as educators found the Holy Grail for making learning happen? Why are we still looking for the next big thing to help learning occur?

There are those who propose that learning happens best when combined with humor, graphics, stories, games, and on and on. I agree that each of these (and many more) methods can help learning to occur. But so far we haven’t found a consistent methodology for consistently transferring knowledge.

When we look at other fields of endeavor we find that there are methodologies that are tried and true. In fact there are many of them for many fields. And although the field of learning has embraced many techniques, we really don’t have a set that most professionals recommend to ensure that learning will occur. Some support the theory that different people learn differently and that different techniques work for visual, auditory and kinetic learners. There are others who say that, if the learning materials are developed following a design model, then everyone will learn from the materials regardless of whether they show a preference for visual, auditory or kinetic materials. They may take different amounts of time to gain the capabilities, but everyone will learn.

I wish I could say that I have the definitive answer that will always make learning happen. Unfortunately, I don’t. However, I do think that there are certain elements that most often produce good results. But, is this enough? Don’t we want a tried and true process for making learning happen more often than not?

A concern that I have is that there are too many “snake oil” methods for producing learning results. Another concern is that while research activities into learning methods have produced successes, research hasn’t yet (and may never) identify a holistic approach to consistently developing successful learning events.

Over the years incremental findings for successful techniques have certainly been identified and promoted. Yet, there are still so many techniques and tools being promoted that have little or no value. Why is this the case? I believe as learning professionals we all want to find the process that will deliver better learning results from our efforts.

“Mind, Brain, and Education Science: A comprehensive guide to the new brain-based teaching (W.W. Norton) is a book based on over 4,500 studies and with contributions from the world’s leaders in the science of Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE).” History shows us much of what has occurred since people started to teach. This reference covers the science of Mind, Brain, and Education. This science has been around for some time but is still considered an emerging field. At this point most of what is published about MBE addresses young learners. However, I believe it can also provide guidance to those of us who develop learning events for adult learners. More information about MBE and the history of learning can be found in:
http://education.jhu.edu/PD/newhorizons/Journals/Winter2011/Tokuhama4
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE SCIENCE OF LEARNING: Part 1 (3500 B.C.E.-1970 C.E.)
And
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE SCIENCE OF LEARNING: Part 2 (1970s-present)
Dr. Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa, Ph.D.

“If research produces useful knowledge for most of the industries and businesses of the world, then shouldn’t it be serving the same function for education? Somehow education has been mostly exempt from this grounding in research.”

Click to access FischerGroundwork.MBE2009.3.1.pdf

Mind, Brain, and Education: Building a Scientific Groundwork for Learning and Teaching; Kurt W. Fischer
Presidential Address: First Conference of the International Mind, Brain, and Education Society
Volume 3—Number 1 © 2009 the Author Journal Compilation © 2009 International Mind, Brain, and Education Society and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Perhaps some researchers will look at how these three areas (MBE) interact for adult learners as well. For right now this is an area that is ripe for research. I hope that some doctoral candidates will begin to explore and publish their findings in this field focusing on adult learners. In the meantime we all need to be careful that we don’t buy the snake oil to find a quick fix for developing learning events.

The Components of Good Course Development

I want to take a walk down memory lane and I invite you to join me. Let’s go back to when the development of instruction was done without electronic authoring tools. Back in those days there were several areas of focus, there was the psychology of learning, there was the development of media to enhance the understanding and integration of learning, there was learning research, and a few other areas that fell under the overarching title of Instructional Design.

Today while universities do offer programs in all of these areas and more, corporations tend to hire people to do what is labeled as instructional design. Most often the job description talks to the ability to use e-learning authoring and image creation tools such as Articulate and Captivate. In and of themselves these are important to the presentation of learning materials. However, what I believe is often missing in these job descriptions and the work that the e-learning developers do, is the application of the principles of learning design and development. Well-designed learning materials include presentation of information, examples, practice exercises, repetition, and feedback. It also helps to test the materials out with a few members of the target population to learn how well the learning materials perform. Changes can be integrated as needed before the materials are released.

For the most part, corporate course developers start with a technical background and then they gain the knowledge of how to use course development tools later. However, we also must focus on training course developers in how to develop content that makes learning happen. Today most corporate training departments are promoting the development of mini modules of learning, usually covering one to three concepts. While this is really a great breakthrough and will lead to better training and learning, I believe that understanding how people learn must still be factored into what corporate course developers need in order to develop good, quality instruction.

I believe that the development of a learning event should consider all of these components and perhaps more. Learning is complex and using the systems approach of considering all factors that impact it will lead to better outcomes.
• Technical or other information, concepts, and so forth
• Systems approach to design of learning
• Learning theory
• Learning design
• Current and emerging technologies for development and delivery
• Presentation design (for example, Articulate, Captivate)

While this may look like an overwhelming list of areas needed for the development of good instruction, I believe it isn’t any more (or less) extensive than any other field of endeavor.

I hope you will weigh in with comments and let me and others know your thinking. Let’s help make learning happen.

Will Tomorrow’s Corporation have a Training Department?

For years, and with very little success, training organizations have attempted to get a seat at the table. Training departments had a hard time showing how they contributed to the corporate bottom line. They also couldn’t articulate how learning – in the classroom or on-line – directly impacted people’s work.

http://www.dashe.com/blog/elearning/three-reasons-why-corporate-training-departments-may-soon-be-extinct-2/
Three Reasons Why Corporate Training Departments Could Become Extinct
Social Learning Blog; April 26, 2011
“How will training be produced and delivered in the future? Most likely by small, specialized teams focused on business results. Teams will be project-driven, closer to the customer, and more focused on giving workers knowledge and skills while they’re working, rather than creating ways to take them out of their work to consume training.”

Maybe a new organizational structure needs to be put in place? Learning professionals could head teams that sit in business units to understand what needs the learning organization can meet. There are many processes that learning folks can curate and provide information about.

The Corporate Training Predictions You Need to Know for 2017
Dec 16, 2016 | Posted by Brent Schlenker

The Corporate Training Predictions You Need to Know for 2017

“We now have the technology to create and deliver content at the speed of learning, not the speed of training. That changes who we are, what we do, and how we add value to the business. And that’s the key. We can now be a strong integrated part of the business because we know more about how the brains of our employees process the content we produce. We’ve shifted from only producing training events, to producing training experiences that are supported by content, and engagement, at the moment of need (HT: Bob Mosher and Conrad Gottfredson) during the long term learning process. The neuroscience and new technologies give us everything we need to improve performance and make a difference. But only if we adapt and appreciate the new workplace environments and needs of the business.”

What do customers need? What do other groups within the larger organization need? Training organizations can become information and service organizations. They can be the hub in the spoke of business. Customers, managers, learners, and others in organizations can all profit from what a training organization can share.

Members of training organizations interact with and train members of various internal and external groups. Because they interface with so many different populations, learning professionals are well-positioned to provide this new service to the corporation and also to grow the L&D organization.

Perhaps rotations can be instituted so that members of L&D can contribute to other organizations? For example, learning professionals are experienced in doing research. They can help with researching competitive offering. They can learn what is needed by different corporate organizations such as engineering, sales, marketing, corporate business teams, and so on. Perhaps having someone provide a new viewpoint will contribute to generating corporate revenue? The training team lead can gather and curate findings to the full team for their input before disseminating the results.

https://www.totaralms.com/blog/disruption-debate-don-taylor-its-time-wake
Disruption Debate with Don Taylor: It’s time to wake up
May 5, 2017 – Posted by Kayleigh Tanner

… Lars Hyland speaks to some of L&D’s leading influencers about the topic of disruption in the industry. In this post, Lars speaks to Don Taylor, chair of the LPI, LSG and Learning Technologies, and author of Learning Technologies in the Workplace.

“So, what does the L&D team of the future look like according to Don? “In future, we can expect to see a small number of L&D professionals working at the strategic level, whether that’s interacting with the business, consulting, or acting as thought leaders. We will also have tactical people making things happen, designing experiences, coordinating, curating and facilitating – wider than today’s current L&D skillset”

Thought leaders are making recommendations and predications about the future of L&D organizations. If we want that seat at the table, we need to look at the new ways we can help make the L&D departments get out in front and lead the way to the future.

Time for Change

Learning event development is changing at a very rapid pace. The year 2017 brings lots of forecasts for how things will change as well as reports on how things have already changed in the design and delivery of learning events.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paycom/2017/02/14/learning-management-systems-101-rethinking-your-approach-to-employee-training/#68ee2d2d755b

A search for similar articles about changes to certification exam processes does not bring up similar types of posts.

The question that comes to mind is should we, as learning professionals, also look at whether changes need to be made to certification exams? Do we need to apply new concepts to what the exams cover? I say the answer is yes.

Many exams test minute components of a field in the belief that this will ensure the test taker will be able to perform in the job role. However, this is a concept that needs to be explored further. Exam teams write many test items to ensure they have a sufficient number of questions to create multiple forms of an exam. Multiple items also provide replacement items for questions that don’t perform well. Or for questions that become obsolete due to changes in products or processes. Items that test small components are also easier to develop and validate. But if we as learning professionals want to produce better job performance, we need to step up our game. We must help SMEs develop better test questions. We need to test and certify that the taker can perform the needed activities in the job role.

Without question, certification exams need to demonstrate that the exam is both valid and reliable. However, even if it is shown that items are both reliable and valid, if they cover just a small piece of an action, concept, or other component of the job role, how good is this information? Unless the test taker is able to integrate the pieces into the whole, there isn’t proof that correctly responding to such items demonstrates that the test taker can perform the needed end result.

Perhaps it is time to consider testing for the end results actually needed to be successful in a job role rather than testing the component parts of those activities. Too often we don’t test for the equivalent of driving a car but rather we test for the equivalent of whether the test taker knows where the brakes are, what road signs mean, and how to recover from a skid. All these activities are without a doubt extremely important activities for successfully driving a car. But it is time to test for end results. For example, asking a test taker to respond to questions related to something like in driving from point A to point B someone unexpectedly pulls out into your lane, what do you do? List response options that include multiple steps. Or list multiple steps in a column and ask the test taker to select all that apply.

As certification exam managers, we need to help item writers write meaningful certification exam questions. Item developers need to be able to write items that are close to essay items rather than asking about minute details in order to write enough items to produce multiple forms. Too often item developers write items, which are both valid, and reliable but do not assess whether the test taker can pull all the component parts together to solve problems. For example, correctly performing calculations is not enough. People need to be able to pull the component parts together and correctly apply them to a problem.

Another question that needs to be addressed is, do professionals need to memorize every facet of the work related to their field? Is it perhaps time to only require memorization of key concepts that must be second nature to professionals on the job? Can we use other methods to increase the number of items that are presented to the test taker to ensure valid and reliable results?

These are the questions that I would like to see explored in the literature. Can we perhaps design tests that include scenarios that present opportunities or problems that a professional is likely to see while performing the job role? For example, does a lawyer working on a case need to know how to prepare a defense for a client? Clearly not, they need to know which resources and documents they need to access. They also need to know how to use the tools available and how to compile an effective plan to defend their client. A financial planner also doesn’t need to know all the products available for their various clients. But they do need to know which types of financial products are appropriate for each segment of the population they serve. They also need to take the client’s level of openness to risk and other factors into consideration. These types of examples can be applied to every professional field.

I encourage learning professionals to explore and publish their findings about how we can improve the applicability of certification exam questions to job roles.