tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-77438732024-03-12T21:47:25.506-07:00Big Dog, Little DogThoughts on Instructional Design and performance by <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/">Big Dog & Little Dog</a>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.comBlogger590125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-59808145056173205512016-01-25T07:01:00.000-08:002016-01-25T07:01:09.304-08:00Is 70:20:10 the Norma of the L&D world?Norma is a statue that was designed in 1943 to represent the ideal female form. It was based on measurements collected from 15,000 young adult women. A Cleveland newspaper soon announced a contest co-sponsored by the Cleveland Health Museum, the Academy of Medicine of Cleveland, the School of Medicine, and the Cleveland Board of Education. To enter, a women had to submit her body dimensions. The person that most closely matched the “typical woman,” as represented by Norma, would be the winner.<br />
<br />
The judges believed the contest would be close, however, less than 40 of the almost 4,000 contestants were average size on just five of the nine dimensions and none of the contestants came close on all nine dimensions.<br />
<br />
While the Norma Look-Alike contest demonstrated that average-size women did not exist, a study conducted by the U.S. Air Force at about the same time revealed there was no such thing as an average-size pilot (men). Note: the full story for both Norma and the pilots can be read at, <a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-force-discovered-the-flaw-of-averages.html" target="_blank">When U.S. air force discovered the flaw of averages</a> (thank you <a href="http://www.downes.ca/index.html">Stephen Downes</a> for the link).<br />
<br />
70:20:10 is similar to Norma and the Air Force pilots in that they are classifying groups according to their averages on certain measures (known as <em>typing</em>). The 70:20:10 study was conducted in the 1980s by asking successful executives how they learned (and we can pretty much conclude from this that the study was mostly composed of white men whose ambitions were to climb the hierarchical ladder to a top executive position).<br />
<blockquote>
Form ever follows function. - Louis Henri Sullivan in 1896.</blockquote>
Sullivan's quote implies NOT that there is a greater importance of function over form, but rather that the two are intricately linked together. In addition, function is decided before form. For example, an office chair with a straight back used <em>form</em> first; otherwise, the back would be curved to fit the human spine (<em>function</em>). Once you know the <em>function</em>, the <em>form</em> can then be designed to fit it.<br />
<br />
Thus, designers who use the 70:20:10 model are designing for form first (how white men before the Internet thought they learned). And to make it worse, there is no <em>function</em> in the 70:20:10 model as the model does not tell you where you are or what to do. . . it only tells you three numbers that stand on their own.<br />
<blockquote>
Design communicates on every level. It tells you where you are, cues you to what you can do, and facilitates the doing. - Jeffrey Zeldman</blockquote>
Now compare the 70:20:10 model to the <a href="http://bdld.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-702010-learning-model-path-to-past.html">Full-Spectrum Learning model</a>. The 70:20:10 model points you to the past, while the second gives you two heuristics to guide you in your design and points you towards the future.<br />
<br />
Do you design for the past or the future?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-91901600609387194622016-01-13T11:26:00.000-08:002016-01-24T14:30:55.646-08:00The 70:20:10 Learning Model: A Path to the PastThis post arose from Tom Spiglanin's post and comments on <a href="http://tom.spiglanin.com/2015/12/revisiting-702010/" target="_blank">Revisiting 70:20:10</a>.<br />
<br />
70:20:10 has been good in that it has inspired instructional designers to create broader learning experiences, rather than just courses. The major problem is that it is based on how a very small group of one profession believed that is how they learned in the past. Thus, we know the outcome they achieved, 70:20:10, but not how that particular ratio equates to our particular situation.<br />
<br />
In addition, we know that 70:20:10 is the goal, but we also know that we don't really have to match the ratio exactly. However, there is no real means that informs us if our percentage is correct or not. For example, if my design is 50:20:30, is it correct for the situation, or did I put too much Training and not enough Experience in it?<br />
<br />
Thus, 70:20:10 is predictive in that it tells where or near (it's not exact) we should be, but since it is unstructured, it is impossible to use as a means for getting there. By <em>unstructured</em>, I mean it does not rely on relationships to track it in an environment. The percentages are only related to each other, thus we cannot associate them with other entities in order to check if our percentage make sense.<br />
<br />
In addition, two of the percentages (training and experience) are more closely related to the environment or domain; while the third one, learning from others (social) is more of a learning method, rather than a learning environment. That is, most organizations have different environments for training and working (experience), but none for social learning because it's ubiquitous — it happens all over the place. Thus, the three terms are difficult to align in relationship to each other. And if we can't align them, we cannot structure them.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Structuring the Environments</h2>
<br />
Training allows us a safe and structured place to learn, while experience allows us to master a task through experiential and experimental methods in the real world. But is there another environment? What about the future? Training and experience gives us the skills and knowledge for performing in today's work environment, but not tomorrow's.<br />
<br />
In a rapidly changing world, learning through formal and/or nonformal environments is a required environment if an organization wants to remain competitive. Various elements of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatility,_uncertainty,_complexity_and_ambiguity" target="_blank">VUCA</a> affect all organizations to one degree or another. Not only do organizations have to be prepared for the elements of VUCA, they must identify future jobs and tasks in order to rapidly meet new and often unexpected challenges. For example, during our latest recession, companies dumped thousands of people in mass layoffs. Now they are whining that they cannot find people who have the education and training that they require. Good organizations should always be planning a path towards the future by educating people to build that path.<br />
<br />
What would we call this domain or environment that prepares us for the future? One large organization calls it <em>Education</em>. In <a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/isd/definitions.html" target="_blank">Human Resource Development</a>, education means learning for a future job. There are actually three terms:<br />
<ul></ul>
<br />
<li>Training is learning that is provided in order to improve performance on the present job. (Full evaluation of the results can be determined when the performer returns to the job)</li>
<br />
<br />
<li>Education is helping people to do a future or different job. (Full evaluation of the results can only be performed when the performer starts the new job)</li>
<br />
<br />
<li>Development is helping people to acquire new horizons, technologies, or viewpoints. (Full evaluation of results is often difficult to determine because of extensive ambiguity)</li>
<br />
<br />
<br />
Thus, from this frame of reference, the term <em>Education and Development</em> would be the best fit — Education covers future jobs, while Development covers the VUCA aspect.<br />
<br />
This is not to downplay social learning, as again, it is ubiquitous in all three environments. However, if you really don't like Education or Development, then perhaps the term <em>Social Learning</em> (learning from others) does fit somewhat as this is what a large majority of the learning is in this type of environment.<br />
<br />
Note that the Education environment is similar to Training in that it is often conducted in the classroom, however it differs in two big aspects, 1) the learners choose the objectives and 2) the learning is highly ubiquitous.<br />
<br />
So now, we have three domains or environments: Training, Experience, and Education.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Responsibility and Ambiguity</h2>
<br />
Now we need some type of heuristic to guide us in the selection of the three environments. We do know at least two things about learning:<br />
<br />
<strong>Responsibility</strong>: While learners are responsible for the learning, we at times want to limit the responsibility of how and what they learn because of safety or other concerns that may harm the organization. For example, some mistakes only have minor consequences, while others cause major consequences, thus you want the learning to be more formal in order to eliminate the possibility of that type of mistake, which means you place more of the responsibility on someone who fully understands the task. Thus, responsibility is based a lot on the amount of harm a mistake may cause. This includes such impacts as safety, hits to the organization’s reputation, cost of the mistake, and how it affects others, both inside and outside the organization.<br />
<br />
<strong>Ambiguity</strong>: Some tasks are structured, such as a step-by-step process or procedure; while others are partially or totally ambiguous in the way they are performed. Tasks that have low ambiguity are often shaped that way for a purpose. For example, processes and procedures are often created to ensure compliance or the company has discovered it’s the most effective and efficient way to accomplish a task. Processes and procedures require they be performed correctly, which means you don't want to leave it to chance. Since training relies upon clear objectives as found in processes and procedures, it becomes much harder to train an ambiguous task, thus the Experience environment often works best for learning tasks that are quite ambiguous.<br />
<br />
Responsibility and Ambiguity provide two good heuristics because they are about two of the most important entities in a learning situation — the learner and the content that must be mastered.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Full-Spectrum Learning</h2>
<br />
Now we have three environments, Training, Experience, and Education; and two heuristics, the Responsibility and Ambiguity continuums to build our model. However, we are in luck because the U.S. Army has already built such a model:<br />
<img alt="Full-Spectrum Learning" src="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/media/Full-Spectrum-Learning.png" hspace="10" vspace="10" width="100%" /><br />
<br />
<h2>
Integration of the Three Environments</h2>
<br />
One of the major criticisms of 70:20:10 is that the three environments stand on their own, that is, the three numbers of 70, 20, 10 are normally shown as silos, rather than being integrated. In the model shown above, each of the three environments are shown as being a major domain or environment, depending on where it lies within the matrix, in addition, each major domain is composed of a cluster of blocks that represent the other two environments but to a much lesser extent.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Training</h3>
<br />
Training is performed when there are low levels of Responsibility and Ambiguity. This is shown in the first cluster of blocks (bottom, left corner) in the above model — a large block of Training, with smaller blocks of Experience and Education.<br />
<br />
For example, a forklift can cause serious injury or death, plus extensive damage, thus it needs to be initially learned in a safe environment. Even though you may know the learners are highly responsible, you want to remove some of the responsibility from the learners because of safety. In addition, the basic operations of the forklift are pretty much procedural, rather than ambiguous. Thus, the learning is placed in a training environment.<br />
<br />
Once they master the basics, you move them to the next environment — Experience. This allows them to advance from beginner to performer by allowing them to work in an environment that has more ambiguity.<br />
<br />
In addition, you might add a small amount of Education, such as also training them on a similar piece of equipment that they might use in the future, such as a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw5e_3iRvkc" target="_blank">cherry picker</a>.<br />
<br />
Note that the example was based on safety, but if a task can damage or harm the organization in any manner, then training should be considered as the primary environment. Equally important, if the task requires a set procedure or process (non-ambiguous), then it also makes a good Training candidate because the task must be performed correctly and not left to chance.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Experience</h3>
<br />
When the Responsibility of learning is higher for the performer and there is higher Ambiguity in the learning environment, then people often learn best from Experience. However, the learning is still not isolated from Training and Education. This is shown in the second cluster of blocks (middle) in the above model — a large block of Experience, with smaller blocks of Training, and Education.<br />
<br />
For example, new supervisors are normally hired because of their success with engaging others. Learning to counsel people has a lot of ambiguity in it, thus while most counseling sessions have a few things in common, the performance of the task is mostly drawn from experience because you cannot rely on set processes to complete the task. Note that in VUCA, the element of ambiguity is largely dealt with by using experimental methods so that cause and effect can be understood. Thus, the majority of their learning is going to come from Experience.<br />
<br />
However, since most HR departments will not let you dismiss a person if the paperwork is not correct, then this suggests Training in small amounts, as you do not want to leave it up to chance that the new supervisor learns this process. Another example is that the organization might have a culture in which they look at mistakes as mostly learning opportunities, thus the type of counseling they want to take place may different greatly from the learners' past experiences. This suggests some type of formal learning might be provided to highlight this.<br />
<br />
<b>Learning Processes vs Learning Patterns</b><br />
<br />
In the above example, the new supervisors learned a few processes in a training environment to help them perform counseling in an Experience based learning environment. However, there is another learning method that can be used in a training environment if there are no or few processes — pattern learning.<br />
<br />
For example, you have a new hire and ask her to create a report. She might make a mistake or two, but there is no real harm to the organization, so she learns it through experience and others. Next, you ask her to create another report, but she has to get the information by joining several tables from a major database that is used throughout the organization. However, if she joins too many tables together at once it could severely slow down the system and affect hundreds of people throughout the organization.<br />
<br />
In this case there are no processes to ease the ambiguity of the task, thus this suggests practicing pattern recognition. For example, having the learners practice by solving a number of scenarios so that they start to learn the good patterns from bad ones.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Education</h3>
<br />
When both Responsibility and Ambiguity are at their highest, they mostly learn from Education, however, the learning is still not isolated from Experience and Training. This is shown in the third cluster of blocks (top, right corner) in the above model — a large block of Education, with smaller blocks of Experience and Training.<br />
<br />
As noted earlier, Education is about learning to address the elements of VUCA and prepare for future jobs. This very high degree of Ambiguity marks a significant difference between it and Experience and Training — feedback. With Experience and Training, you get two-way feedback on the actual performance and how it should be performed. Education does not provide the opportunity for feedback until you actually meet one of the challenges (address an element of VUCA or perform a new task or job).<br />
<br />
<h2>
Full-Spectrum Career</h2>
<br />
Full-Spectrum Learning is not only for the managers and learning designers, but also for the entire workforce to understand:<br />
<br />
- The responsibility for learning falls on everyone to varying degrees.<br />
- If they are not seeking and being provided feedback in the Training and Experience environments, then they are not learning. . . they are simply performing and it might be a bad performance.<br />
- Feedback is two-way:<br />
- they are given information about their performance<br />
- they seek answers and resources<br />
- Education is not just for the elites. If you value your employees, then give them opportunities for the future.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Thoughts?</h2>
<br />
The Full Spectrum Learning model is from <a href="http://www.tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/regs/TR350-70.doc" target="_blank">Army Learning Policy and Systems</a> (PDF, pp21-23). The manual only gives a short blurb on the model, so many of the concepts I discussed are my own personal thoughts, thus I would be happy to hear your thoughts on the subject.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-80201195403840902282015-01-05T08:04:00.000-08:002015-01-05T08:04:36.924-08:00The Seven Principles of Thinking Like a Leader<img src="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark//leader/ahold/ei.jpg" height="340" width="382" /><br />
<h2>
1. Keep a focus on the mission and higher intent</h2>
Never lose sight of the mission, purpose, and results you need to achieve. Due to the complexity of their duties, leaders are often drawn toward unusual and critical events that force them in different directions. While these difficulties need to be attended to, don't lose sight of the higher intent of the organization.<br />
<h2>
2. Set Big Hairy Audacious Goals</h2>
Almost anyone can achieve easy goals, but do you really believe that is what your competitors are aiming for? It's tempting to simplify your competition by treating them as rigid or simply reactive. Good leaders use their visioning skills to set BHAGs with a thorough understanding of how to reach them... not with reckless abandon.<br />
<h2>
3. Coach your followers</h2>
There are a few things that you need to keep a pulse on because they can have real damaging effects on your organization, but the vast majority of objectives and details can be handled by your followers. Yes, they will make mistakes. Bad leaders chew their buttocks off; good leaders know that mistakes provide one of the most valued learning opportunities there is.<br />
<h2>
4. Combat complexity and change with learning</h2>
Not only must you coach your followers, you must also change the culture to a mindset of a learning organization. You cannot be the only coach — the entire organization needs to know the skills, have the technologies, and be in climates that allow's them to help develop others through both formal and informal experiences.<br />
<h2>
5. Set the example: Be, Know, Do</h2>
You are a role model of the organization who sets the standard by being a person of good character, knowing your job, and doing all that matters. <br />
<h2>
6. Flatten the organization by replacing hierarchies with networks</h2>
While it might be comforting to think that information should flow smoothly up to you, and in return, you reply with commands, the world is simply too complex and moving too fast.<br />
Vertical leadership are organizations where leaders are in a formal positions of power at the top of the hierarchy and whose commands typically run down the hierarchy, while information flows up it. In simple environments, this can work quite well.<br />
However, if we view leadership as being a total system, rather than lying in individual power, then we have horizontal or flat leadership that are networks of people where information and commands flow in all directions so that change and complexity are rapidly mastered.<br />
<h2>
7. Create and sustain diversity and inclusion</h2>
Having biases against people who are different greatly hinders your ability to gain new insights. Diversity is about empowering people. It makes an organization effective by capitalizing on all of the strengths of each employee. It is not EEO or Affirmative Action — these are laws and policies. Diversity is understanding, valuing, and using the differences in every person. Mastering diversity leads to inclusion where all people feel they are highly valued for their uniqueness. In turn, the organization benefits from the synergistic effects of a cohesive team who bring an array of experiences to the table.<br />
If you would like to learn more, see <a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/think_like_a_leader.html"><em>The Seven Principles of Thinking Like a Leader</em></a><em></em>, which provides links to in-depth articles on the various concepts<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-43930661092610413642014-12-15T07:46:00.000-08:002014-12-15T07:46:02.798-08:00The Six Deadly Sins of Training<p>While there are dozens of ways to lessen the positive impact of training, these six failures are often the worst offenders.</p><h2>1. Failing to align Training Goals with the Business Goals</h2><p>When Training Magazine (2004) surveyed senior executives about the most important training initiatives, </p><ul> <li>77% cited, “aligning learning strategies with business goals”</li>
<li>75% cited, “ensuring learning content meets workforce requirements”</li>
<li>72% cited, “boosting productivity and agility”</li>
</ul><p>However, as the chart below shows (Trolley, 2006), most training activities spend very little of their time investigating and showing their customers how their efforts add value to their clients (see <a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/isd/analyze_system.html" target="_blank">Performance Analysis</a>):</p><p align="center"><img src="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/ahold/percent.gif" alt="Percent of time spent on training" width="460" height="239" /></p><h4 align="center">Percentage of time spent on designing training</h4><p>The failure of Instructional Designers to meet the business unit's expectations is normally not a lack of time, but rather a mentality of, “build it and they will come” rather than, “identify the opportunities to improve the business.”</p><h2>2. Failing to Identify the Type of Performance Problem</h2><p>Customer often perceive that all performance problems are training problems, and it turn, Instructional Designers fail to question if the problem is really a lack of training. Thus, there is a real need to fully analyze the problem in order to determine its root cause. When facing a performance problem, two questions need to be asked:</p><ul> <li>“Do the employees have adequate job knowledge and skills?”</li>
<li>“Do the employees have the proper attitude (desire) to perform the job?”</li>
</ul><p>Their answers will place the employees in one of four <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/coaching/coach.html" target="_blank">performance quadrants</a> in the chart below:</p><p align="center"><img src="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/ahold/performance_quadrant.jpg" alt="Performance Analysis Chart" width="454" height="376" /></p><p>The quadrant that they land in informs you of the performance initiative required:</p><ul> <li>Quadrant A (Motivation): If the employee has sufficient job knowledge, but has an improper attitude, this may be classed as a motivational problem. The consequences (rewards) of the person's behavior will have to be adjusted. This is not always bad as the employee just might not realize the consequence of his or her actions.</li>
<li>Quadrant B (Resource/Process/Environment): If the employee has both job knowledge and a favorable attitude, but performance is unsatisfactory, then the problem is out of control of the employee. Some examples are, a process or procedure needs to be improved, lack of resources or time, or the work station is not ergonomically designed.</li>
<li>Quadrant C (Selection): If the employee lacks both job knowledge and a favorable attitude, that person may be improperly placed in the position. This may imply a problem with employee selection or promotion, and suggests that a transfer or discharge be considered.</li>
<li>Quadrant D (Training): If the employee desires to perform, but lacks the requisite job knowledge or skills, then learning needs to occur, such as performance aids, training, coaching, etc.</li>
</ul><h2>3. Failing to get Support from the Leadership Team</h2><p>Customers often view outside activities as meddlers who interrupt their daily flow of work. These clients are often on the defensive and hide their true feelings and facts. During the planning and analysis phase you must bring the leaders in on the learning design activities and make them part of the solution (this collaboration is often called a <a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadtem2.html" target="_blank">matrix team or cross-functional team</a>). The customers of a proposed learning/training initiative must be extensively involved in the construction of any new project. Besides introducing the customers and the training activity to each other, the other major benefit is that the customers will accept and benefit from a system that they themselves helped to define and solve. Often, nobody knows the system's learning requirements better than the people who own and work in it... and it often it takes the help of your guidance to draw this information out. This collaborative process does not mean agreeing with everything others say as this leads to group-think or the <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/creativity/creativity.html" target="_blank">Abilene Paradox</a>. You want the team members to not only disagree, but also share information and compromise.</p><p>In addition, it is important that the learners see the real worth of the learning program. If their managers cannot convince them that they need to learn and perform correctly, then they will probably never learn to perform or once they complete the learning program, they will probably not put their newly learned skills and knowledge to full use. People will most often perform what their managers expect them to do, while forgetting what the managers least emphasize. </p><p>Thus, you must have the leaders in on not only the initial planning and analysis stage, but also have them discuss the proposed solution with their followers in order to get their buy-in.</p><h2>4. Failing to Identify the Correct Setting for the Learning Process</h2><p>One of the major misconceptions of <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html" target="_blank">ADDIE</a> or <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/sat.html" target="_blank">ISD</a> is that it was created to only build classroom training environments, yet the reality is that it emphasizes other solutions first — you should too. A few of the guidelines for <a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/isd/setting.html" target="_blank">choosing instructional settings</a> are:</p><ul> <li><br />
Use a Performance Aid (mLearning, job aid, electronic performance support system) if:<br />
<ul> <li> close supervision is not required </li>
<li> the task follows a set procedure, has a flow to it, or contains information that does not need to be memorized </li>
<li> the performance aid can be followed while performing the task </li>
<li><br />
do not use if:<br />
<ul> <li> bad consequence may occur if inadequate performance is high </li>
<li> employees lack prerequisite skill </li>
<li> the task requires high psychomotor skills </li>
</ul> </li>
</ul> </li>
<li><br />
Use elearning or social learning if:<br />
<ul> <li> close supervision is not required </li>
<li> the task can be self-learned by an individual or group</li>
<li> the material required for training can be adequate designed as a stand-alone package </li>
<li><br />
do not use if:<br />
<ul> <li> task failure would result in injury or damage </li>
<li> special facilities or equipment is required </li>
</ul> </li>
</ul> </li>
<li>Use On-the-Job-Training (OJT) if:<br />
<ul> <li> close supervision is required </li>
<li> task can be learned by individual or groups in the workplace </li>
<li> task decay rate is very high </li>
<li><br />
do not use if:<br />
<ul> <li> sufficient equipment is not available for learners to practice on </li>
<li> workplace cannot absorb the learners adequately </li>
<li> training would be disruptive to normal operations </li>
</ul> </li>
</ul> </li>
<li>Use Mentoring or Job Experience if:<br />
<ul> <li>basically the same as OJT, except close supervision is not required</li>
<li>do not use if<br />
<ul> <li>coaching and some supervision cannot be provided on an as-needed basis</li>
</ul> </li>
</ul> </li>
<li>Use Classroom if:<br />
<ul> <li> a large group must be taught the same thing </li>
<li> task difficulty requires a high state of training (task is difficult and requires time to acquire skills through practice) </li>
<li> learner interaction is required (such as team training) </li>
<li> material required for training cannot economically be placed in the field </li>
<li> essential the employee be able to perform upon job entry (high consequence if employees are inadequate performers) </li>
<li><br />
do not use if:<br />
<ul> <li> task may be adequately trained elsewhere </li>
</ul> </li>
</ul> </li>
</ul><h2>5. Failing to Include Enough Activities and Practice Time to Reinforce Skills</h2><p>Instructional designers often spend an enormous amount of time on creating a learning process or program, but fail to realize how much time and energy it actually took them to learn the task, so they end up building beautiful programs... except for one minor detail — the learning process lacks enough activities and practice to adequately build skills. </p><p>Too much practice builds <em>over-learning</em>, which is a good thing (it's what the U.S. military does to ensure warriors can perform in highly complex situations). Too little practice causes major gaps in performance. Which one do you prefer?</p><h2>6. Failing of the Learning and Development Team to Learn from Their Successes and Failures</h2><p>Instructional designers often attend several conferences or workshops a year and learn from others through reading or social networks, yet fail to evaluate their projects to determine the level of success or failure. Thus, while they may be learning, they have no idea if they are learning the right things. One of the best tools for this is the <a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadaar.html" target="_blank">After Action Review</a>. At the very least, evaluate your training and learning processes by waking-around the workplace and see how the learners (who should be performers by now) are actually performing and if their supervisors are satisfied with the results. And use Chris Argyris' <em><a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leadership/ooda_orientation%20.html" target="_blank">Double Loop Learning</a></em> to maximize your learning opportunities.</p><p>What are your deadly sin for training? </p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-41820839262580983152014-08-11T15:43:00.000-07:002014-08-12T11:02:01.070-07:00Show Your Work<p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ATHGi7Kydmk/U-lGLVlCiqI/AAAAAAAAAIA/s7WymoC1DB8/s1600/ShowYourWork.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ATHGi7Kydmk/U-lGLVlCiqI/AAAAAAAAAIA/s7WymoC1DB8/s320/ShowYourWork.jpg" /></a></div>Jane Bozarth's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Show-Your-Work-Jane-Bozarth/dp/1118863623/" target="_blank"><em>Show Your Work</em></a> beautifully describes how we need to rethink teaching and learning. It's perhaps one of the best designed Learning & Development books published—it is well written and artfully filled with numerous examples and illustrations. When I first heard about the book I thought it would be only about showing your work to others so they can learn from you. While it does do that, it goes beyond—such as showing your work to others to receive critical feedback, or laying out your work so that you can talk about it to yourself and reflect upon it in order to gain a deeper understanding on what else needs to be done. </p><p>While the learning and development craft has become very good at instructing explicit knowledge and skills, training tacit knowledge and skills often fall short of delivering expert performance because it fails to place the learning in the context of workflow. Thus, <em>Show Your Work</em> is the bridge that crosses over from the explicit to the tacit by using great examples, such as showing the steps, lessons learned, and managing exceptions that help people learn the more difficult task through a series of photos, video, posting on a blog, etc. that people can easily find and relate to. </p><p>What is interesting is how Jane's book fits into Nonaka and Takeuchi's Four Modes of Knowledge Creation (from the <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195092694/bigdogsbowlofbis/" target="_blank">The Knowledge Creating Company</a></em>):</p><ul type="disc"><li>Socialization: from tacit to tacit - Sharing experiences to create tacit knowledge, such as making a video of how you learned something.</li>
<li>Internalization: from explicit to tacit - “Learning by doing.” By following the examples in <em>Show Your Work</em> you can learn to create short learning experiences that can be easily followed by others.</li>
<li>Externalization: from tacit to explicit - Using explicit concepts such as metaphors, analogies, concepts, hypothesis, or models to provide the big picture. </li>
<li>Combination: from explicit to explicit - People exchange and combine knowledge through various media, such as documents and conversations.</li>
</ul><p>For more on the Four Modes of Knowledge Creation, see <a href="Knowledge">Knowledge</a> and <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_knowledge/nonaka.html">The Knowledge Spiral</a>.</p><p>I highly recommend putting Jane Bozarth's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Show-Your-Work-Jane-Bozarth/dp/1118863623/bigdogsbowlofbis/" target="_blank"><em>Show Your Work</em></a> on your reading list.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-34310698987508498362014-06-25T08:27:00.002-07:002014-06-25T08:27:56.899-07:00Bloom's Revised Taxonomy: Cognitive processes and levels of knowledge matrix<p>Bloom's Revised Taxonomy (Remember - Understand - Apply - Analyze - Evaluate - Create) not only improved the usability of it (using action words), but perhaps also made it more accurate. However, probably the best feature — the matrix — is often left unnoticed. While Bloom's original cognitive taxonomy did mention three levels of knowledge or products that could be processed (shown below), they were not discussed very much and remained one-dimensional. The three levels are:</p><ul> <li><strong>Factual</strong> - The basic elements students must know to be acquainted with a discipline or solve problems.</li>
<li><strong>Conceptual</strong> – The interrelationships among the basic elements within a larger structure that enable them to function together.</li>
<li><strong>Procedural </strong>- How to do something, methods of inquiry, and criteria for using skills, algorithms, techniques, and methods.</li>
</ul><p>In Krathwohl and Anderson's revised version, the authors combine the cognitive processes with the above three levels of knowledge to form a matrix. In addition they added another level of knowledge - metacognition:</p><ul> <li><strong>Metacognitive</strong> – Knowledge of cognition in general, as well as awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition. </li>
</ul><p>When the cognitive and knowledge dimensions are arranged in a matrix, as shown below, it makes a nice performance aid for creating performance objectives:</p><h4 align="center"><strong>The Cognitive Dimension</strong></h4><table align="center" width="500" border="1" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2"> <tr>
<th scope="col">The Knowledge Dimension</th>
<th scope="col">Remember</th>
<th scope="col">Understand</th>
<th scope="col">Apply</th>
<th scope="col">Analyze</th>
<th scope="col">Evaluate</th>
<th scope="col">Create</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Factual</th>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Conceptual</th>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Procedural</th>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Metacognitive</th>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
</table><p>However, others have identified five contents or artifacts (Clark, Chopeta, 2004; Clark, Mayer, 2007):</p><ul> <li><br />
<strong>Facts</strong> - Specific and unique data or instance.<br />
</li>
<li><br />
<strong>Concepts</strong> - A class of items, words, or ideas that are known by a common name, includes multiple specific examples, shares common features. There are two types of concepts: concrete and abstract.<br />
</li>
<li><br />
<strong>Processes</strong> - A flow of events or activities that describe how things work rather than how to do things. There are normally two types: business processes that describe work flows and technical processes that describe how things work in equipment or nature. They can be thought of as the big picture, of how something works.<br />
</li>
<li><br />
<strong>Procedures</strong> - A series of step-by-step actions and decisions that result in the achievement of a task. There are two types of actions: linear and branched.<br />
</li>
<li><br />
<strong>Principles</strong> - Guidelines, rules, and parameters that govern. It includes not only what should be done, but also what should not be done. Principles allow one to make predictions and draw implications. Given an effect, one can infer the cause of a phenomena. Principles are the basic building blocks of causal models or theoretical models (theories).<br />
</li>
</ul><p>Thus the matrix might look similar to this:</p><h4 align="center"><strong>The Cognitive Dimension</strong></h4><table align="center" width="500" border="1" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2"> <tr>
<th scope="col">The Knowledge Dimension</th>
<th scope="col">Remember</th>
<th scope="col">Understand</th>
<th scope="col">Apply</th>
<th scope="col">Analyze</th>
<th scope="col">Evaluate</th>
<th scope="col">Create</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Facts</th>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Concepts</th>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Processes</th>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Procedures</th>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Principles</th>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Metacognitive</th>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
</table><p align="left">An example matrix that has been filled in might look something like this:</p><table align="center" width="500" border="1" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2"> <tr>
<th scope="col">The Knowledge Dimension</th>
<th scope="col">Remember</th>
<th scope="col">Understand</th>
<th scope="col">Apply</th>
<th scope="col">Analyze</th>
<th scope="col">Evaluate</th>
<th scope="col">Create</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Facts</th>
<td>list</td>
<td>paraphrase</td>
<td>classify</td>
<td>outline</td>
<td>rank</td>
<td>categorize</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Concepts</th>
<td>recall</td>
<td>explains</td>
<td>demonstrate</td>
<td>contrast</td>
<td>criticize</td>
<td>modify</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Processes</th>
<td>outline</td>
<td>estimate</td>
<td>produce</td>
<td>diagram</td>
<td>defend</td>
<td>design</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Procedures</th>
<td>reproduce</td>
<td>give an example</td>
<td>relate</td>
<td>identify</td>
<td>critique</td>
<td>plan</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Principles</th>
<td>state</td>
<td>converts</td>
<td>solve</td>
<td>differentiates</td>
<td>conclude</td>
<td>revise</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Metacognitive</th>
<td>proper use</td>
<td>interpret</td>
<td>discover</td>
<td>infer</td>
<td>predict</td>
<td>actualize</td>
</tr>
</table><p>For more on Bloom's Taxonomy, see:</p><ul compact="compact"> <li><a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html">The Three Domains of Learning</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html#cognitive">Cognitive Domain</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html#revised">Revised Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain</a></li>
<li> <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html#process_levels_knowledge">Cognitive Process and Levels of Knowledge Matrix</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html#SOLO">SOLO Taxonomy</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html#affective">Affective Domain</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html#psychomotor">Psychomotor Domain</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/strategy.html">Learning Strategies: Using Bloom's Taxonomy</a></li>
</ul><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-53392773798041787902014-05-05T12:23:00.000-07:002014-05-05T12:23:38.564-07:00A to Z of Learning<p>aLearning (Alpha Learning) - To begin to understand, but not fully comprehend (has not groked or gLearned)</p><p>bLearning - (Blended Learning) - A mixture of media, such as cLearning and eLearning (brick and click)</p><p>cLearning - (Classroom Learning) - Learning in a classroom or formal setting</p><p>dLearning - (distance Learning) - Learning from an electronic device, such as eLearning, mLearning, or pLearning. May also include other media that is sent to the learner, such as mail</p><p>eLearning - (Electronic Learning) - Learning from the Internet (part of dLearning)</p><p>fLearning - (Formal Learning) - The learning goals are determined by instructional designers (learners may provide input)</p><p>gLearning - (Grok Learning) - To understand profoundly and intuitively (also see aLearning)</p><p>hLearning - (Horizontal Learning) - Learning something based on a horizontal continuum (there is no one right answer). It can best be learned in an collaborative learning environment (also see zLearning)</p><p>iLearning - (Informal Learning) - The learning goals are determined by the learner (organization may provide input)</p><p>jLearning - (Just in Time Learning) - Learning something at the moment of need and it sticks (not easily forgotten, also see qLearning)</p><p>kLearning - (Kindergarten Learning) -The basic skills <a href="http://www.peace.ca/kindergarten.htm" target="_blank">Learned in Kindergarten</a> that carry you throughout life</p><p>lLearning - (Laptop Learning) - Learning from a laptop computer</p><p>mLearning - (Mobile Learning) - Learning while away from home or office with a smart phone (may include pLearning or lLearning)</p><p>nLearning - (nonformal Learning) - The learning goals are determined by the business unit, such as manager or supervisor, normally used with oLearning (OJT)</p><p>oLearning - (OJT Learning) - Learning on the job through the direction of others (also see vLearning)</p><p>pLearning - (Pad Learning) - Learning from an electronic pad, such as an iPad or Galaxy</p><p>qLearning - (Quick Learning) - Learning something at the moment of need and it does not stick or is never used again (also see jLearning)</p><p>rLearning - (Redundant Learning) - Learning until one has thoroughly mastered a skill (trying to learn more will be useless). Sometimes call over-learning. Security and medical teams often use this method so it becomes second-nature</p><p>sLearning - (Social Learning) - Learning with or through other people (see uLearning for opposite)</p><p>tLearning - (Team Learning) - Used when two or more members of a team must learn different tasks that must be coordinated so that it increases the effectiveness of the team</p><p>uLearning - (Unilateral Learning) - Learning without the help of others (see sLearning for opposite)</p><p>vLearning - (Various Learning) - Learning various perspectives by gaining experience (normally on the job). Differs from oLearning in that vLearning is directed by the learner rather than a manager</p><p>wLearning - (Walking Around Learning) - Learning while walking around, normally through observation (adapted from Tom Peters' managing by walking around)</p><p>xLearning - (Xenodochial Learning) - Learning from others, especially in a diverse group of people who know little about each other, and they expect nothing in return</p><p>yLearning - (Yeoperson Learning) - Learning something that will promote the good of the common people or people in need</p><p>zLearning - (Zebra Learning) - Learning that is monochrome in nature (has only one correct answer or shade). May be easily learned through a cooperative learning environment (see hLearning for opposite)</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-44823689394020425842014-03-16T13:23:00.000-07:002014-03-16T13:23:22.288-07:00Simplicity Combats Complexity<p>James Murphy, a former F-15 fighter jet pilot and now CEO of a team building company, notes in a <a href="http://clomedia.com/articles/view/how-the-military-informs-learning/1" target="_blank">recent article</a> that “complexity is the mortal enemy of good execution, and our world is nothing if not increasingly complex.” Thus, in order to execute in an ever increasing complex word, we need to break it down in simple steps:</p><ul> <li>Planning: If your planning process tries to run the whole gauntlet of complexity then you will simply get beat up by it, so use short-tem timelines.</li>
<li>Briefing; Get everyone on the same page.</li>
<li>Executing: Just do it.</li>
<li>Debriefing. The purpose of the debrief is to make adjustments ... to discover lessons learned. This can best be accomplished by performing an <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadaar.html" target="_blank">After Action Review</a>:<br />
<ul> <li>What were our intended results?</li>
<li>What were our actual results?</li>
<li>What caused our results?</li>
<li>What will we sustain or improve?</li>
</ul> </li>
<li>Repeat process so that you are refining and continually improving.</li>
</ul><h2>OODA</h2><p>Col. John Boyd, USAF (Ret) has a similar process called the <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leadership/ooda.html" target="_blank">OODA Loop</a>:</p><ul compact="compact"> <li>Observe: Scan the environment and gather information from it.</li>
<li>Orient: Use the information to form a mental image of the circumstances and place it into context.</li>
<li>Decide: Consider options and select a subsequent course of action.</li>
<li>Act: Just do it.</li>
<li>Repeat process so that you are refining and continually improving.</li>
</ul><p>Both Murphy and Boyd say that no matter how complex the environment is, when you do this, you stay at the same rate of competitive change in the complex environment or slightly ahead of it ... thus you win. Murphy also notes that confidence leads to courage, and courage leads to a bias towards action. This planning process gives people that courage regardless of the situation.</p><h2>Probe, Sense, Respond</h2><p>David Snowden of Cognitive Edge also has a similar tool for dealing with complexity in his <a href="http://cognitive-edge.com/blog/type/cynefin/" target="_blank">Cynefin</a> model:</p> <ul> <li>Probe: Make a change (prototype) in the environment in order to test it.</li>
<li>Sense: Review it by determining the impact of the probe.</li>
<li>Respond: Depending upon the result you achieve you either amplify the probe or suppress it, and then repeat.</li>
</ul> <h2>Agile Design</h2> <p>And the last one for dealing with complex environments — <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/agile/agile_learning_design.html" target="_blank">Agile Design</a>:</p> <ul> <li>Select the project and develop the vision.</li>
<li>Initiate the project by obtaining stakeholder participation, funding, and build team.</li>
<li>Deliver small working iterations that meet the changing needs of the stakeholders. Continue this step until:<br />
<ul> <li> Release (End Game) by deliver the final package.</li>
<li>Production: operate, maintain and support the system.</li>
</ul> </li>
</ul> <p>There are <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/design/design_models.html" target="_blank">four other design models</a> beside Agile that you can use depending on the complexity of the environment.</p> <p align="center"><img src="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/agile/lady_jumping.jpg" width="433" height="277" /></p> <p>These tools, Murphy's Process, AAR, OODA, Cynefin, and Agile Design are designed for working in complex environments. What other processes or models do you use for dealing with complexity?</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-16405761840588492662014-03-03T13:16:00.000-08:002014-03-06T13:25:55.595-08:00Full Spectrum LearningThe U.S. Army has developed its answer to the 70-20-10 Learning model and Dan Pontefract's <a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/media/70-20-10.html">3-33 Pervasive Learning model</a>. However, they did a couple of twists by:<br />
<ul>
<li>dumping the percentages</li>
<li>combining Experience with Social Learning</li>
<li>adding Education</li>
<li>adding two continuums - Responsibility and Ambiguity</li>
</ul>
<div align="center">
<img alt="Full Spectum Learning" src="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/media/Full-Spectrum-Learning.png" height="342" width="500" /></div>
<h2>
Percentages</h2>
70-20-10 has been problematic in at least two ways. As Dan Pontefract notes in his book, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Flat-Army-Creating-Connected-Organization/dp/1118529790/" target="_blank">Flat Army</a></em>, it is based on leaders who were in charge of hierarchical, command and control cultures that were prevalent in the 1980s. While the U.S. Army does have a hierarchical command and control culture due to its nature, it is also composed of flat or horizontal teams (large and small) that operate alone and with each other in complicated environments that often border on the edge of chaos. Thus, it is both a hierarchical and flat organization that not only approximates how most successful organizations operate today, but is also based on all people, rather than just senior leaders.<br />
<br />
Secondly, the use of percentages or ratios, such as 70-20-10 and 3-33, imply that they are predictive models, rather than reference models. In fact, the creators of 70-20-10 wrote that it is a predictive model. This can be noted in dozens of blog posts in which some very smart authors note 70-20-10 is a predictive model model and then are told in the comment sections that it is a reference model. If you do a image search on Google for the term "reference model" (may NSFW as it shows a couple of nude models) you will notice that none of the images are based on percentages or ratios.<br />
<h2>
Experience has Social Learning in a Learning Environment</h2>
The Full Spectrum Learning model realizes that if you are gaining experience to learn, then it is implied that you will be using plenty of informal and social learning, along with smaller amounts of training and education. In order to build skills and knowledge via experiences, the environment must contribute to peer-based learning through blogs, wikis, micro-blogs, and other social based media. It leverage these social tools to build dynamic vertical and horizontal social networks for formal and informal information sharing in order to foster critical thinking and problem solving skills needed for operational adaptability.<br />
<h2>
The Addition of Education</h2>
In Human Resource Development, training is normally associated with learning to perform a present job or task, while education is normally associated with learning to perform a future job or task. Thus, in a rapidly changing world, education through formal and/or nonformal environments is a required component if an organization wants to remain competitive. For example, during our last recession, companies dumped thousands of people in mass layoffs. Now they are whining that they cannot find people who have the education and training that they require. Good organizations should always be building a path towards the future by educating people to walk that path.<br />
<h2>
The Responsibility and Ambiguity Continuums</h2>
Rather than build a learning model that focuses on one fixed point, the U.S. Army created the Full Spectrum Learning model on two continuums based on the degree of responsibility of the learner and the degree of ambiguity of the learning environment to give it depth.<br />
What are your thoughts on the three models?<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-36588072151654684212014-02-27T16:31:00.001-08:002014-02-27T16:31:21.056-08:00Social LeadershipI wrote a new a new article about <a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/social_lead.html">social leadership</a> for my leadership manual. The sections in the article include:<br />
<ul><li><a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/social_lead.html#behavior">5+2 Major Behavior Patterns of Leaders</a></li>
<li><a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/social_lead.html#exchange">Social Exchanges</a></li>
<li><a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/social_lead.html#judgment">Social Judgment Skills for Leaders</a></li>
<li><a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/social_lead.html#survey">Social Interactions Trump Engagement Surveys</a></li>
<li><a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/social_lead.html#media">Social Media for the New Social Leader</a></li>
</ul><br />
<p align="center"><img src="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/ahold/social_exchange.png" width="423" height="407" alt="Social Exchange in Leadership" /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-81337049257201110442013-10-31T16:14:00.001-07:002013-10-31T16:15:52.434-07:00I wrote a new chapter in my leadership manual - <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/lead_path_goal.html">Path-Goal Theory</a><br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<img alt="Path-Goal Theory of Leadership" height="389" src="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/ahold/path-goal.png" width="400" /></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-64357609024001376792013-06-04T19:37:00.000-07:002013-06-04T19:37:04.790-07:00Designing in the Linear... but Repeated<blockquote>
Prophet. "You value your ignorance of what is to come?" <br />
<br />
Sisko, "That may be the most important thing to understand about humans. It is the unknown that defines our existence. We are constantly searching, not just for answers to our questions, but for new questions. We are explorers. We explore our lives, day by day. And we explore the galaxy, trying to expand the boundaries of our knowledge. And that is why I am here. Not to conquer you with weapons or ideas, but to co-exist and learn." <br />
<br />
- <em>Deep Space Nine</em>: Emissary</blockquote>
<br />
<div align="center">
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/bdld/4022003791/" title="Harvest Moon over Lynnwood by Donald Clark, on Flickr"><img alt="Harvest Moon over Lynnwood" height="375" src="http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2671/4022003791_f055f79844.jpg" width="500" /></a></div>
<br />
Sometimes we think of linear design as strictly a step-by-step process that holds no possibility of using our imagination. However, the reality is that when we design in the linear an unlimited number of possibilities can occur. We generally try to set some sort of strategy with our design. With each new consequence that our strategy creates, the final design begins to take on more shape. But we never really know what will happen until we come to the end.<br />
<br />
<br />
In contrast, dynamic design (nonlinear) is simply the repetition of a series of linear. This is because we are locked in by the concept of time — we exist in the linear. Of course, each repetition should bring something new or we will simply be repeating ourselves. The value of repeating the linear by bringing something new to it is that it brings the possibility of learning from new information. That is, our previous linear experience brought about certain consequences... some of them unintended, thus we now have new information that we can connect with our design. <br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/bdld/4821675666/" title="Flower by Donald Clark, on Flickr"><img alt="Flower" height="375" src="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4101/4821675666_059ca0e8e2.jpg" width="500" /></a></div>
<blockquote>
“The value of any piece of information is only known when you can connect it with something else that arrives at a future point in time,” - Ira “Gus” Hunt.</blockquote>
The value of dynamic design is that it allows us to connect new information that we previous didn't have. Each repetition of the linear is called an <em>iteration</em> that normally comes in two forms:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Design or interpretive iteration — testing a learning method, function, feature, etc. of the learning or training process to see if it's valid.</li>
<li>Release iteration — releasing it to the business unit or customer even though it may not be fully completed or functional because we believe that it is <em>good enough</em> to be of use.</li>
</ul>
We have at least five design methodologies to use, depending upon our needs (see <a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/design/design_models.html">A Table of Five Design Models</a>):<br />
<h2>
ADDIE or ISD</h2>
ADDIE normally uses two types of <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/isd/cognitive-task-analysis.html">Procedural Analysis Methods</a>. When the task to be learned is primarily overt behavior, there are set procedures to follow, and you have an expert performer, Behavioral Task Analysis is normally used. Since this is one of the more easier analysis to perform, few or no design iterations are required.<br />
<br />
The Information Processing Analysis tool is used when there are both overt steps that require a set order and covert steps that require decision making of a yes or no nature (if, then, else), which means Flow Charts are good tools for this method. Since there are behaviors that cannot be seen, more design iterations are normally needed.<br />
<h2>
Design Thinking</h2>
Design Thinking often uses <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/isd/cognitive-task-analysis.html">Rule Based Analysis Methods</a> as there are no set procedure for performing the task and most of the task steps are normally of an overt nature.<br />
<br />
Two forms of analysis can be used, GOMS Analysis and the Critical Decision Method. The task to be learned may best be represented by one or the other and sometimes both.<br />
<br />
GOMS analysis is good if you can readily determine the Goal, Operations, Methods, and Selection rules (see <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/isd/cognitive-task-analysis.html">Rule Based Analysis Methods</a>). Since you have four main branches, mind or concept maps are good tools to use. Because the behaviors are mostly covert, several design iterations are normally used in order to fully capture all the required behaviors.<br />
<br />
If you have an expert performer who has recent experience then the Critical Decision Method is a good method as it allows you to capture their stories in a case study format.<br />
<h2>
Agile Design</h2>
Agile Design is primarily used when the final product (learning or performance process) will take some time to fully complete but can be of use to the customers. Thus, release iterations are used as the benefit is that the customers will get part of the product without having to wait for long periods of time. <br />
<br />
Both Rule Based Analysis and Procedural Analysis Methods are normally used, however the problem should be complex enough that it will take several weeks or months to complete the final product (if it only takes a short while there is little need to make constant release iterations).<br />
<h2>
System Thinking</h2>
The System Thinking method is for processes that will be implemented across several parts of the organization. Since each part normally has particular needs that must be met it often requires that trial tests (iterations) be run in each part to ensure it meets all the customers needs. The result of these iterations will determine the need, if any, for more iterations while the product is fined tuned for each part of the organization.<br />
<h2>
X Problems</h2>
We are constantly searching, not just for answers to our questions, but for new questions. It is this unknown that defines our existence for it is at this point that we can expand the limits of our knowledge. The X Problems method is a good choice for this exploratory nature in us. Since it is exploratory, several design iterations are often required. In addition, release iterations are also often used if it is believed that what we learned so far will be of use to our customers.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-70936841532204765102013-05-07T14:06:00.000-07:002013-05-07T14:06:28.340-07:00If all you have is a hammer. . .<img alt="Hammer" height="373" src="http://www.knowledgejump.com/web_pics/hammer1.png" width="500" /><br />
<br />
Then everything looks like a nice craft beer. . . or a nail:<br />
<img alt="Hammer and bottle opener" height="373" src="http://www.knowledgejump.com/web_pics/hammer2.png" width="500" /><br />
<br />
Nowadays we expect so much more from our tools:<br />
<img alt="Multi-tool Hammer" height="373" src="http://www.knowledgejump.com/web_pics/hammer3.png" width="500" /><br />
<br />
We expect them to be multi-functional. . . to include <a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html">ADDIE</a> and the <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/isd/kirkpatrick.html">Four Levels of Evaluations</a>.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-46289948341515546002013-05-01T08:14:00.000-07:002013-05-01T08:14:58.736-07:00MERLOT 2013 Classics AwardI'm honored to announce that Big Dog's <a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadtrn.html">Leadership Page</a> won a MERLOT <a href="http://about.merlot.org/MERLOTAwards/MERLOTClassics2013.html">2013 Classics Award</a> for developing an outstanding, peer reviewed online resource. <br />
<br />
<img alt="MERLOT Award" height="373" src="http://www.knowledgejump.com/web_pics/MERLOT.jpg" width="502" /><br />
<br />
It is recognized as an exemplary model for business.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-42086905371656041132013-04-29T23:16:00.000-07:002013-04-30T09:47:00.181-07:00Flat Army: 3-33 Learning Model Verses 70-20-10I have been reading <a href="http://www.danpontefract.com/" target="_blank">Dan Pontefract's</a> new book <em>Flat Army: Creating a Connected and Engaged Organization</em>, and can honestly say it is an excellent and insightful book for developing a collaborative and open leadership organization. The part that grabbed my attention the most is the section in chapter 9, <em>Learning at the speed of need</em>, which discusses the 70-20-10 learning model (while I have a great interest in all of Dan's topics in his his book, learning is my primary field of interest). <br />
<br />
Dan notes that there is no empirical evidence that learning maps to the 70-20-10 model, even though practitioners often cite it as a fact. It was developed in the 1980s when command and control was at the heart of leadership—think of Lee Iacocca, Jack Welch, and Roger Smith who more than likely thought that Learning/Training Departments were solely for their bidding and could offer very little for them personally. Thus the model is based on the the very thing that many learning and development practitioners are trying to get away from—hierarchy organizations. In addition, the model was developed before the Internet, thus it does not account for the numerous technologies that have aided formal learning, such as just-in-time learning, elearning, virtual learning.<br />
<br />
I would also add that while some have pointed to <a href="http://www.informl.com/where-did-the-80-come-from/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Where did the 80% come from?</a> as further proof that the 70-20-10 learning model is valid, when I researched the listed references on the page that give low percentages to formal learning, such as Raybould who proclaims that formal learning only accounts for 10% of the learning, I discovered that the authors provided no evidence at all. Such citations seam to imply, “I saw it on the Internet so it most be true.” On the other hand, the references that provide higher ratios for formal learning are the most evidence based.<br />
<h3>
The 3-33 Model</h3>
Dan provides what I see is a closer approximation of the learning ratios:<strong> 3-33</strong>, which stands for 33% the learning is formal, 33% is informal, and 33% is social. What is most interesting is that the research behind his model revealed that when the learners were asked to give the percentages on how they thought they learned, the numbers were very different than when the researchers actually discovered how the learners did indeed learn. This coincides with other research that indicates what learners are able to judge about their learning experiences (see <a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/development/self.html" target="_blank">Learner Self-Assessment Ratings</a>).<br />
<img alt="3-33 Learning Model" height="449" src="http://www.knowledgejump.com/web_pics/PervasiveLearning_all.PNG" width="505" /><br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">graphic by Dan Pontefract</span></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
One of the other major errors of the 70-20-10 model is that it places reading in formal learning. Since when did reading a book become formal learning? Dan of course places it under the correct type of learning in his 3-33 model... informal. The 70-20-10 error seems to again coincide with the command and control culture that was most prevalent in the 1980s—the top leaders viewed writers as part of the elite who they could trust and learn from, while the learning/training functions were viewed as something to command and control, rather than trusted partners. <br />
<br />
All in all, Flat Army is a very good book that deserves a special spot in in anyone's library who is interested in collaboration, leadership, and learning.<br />
<br />
<strong>DISCLAIMER</strong>: While Dan and I have exchanged comments via blogs, I have no other interests in the book.<br />
<br />
<strong>NOTE</strong>: While I seem to be kind of harsh on “command and control” it is mostly because of the audience I write for. I'm retired military so my real view of command and control follows the military view, which vastly differs from layman's and others point of view. See my writings on <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/LMCC.html" target="_blank">Leadership, Management, Command, & Contro</a>l.<br />
<br />
What are your thoughts on the two models?<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-73353629345445484962013-04-28T10:12:00.001-07:002013-04-28T10:12:52.441-07:00In Memory of My Loving Wife<br />
<img alt="Kyong Cha Clark" height="669" src="http://www.knowledgejump.com/web_pics/kyong.jpg" width="500" /><br />
As you probably noticed I have not wrote any new blog posts or tweeted for quite some time. My wife passed away last November. I knew this would come sooner or later as she had an advance stage of cancer that was diagnosed in January of last year. I thought I was better prepared, but Kyong and I have been married for over 39 years and soul mates for over 40 years (it was both our first marriage). Thus it came as a bigger shock than I thought it would.<br />
<br />
Kyong was willing to fight the cancer as long as she could maintain a certain quality of life, but said when it was time to go, she wanted to go. On November 6th she came down with pneumonia and was taken to the hospital with a low blood oxygen level. They gave her forced oxygen and antibiotics, which quickly brought her oxygen level up to normal; however, the next day it started dropping again to an unsafe level and we decided it was time to put her on comfort care. Our daughter and I were both at her side when she passed peacefully away.<br />
<br />
I had to drop off the virtual social grid as I was quite busy taking care of her, our home, and running my business during the last few months of her illness and then it took me quite some time to get over the grief of losing her. It's time to reenter the grid.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-30640853624818097192012-07-30T10:59:00.000-07:002012-07-30T14:16:13.014-07:00ADDIE 3.0<h1>ADDIE 3.0</h1><br />
<p>After seeing the title you might be wondering, “I didn't even know we had an ADDIE 2.0???”</p><p>When the first version of ADDIE appeared in 1975 it was strictly a linear or waterfall method. The first four phases (analysis, design, development, and implementation) were to be performed in a sequential manner. This is a good method if you are trying to prove something in that it helps to ensure that all the variables are accounted for. However, the majority of learning designers simply want to build a great learning process, and for that a more dynamic method is required that allows them to change and improve the learning process as they advance through their designs. Learning designers who were not locked in to processes improved upon ADDIE by making it an iterative model. Thus by the mid-eighties ADDIE became a dynamic model (U.S. Army, 1984).</p><p>As van Merriënboer notes, “The phases may be listed in a linear order, but in fact are highly interrelated and typically not performed in a linear but in an iterative and cyclic fashion.” This major improvement became <strong>ADDIE 2.0</strong> in that it allowed designers to work in a more natural fashion.</p><p>van Merriënboer (1997) also noted another major improvement—other components may be added to it on an as-needed-basis. This greatly improved the versatility of ADDIE in that while it is a broad scope model that covers the basics of good learning deign, it fails to cover many of the details. Thus rather than being a stand-alone model, it is used with other design models. Thus it became <strong>ADDIE 3.0</strong> in that ADDIE is used to guide the essentials of the design, while other models are used in conjunction with it to expand and improve the design methodology:</p><p align="center"><img src="http://www.knowledgejump.com/web_pics/isd_robust.jpg" alt="ADDIE 3.0" width="485" height="329" /></p><p>Some example include:</p><ul><li><strong>Analysis</strong> - Complex problems can be difficult to identify by standing on the outside, thus you might need to jump into the problem itself. This is known as “Immersion” in <a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/design/design_models.html" target="_blank">Problem X Design</a>. Another method is using narratives by having the customers tell stories of the problems they have faced. It often only takes a few stories to recognize a common theme that prevents them from higher levels of performance. This technique is used in <a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/design/design_models.html" target="_blank">System Thinking Design</a>.</li>
<li><strong>Design</strong> - The <a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/learning/id/4c_id.html" target="_blank">4C/ID</a> model shows two basic approaches for presenting content and two basic learning strategies that gives us four instructional design methods that vastly improves upon the common method of simply presenting content to the learners.</li>
<li><strong>Development</strong> - Using backwards planning with <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/sat3.html" target="_blank">Concept or Action Mapping</a> to keep the goals of the learning process aligned with the business objectives.</li>
<li><strong>Implementation</strong> - Always consider <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/isd/setting.html" target="_blank">other performance methods</a>, such as performance aids, before deciding upon classroom learning.</li>
<li><strong>Evaluation</strong> - <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/isd/kirkpatrick.html" target="_blank">Flipping the Four Levels of Evaluation</a> into a more effective model.</li>
</ul><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-14053852000992295702012-05-20T16:21:00.000-07:002012-05-20T16:21:16.246-07:00Updated Table of Five Design Models<br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<img alt="A collection of design models" height="423" src="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/design/collection_of_models.png" width="449" /></div>
<br />
<br />
I recently added a new row to the table of design methodologies that shows some examples after a request from a reader: <a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/design/design_models.html">A Table of Design Models: Instructional, Thinking, Agile, System, or X Problems?</a><br />
<br />
<br />
I would be interested to know if the examples are helpful.<br />
<br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-39833850090783483202012-05-14T07:08:00.000-07:002012-05-14T07:08:30.829-07:00A Table of Design Methodologies: Instructional, Thinking, Agile, System, or X Problems?<br />
<div align="center">
<img alt="A collection of design models" height="423" src="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/design/collection_of_models.png" width="449" /></div>
With so many design models to choose from, what should I use? To help with the answer I created <a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/design/design_models.html">a table of five design methodologies</a> that may assist you in choosing a model to start from:<br />
<ul>
<li>Instructional System Design</li>
<li>Design Thinking</li>
<li>Agile Design</li>
<li>System Thinking</li>
<li>X Problems</li>
</ul>
<a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/design/design_models.html">The table</a> includes their definitions, visual models, primary focus and goals, values, main steps, and further readings (web links). Note that models are only guides on the sides, not sages on the stages, so don't hesitate to mix, match and adapt to help you arrive at a perfect solution to a difficult problem.<br />
Let me know what you think.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-38879705750491321592012-04-18T07:10:00.000-07:002012-04-18T07:10:29.851-07:00Mapping Pedagogies For Performance<p>Clark Quinn wrote an extremely interesting post, <a href="http://blog.learnlets.com/?p=2659" target="_blank">X-based learning: sorting out pedagogies and design</a>, on activity based learning. Wanting to see how these different models would interconnect on a mindmap, I started playing with them. That is when I noticed that one of the main difference among them is that some have a known answer and/or the goal is driven by the curriculum, while others have an unknown answer and/or the goal is directed by the learners.</p>
<p>It then struck me that the two primary branches should (could?) be the two main types of knowledge—explicit and tacit:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Explicit Knowledge</strong> is normally easy to articulate to others, thus the models with known answers and/or driven by the curriculum would fall on this side of the branch.</li>
<li><strong>Tacit Knowledge</strong> is normally difficult to articulate to others, thus the models with unknown goals and/or directed by the learners would fall on this side of the branch.</li>
</ul>
<p>This seemed to give the mindmap a real purpose, rather than just be formal vs. informal, social vs. self, or active vs. passive. Thus the map goes beyond activity based models:</p>
<p align="center"><a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/learning/pedagogies/ped.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/learning/pedagogies/Learning.png" alt="Pedagogy Mindmap" width="501" height="81" /></a></p>
<h2 align="center">For a larger map click on the image or <a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/learning/pedagogies/ped.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</h2>
<h4 align="center">(note that you can hover your mouse pointer over each concept in the large map to learn more about it)</h4>
<p>I'm not sure if I have all the concepts aligned correctly, thus I am wondering what your thoughts are?</p>
<p><strong>Note</strong>: I used <a href="http://freemind.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page" target="_blank">FreeMind</a> (free of course) to create the mindmap. The document for the mindmap is here - <a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/learning/pedagogies/Learning.mm" target="_blank">Learning.mm</a> - if you want to download it and revise it. If you have trouble downing it, this is the directory of all the files used to create the mindmap, pictures, and html file - <a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/learning/pedagogies/" target="_blank">http://nwlink.com/~donclark/learning/pedagogies/</a>. Right click on the file you want to download.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-18134388028246547252012-03-23T11:52:00.000-07:002012-03-23T11:52:11.116-07:00ADDIE is the Scavenger of Instructional Design, Not the Bitch Goddess (or Blooming Beyond Bloom)<p>When ADDIE was first handed over to the U.S. Armed Forces it was a linear model. However, after working with it they found that they needed a more <a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html#dynamic" target="_blank">dynamic model, so they adapted it</a>. They mastered the tool rather than become a slave to it.</p>
<p>For some reason instructional designers love building ADDIE into a goddess that orders them to build crappy learning platforms. For example, they pronounce that it only builds courses when the real fact is that it tells you to <a href="http://bdld.blogspot.com/2011/10/addie-does-more-than-classrooms.html" target="_blank">use a course only if a simpler method, such as a performance support tool or OJT, will not work</a>.</p>
<p>From its inception, ADDIE was designed to be a lean, mean, instructional design machine. This leanness has fooled others into thinking that it is a universal model that can build strip malls and skyscrapers. Nope! ADDIE has specific <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html#FSU" target="_blank">steps</a> that are strictly designed for learning. This has led others to believe that ADDIE is too lean, that it tells them what to do, but not how to to it. But as <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html#extend" target="_blank">Merriënboer noted</a>, you can add other components on to it when needed</p>
<h2>ADDIE is a Scavenger, not a Hoarder</h2>
<p>One of the learning tools that is perhaps most often plugged into ADDIE is <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html" target="_blank">Bloom's Taxonomy</a>. And of course one of the criticisms often leveled at ADDIE is that it is associated with outdated learning models. However, this plug and play feature of ADDIE does not mean it hangs on to outdated models, but rather it sheds them and goes scavenging for a better one. While Bloom's Taxonomy has been quite useful in that it has extended learning from simply remembering to more complex cognitive structures, such as analyzing and evaluating, newer models have come along.</p>
<p>There are at least three suitable replacements:</p>
<h2>1. Revised Bloom's Taxonomy</h2>
<p>In the mid-nineties, Bloom's taxonomy was updated to reflect a more active form of thinking and is perhaps more accurate (Anderson, Krathwohl, 2001):</p>
<p align="center"><img src="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/ahold/revised_taxonomy.jpg" alt="Bloom's Taxonomy" width="447" height="335" /></p>
<p>This is perhaps the easiest replacement since it is closely related to the original taxonomy, thus most designers will rapidly adapt to it.. What is interesting about the updated version is how it resembles the SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes):</p>
<h2>2. SOLO Taxonomy</h2>
<p align="center"><img src="http://www.johnbiggs.com.au/images/solo_taxonomy.jpg" alt="SOLO Taxonomy" width="500" height="375" /></p>
<p> The SOLO taxonomy is a means of classifying learning outcomes in terms of their complexity in order to assess students' work in terms of quality (see<a href="http://edorigami.edublogs.org/2010/07/17/solo-taxonomy/" target="_blank"> http://edorigami.edublogs.org/2010/07/17/solo-taxonomy/</a>)</p>
<h2>3. Marzano's New Taxonomy</h2>
<p>In <em><a href="http://www.corwin.com/upm-data/13602_Chapter_1_Marzano_Final_Pdf_2.pdf" target="_blank">The Need for a Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy</a></em>, Marzano describes six levels:</p>
<ul>
<li>Level 6: Self-system</li>
<li>Level 5: Metacognitive System</li>
<li>Level 4: Knowledge Utilization (Cognitive System)</li>
<li>Level 3: Analysis (Cognitive System)</li>
<li>Level 2: Comprehension (Cognitive System)</li>
<li>Level 1: Retrieval (Cognitive System)</li>
</ul>
<p>It is made up of three systems and the Knowledge Domain. The three systems are the Self-System, the Metacognitive System, and the Cognitive System. When faced with the option of starting a new task, the Self-System decides whether to continue the current behavior or engage in the new activity; the Metacognitive System sets goals and keeps track of how well they are being achieved; the Cognitive System processes all the necessary information, and the Knowledge Domain provides the content (see <a href="ftp://download.intel.com/education/Common/in/Resources/DEP/skills/marzano.pdf" target="_blank">ftp://download.intel.com/education/Common/in/Resources/DEP/skills/marzano.pdf.</a>).</p>
<p>What are your replacements for Bloom's Taxonomy?</p>
<h2>Reference</h2>
<p> Anderson, L.W., and Krathwohl, D.R., eds. (2001). <em>A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.</em> New York: Longman.<br />
<br />
</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-38639478322260475962012-03-07T09:37:00.001-08:002012-03-07T12:04:42.745-08:00The Mosaic of Learning Styles<p>Yes I'm a few days late for David Kelly’s <em><a href="http://davidkelly.me/2012/02/more-information-about-learningstyles-awareness-day/" target="_blank">Learning Styles ‘Awareness’ Day</a></em>, so I hope you forgive me. While most of the recent posts on using learning styles in instructional design have been mainly against using them, I'm going to
take a slightly different position—not that we need to cater to each individual style, but that learning styles may be helpful when designing learning platforms.</p>
<p>So far the learning style debate has been mostly two tiles of a different color laid side by side—you are either fer it or agin it—we should assess student learning styles to improve learner outcome verses learning style assessments are unreliable, thus they should <s>not</s> never be used. However, I see the debate more as a mosaic that allows multiple patterns to occur.</p>
<h2>Sensing and Intuitive Learning Styles</h2>
<p>Perhaps the most critical study on learning styles is Coffield, Moseley, Hall, and Ecclestone's <a href="http://www.hull.ac.uk/php/edskas/learning%20styles.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review</em></a>. While the authors mostly found that matching the form of instruction to individual learning styles did not improve learning, there are some interesting exceptions throughout their paper, for example, on page 67 they write:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“More positively still, Katz (1990) in a quasi-experimental study of 44 occupational therapy students in the US and 50 in Israel, hypothesised that students whose learning styles matched the teaching method would perform better (ie more effectively) and would need less time to study outside class (ie more efficiently). The findings in both countries supported the premise that ‘the better the match is between students' individual characteristics and instructional components, the more effective or efficient the learning program is’ (Katz 1990, 233). But even this conclusion needed to be qualified as it applied only to higher-order cognitive outcomes and not to basic knowledge.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So in search of a good paper on using learning styles in higher order cognitive skills I came across this paper, <em><a href="http://www.leishman-associates.com.au/ascilite2011/downloads/papers/Alharbi-full.pdf" target="_blank">An Investigation into the Learning Styles and Self-Regulated Learning Strategies for Computer Science Students</a></em>, by Alharbi, Paul, Henskens, and Hannaford. For their study they use the Felder-Silverman Learning Style model that uses four dimensions:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Perception</strong> (Sensing or Intuitive) describes the ways in which learners tend to perceive information. Sensing learners prefer to learn facts, are comfortable with details, and tend to solve problems using well-established methods. Intuitive learners prefer abstract concepts, theories, and mathematical formulas, and seek innovation and new ideas when solving problems.</li>
<li><strong>Input</strong> (Visual or Verbal) distinguishes between learners based on their preferred medium for the presentation of information. Visual learners prefer to learn using visual medium of presentations, such as pictures, charts, and diagrams. Verbal learners prefer spoken or written materials. Both types of learners benefit when material is delivered using a combination of visual, verbal, and written forms.</li>
<li><strong>Processing</strong> (Active or Reflective) evaluates learners based on the way they process information. Active learners prefer to learn material by using it, whereas reflective learners prefer to think about how things work before actually trying them out. Active learners are typically more comfortable working in groups than reflective learners.</li>
<li><strong>Understanding</strong> (Sequential or Global) looks at how users understand new information. Sequential learners like to follow a step-by-step linear approach that focuses on the connections between the different parts of the learning material. Global learners prefer to grasp the full picture before narrowing into the details.</li>
</ul>
<p>The study was not about assessing the learners' styles and then catering to their preferred styles but rather assessing them on the above dimensions and then testing them on a core computer science course to see how each dimension performed. The author's correlation analysis showed that while three of the dimensions (Input, Processing, and Understanding) were not statistically significant; the <strong>Perception</strong> dimension had a significant impact on the students' results in the examination, with the t-tests confirming that <strong>sensing</strong> students were significantly outperformed by <strong>intuitive</strong> students.</p>
<p>The authors note that the majority of students in the study (65.8%) were sensing learners, with 39.5% having a moderate or strong preference to that learning style. However, 21.0% of students have a moderate or strong preference to intuitive learning over sensing learning. This suggests that there is a need for learning material for both types of learners, but the greater emphasis should be placed on reducing abstraction to better meet the requirements of the sensing learners, especially when it is seen that intuitive learners performed significantly better on the midterm examination.</p>
<p>While it was just one study, it did seem to follow the patterns of a couple of studies discussed in the Coffield et al. paper:</p>
<ul>
<li>Woolhouse and Bayne (2000) noted that individual differences in the use of intuition are correlated with the sensing-intuitive dimension (p50)</li>
<li>Allinson and Hayes (1996) report that intuitive students performed significantly better than analytic students on the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (p85)</li>
</ul>
<p>The authors write that instructors often tend to use more intuitive type instructions (abstract concepts, theories, etc.), rather than the more sensing types of instruction (such as facts, details, and problem-solving methods). While this might at first seem laudable in that they are trying to teach the learners to operate in a more complex world that seeks innovation and new ideas when solving problem, learners often need a basic scaffold of facts and basic problem-solving methods. Yes, some of the learning platforms that we might be providing are for complex environments that do not have proven problem-solving methods, but the least we should do is provide them with some simple facts and heuristics. For example, branching scenarios are often used in elearning platforms but we expect them to jump right in and guess their way through the activity.</p>
<p>An example of this is that one of the myths in our profession is that ISD or ADDIE was only designed for classrooms and there is a lack of rules for when classroom training should be used (we use it more often than it is needed), but the Armed Forces came up with a simple heuristic back in the 1980s - <a href="http://bdld.blogspot.com/2011/10/addie-does-more-than-classrooms.html" target="_blank">ADDIE Does More Than Classrooms</a>. Thus this heuristic should be given to learners studying to be instructional/learning designers BEFORE they attempt to do a branching scenario or similar activity.</p>
<h2>The Continuum of Learning Styles</h2>
<p>In the Coffield et al. paper they note that the various theories of learning styles can be placed on a continuum (pp 9-10) as shown in the chart below. The ones on the left are considered more constitutionally fixed styles (innate) while the ones to the right are considered more flexible:</p>
<a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/styles/learning_styles_continuum.jpg" target="_blank"><h5 align="center"><img src="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/styles/learning_styles_continuum.jpg" alt="The Continuum of Learning Styles" width="450" height="277" /> <br />
Click to bring up a larger chart in a new window</h5></a>
<p>The Sensing and Intuitive learning styles discussed above fall on the right side of the continuum, thus depending upon the learner's knowledge and skills, the subject or task, and/or the type of instruction, a learner could fall on either the sensing or intuitive side of the dimension (however, from the studies noted in this post, the majority seem to fall on the sensing side).</p>
<p>One of the styles that fall strongly on the left side of the continuum is VAK (Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic), which poses a conundrum in learning styles.</p>
<h2>The VAK Conundrum</h2>
<p> In an interesting study, <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090325091834.htm" target="_blank">Visual Learners Convert Words to Pictures</a>, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technology was used to scan subjects' brains while they performed a novel psychological task involving pictures that could be easily named and words that could be easily imagined. They found that the more strongly an individual identified with a visual cognitive style, the more they activated the visual cortex when reading words. Conversely, fMRI scans also showed that the more strongly an individual identified with a verbal cognitive style, the more activity they exhibited in a region of the brain associated with phonological cognition when faced with a picture. </p>
<p>Thus it seems our tendency to identify with being a visual or verbal learning is hardwired in us, however, visual preference does not always equal spatial aptitude (Ruth Clark & Chopeta Lyons, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Graphics-Learning-Guidelines-Evaluating-Professionals/dp/0470547448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331139920&sr=8-1" target="_blank"><em>Graphics for Learning</em></a>, 2004). Spatial aptitude is the ability to generate and retrain spatial images as well as transform images in ways that support visual reasoning.</p>
<p>Thus the conundrum—we may identify with being a visual or verbal learner (indeed, we may even be wired for one or the other), but it does not mean we are a good visual or verbal learner! Thus if we know what style our preference is, we need to think twice if we attempt to train others or learn something on our own if the learning method matches our style.</p>
<p>However, Clark and Lyons give us a few rules to follow:</p>
<p>1. Learners with low prior knowledge need graphics that are congruent with text (and preferably the text should be audio to prevent cognitive overload).</p>
<p>2. Learners with high prior knowledge need only words or visuals; not both, but one study did suggest that the diagram alone was best.</p>
<p>3. Encourage visual literacy. Some learners tend to view visuals as fluff, thus they tend to ignore them even though they might be their best means of learning. One method of encouraging their use is to use a visual and ask a question that can only be derived by examining the visual.</p>
<h2>My Three Tiles in the Mosaic of Learning Styles</h2>
<p>Sensing and Intuitive Learning Styles, The Continuum of Learning Styles, and The VAK Conundrum are my three tiles in the mosaic of learning styles. What are yours?</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-73565950550992759092012-01-16T19:33:00.000-08:002012-01-16T19:33:12.777-08:00Kirkpatrick's Revised Four Level Evaluation Model<p>I had an <a href="http://blog.learnlets.com/?p=2390" target="_blank">interesting discussion with Clark Quinn</a> on using Kirkpatrick's model in learning processes other than courses. Clark argues that use of Kirkpatrick’s model is only for courses because training is the dominant discussion on their web site. I disagree and wonder if perhaps it is more of a “not invented here” hesitation because advancing concepts to the next level has often been a primary means of moving forward. It might sound good to forget an old model, but if you do not help people relearn, then their old concepts have a nasty habit of reappearing. In addition, training is far more than just courses. So after some heavy reflection I did a rewrite on my <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/isd/kirkpatrick.html" target="_blank">Kirkpatrick web page</a> and have listed some of the highlights below.</p>
<h2>More than Courses</h2>
<p>While some mistakenly assume the four levels are only for training processes, the model can be used for other learning processes. For example, the Human Resource Development (HRD) profession is concerned with not only helping to develop formal learning, such as training, but other forms, such as informal learning, development, and education (Nadler, 1984). Their handbook, edited by one of the founders of HRD, Leonard Nadler, uses Kirkpatrick's four levels as one of their main evaluation models.</p>
<p> Kirkpatrick himself wrote, “These objectives [referring to his article] will be related to in-house classroom programs, one of the most common forms of training. Many of the principles and procedures applies to all kinds of training activities, such as performance review, participation in outside programs, programmed instruction, and the reading of selected books” (Craig, 1996, p294).</p>
<p>Kirkpatrick's levels work across various learning processes because they hit the four primary points in the learning/performance process... but he did get a few things wrong:</p>
<h3>1. Motivation, Not Reaction</h3>
<p>Reaction is not a good measurement as studies have shown. For example, a study shows a Century 21 trainer with some of the lowest reaction scores was responsible for the highest performance outcomes in post-training (Results) as measured by his graduates' productivity. This is not just an isolated incident—in study after study the evidence shows very little correlation between Reaction evaluations and how well people actually perform when they return to their job (Boehle, 2006).</p>
<p>When a learner goes through a learning process, such as an elearning course, informal learning episode, or using a job performance aid, the learner has to make a decision as to whether he or she will pay attention to it. If the goal or task is judged as important and doable, then the learner is normally motivated to engage in it (Markus, Ruvolo, 1990). However, if the task is presented as low-relevance or there is a low probability of success, then a negative effect is generated and motivation for task engagement is low. Thus it is more about motivation rather than reaction.</p>
<h3>2. Performance, Not Behavior</h3>
<p>As Gilbert noted, performance has two aspects: behavior being the means and its consequence being the end... and it is the consequence we are mostly concerned with.</p>
<h3>3. Flipping it into a Better Model</h3>
<p>The four levels are upside down as it places the two most important items last—results, and behavior, which basically imprints the importance of order in most people's head. Thus by flipping it upside down and adding the above two changes we get:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Result</strong> - What impact (outcome or result) will improve our business?</li>
<li><strong>Performance</strong> - What do the employees have to perform in order to create the desired impact?</li>
<li><strong>Learning</strong> - What knowledge, skills, and resources do they need in order to perform? (courses or classrooms are the LAST answer, see <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/isd/setting.html" target="_blank">Selecting the Instructional Setting</a>)</li>
<li><strong>Motivation</strong> - What do they need to perceive in order to learn and perform? (Do they see a need for the desired performance?)</li>
</ul>
<p>With a few further adjustments, it becomes both a planning and evaluation tool that can be used as a troubling-shooting heuristic (Chyung, 2008):</p>
<p align="center"><img src="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/isd/kirkpatrick.jpg" width="400" height="392" alt="Revised model of Kirkpatrick's four levels of evaluation" /></p>
<p>The revised model can now be used for planning (left column) and evaluation (right column). </p>
<p>In addition, it aids the troubling-shooting process. For example, if you know the performers learned their skills but do not use them in the work environment, then the two more likely troublesome areas become apparent as they are normally in the cell itself (in this example, the Performance cell) or the cell to the left of it:</p>
<ul>
<li>There is a process in the environment that constrains the performers from using their new skills, or</li>
<li>the initial premise that the new skills would bring about the desired change is wrong.</li>
</ul>
<p>The diagram below shows how the evaluation processes fit together:</p>
<h4 align="center">Learning and Work Environment</h4>
<p align="center"><img src="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/isd/work_environment.jpg" alt="Learning and Work Environment" width="400" height="306" /></p>
<p>As the diagram shows, the Results evaluation is of the most interest to the business leaders, while the other three evaluations (performance, learning, and motivation) are essential to the learning designers for planning, evaluating, and trouble-shooting various learning processes; of course the Results evaluation is also important to them as it gives them a goal for improving the business. For more information see <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/isd/types_of_evaluations.html" target="_blank">Formative and Summative Evaluations</a>.</p>
<p>I go into more detail on my <a href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/isd/kirkpatrick.html" target="_blank">web page on Kirkpatrick</a> is you would like more information or full references.</p>
<p>What are your thoughts?</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-65765589299700957052012-01-09T13:59:00.000-08:002012-01-09T14:05:15.379-08:00Visualization (Sensemaking) in Rapid Agile Learning Design<p>Common definitions of visualization usually read something like, “to form a mental image,” thus we often think of visualization as being a simple solo technique, such as picturing “a dog eating a bone” or “a person doing the right thing.” However in an organization context, visualization is much more complex in that while it involves an image of the working environment, it is also a complex process that is very social in nature. </p>
<h2>The Visualization Framework</h2>
<p>Visualization is often used interchangeably with sensemaking—making sense of the world we live and operate in, and then acting within that framework of understanding to achieve desired goals. Thus visualization is not just a shared (social) image with intent, it also implies ACTION. This framework can be used for building agile or rapid learning designs, fixing performance problems, implementing informal learning solutions, etc.</p>
<h3 align="center">Visualization Framework</h3>
<p align="center"><img src="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/visualization/visualization_small.jpg" alt="The Visualization Process" width="400" height="327" /></p>
<p align="center"><strong><a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/visualization/visualization.jpg" target="_blank">Visualization Framework</a></strong><a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/visualization/visualization.jpg" target="_blank"></a> <strong>(opens larger image in a new window)</strong></p>
<p> The start of a visualization process is often sparked by a cue from the environment, such as an increase in customer complaints; or a team charged with improving a process. The steps within the visualization or sensemaking framework include (Leedom, McElroy, Shadrick, Lickteig, Pokorny, Haynes, Bell, 2007):</p>
<p>1. Triggering cues (information that acts as a signal) from the environment are perceived by the people in a Community of Interest (CoI). These cues may be picked up by one or more members of the CoI. A couple of examples of triggering cues might be an increase in the number of customer complaints or an unexpected drop in production.</p>
<p>2.Triggering cues create a situational anomaly—facts that do not fit into the framework of familiar mental models. Detection of these anomalies violate the expectancies of the members of the CoI and creates a need for change (improvement).</p>
<p><strong>Note</strong>: A mental model is a structure or frame that is built from past experience and becomes part of an individual’s store of tacit knowledge. It is comprised of feature slots that can be instantiated by information describing a current situation (such as triggering cues). Its functional purpose allows a person to assess the situation, take a course of action, follow causal pathways, and recognize constraints in order to achieve a set of goals for actively confronting the situation. Fragmentary mental models can often be linked together to form a just-in-time explanation of a situation. Examples of a mental model include a chess player reacting to a move on the chessboard, a doctor diagnosing a medical condition, or an instructional designer solving a performance problem. </p>
<p>3. Specific data from the information environments trigger the mental activation of familiar mental models. The members of the CoI analyze and discuss the anomalies until they discover a purposeful structure or pattern for interpreting the new information. This transforms the problem space into various solutions. This process of “pattern matching” starts the basis for constructing new or revised mental models. Since patterns differ among the members, they collaborate by telling stories, metaphors, etc. to build common understanding.</p>
<p>4. Activation of a specific mental model is typically triggered by matching salient facts to one or two key features that uniquely anchor a new model that the CoI can agree upon. Tacit knowledge or intuition is often used to build mental models and the degree of tacit knowledge will vary among the members, thus they use a “negotiation process” to ensure all needs are met (or at least prioritize them according to available resources).</p>
<p>5. An action plan is used to instill the selected mental model into the work space in order to transform it to the desired state (during the visualization process intent must always be associated with action, otherwise it is just wistful thinking). The action plan includes the final development of any needed content, material, or products. Once all the pieces are put together, the action plan is implemented.</p>
<p>6. New information from the transformation process is perceived by the CoI, which in turn processes it to determine if the patterns match their desired mental model.</p>
<p>7. If the new information does not match the CoI's newly constructed mental model (situational anomalies are again perceived and they may or may not differ from the original ones), then the visualization process begins anew. </p>
<h2>Probing and Shaping</h2>
<p>While the visualization process does use passive information that derives from experience and expertise, it also involves the proactive use of shaping actions to reduce risk and uncertainty and probing actions to discover system effect opportunities that can then be exploited.</p>
<p><strong>Probing</strong> develops greater understanding by experimentally testing the operational environment, such as asking questions, <a href="http://bdld.blogspot.com/2011/10/mapping-performance.html" target="_blank">Cognitive Task Analysis</a>, or immersing oneself in the troubled environment to discover new information. These probing actions help to illuminate key structures and linkages within the environment.</p>
<p><strong>Shaping</strong> is taking an incentive action to discover new information in order to determine if it aids in transforming the troubled environment to meet the new mental model. Prototyping may be used as a shaping tool—an iterative process of implementing successive small-scale tests in order to permit continual design refinements. There are normally two types of prototypes:</p>
<ul>
<li>Design Iteration (interpretive) — the iteration is performed to test a learning method, function, feature, etc. of the action plan to determine if it is valid. </li>
<li>Release Iteration (statistical) — the iteration is released as a product to the business unit or customer. Although it may not be fully completed or functional, the designers believe that it is good enough to be of use.</li>
</ul>
<p>Probing actions serve to illuminate additional elements and linkages within the visualization space that can then be subsequently exploited for operational advantage. </p>
<h2>Visualization is Dynamic, Not Static</h2>
<p>The visualization or sensemaking framework in not linear, but rather a dynamic process that may flow in any direction, for example:</p>
<h3 align="center">The Dynamics of Visualization</h3>
<p align="center"><img src="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/visualization/visual_dynamics_small.jpg" alt="Dynamics of the visualization process" width="400" height="326" /></p>
<p align="center"><strong><a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/visualization/visual_dynamics.jpg" target="_blank">Dynamics of the Visualization Framework</a></strong><a href="http://nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/visualization/visualization.jpg" target="_blank"></a> <strong>(opens larger image in a new window)</strong></p>
<p> A Community of Interest holds a vested interests when faced with a troubling situation, thus they need a dynamic model that aids them in fulfilling their mission within complex environments. The military has a term called “center of gravity,” which is defined as the source of power that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of action, or the will to act. It is seen as the source of strength of the organization. The ability to act upon and transform an under-performing environment through the use of visualization or sensemaking is an essential attribute in an rapidly moving environment in that it helps to ensure the center of gravity stays balanced.</p>
<h2>Reference</h2>
<p>Leedom, D. K., McElroy, W., Shadrick, S. B., Lickteig, C., Pokorny, R. A., Haynes, J. A., Bell, J. (2007). <em>Cognitive Task Analysis of the Battalion Level Visualization Process</em>. Arlington, VA: United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Technical Report 1213. Retrieved on January 5, 2012 from <a href="http://www.hqda.army.mil/ari/pdf/TR1213.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.hqda.army.mil/ari/pdf/TR1213.pdf</a></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743873.post-72016514324402123022011-12-07T15:33:00.000-08:002011-12-07T15:33:37.372-08:00Learning Styles are for the individual, not group<p>NOTE: I left this comment in eLearn Magazine's, <em><a href="http://elearnmag.acm.org/featured.cfm?aid=2070611#comments">Why Is the Research on Learning Styles Still Being Dismissed by Some Learning Leaders and Practitioners</a></em> by Guy Wallace. Since it wiped out most of my formatting, such as comments and quotation marks, I am posting it here for better readability.</p>
<p>Perhaps one of the best papers on learning styles is Coffield, Moseley, Hall, and Ecclestone's, <a href="http://www.hull.ac.uk/php/edskas/learning%20styles.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review</em></a> (PDF). While the paper does dismiss some types of learning styles and the importance that the recognized learning styles actually have when it comes to learning, it does leave a lot of questions opened.<br />
<br />
One of the most profound statements in the paper, at least to me, is (p68):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“just varying delivery style may not be enough and... the unit of analysis must be the individual rather than the group.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That is, when you analyze a group, the findings often suggest that learning styles are relative unimportant, however, when you look at an individual, then the learning style often distinguishes itself as a key component of being able to learn or not. Thus those who actually deliver the learning process, such as teachers, instructors, or trainers and are responsible for helping others to learn see these styles and must adjust for them, while those who design for groups or study them see the learning styles as relative unimportant. </p>
<p>In the next paragraph, the paper continues with this statement:</p>
<blockquote>
<p> “For each research study supporting the principle of matching instructional style and learning style, there is a study rejecting the matching hypothesis’ (2002, 411). Indeed, they found eight studies supporting and eight studies rejecting the 'matching' hypothesis, which is based on the assumption that learning styles, if not a fixed characteristic of the person, are at least relatively stable over time. Kolb's views at least are clear: rather than confining learners to their preferred style, he advocates stretching their learning capabilities in other learning modes.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>While many find this as a reason to dismiss learning styles, I find it quite intriguing in that why do learning styles play a key component is some situations or environments, but not others? I think part of the answer is within this finding—a study that was conducted in the U. S. and Israel, found that when students' learning styles matched the teaching method they performed both more effectively and efficiently. But the authors of the paper seem too readily to dismiss it as the end the paragraph with this statement—“But even this conclusion needed to be qualified as it applied only to higher-order cognitive outcomes and not to basic knowledge.” (p67)</p>
<p>It seems logical that higher-order cognitive outcomes need more individual support (in this case matching the learning style the the correct learning strategy) than basic knowledge. Thus in some situations learning styles are important, while in others they are not.</p>
<p>Finally, in the paper's conclusion the authors note (P132-133) that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Despite reservations about their model and questionnaire (see Section 6.2), we recognise that Honey and Mumford have been prolific in showing how individuals can be helped to play to their strengths or to develop as all-round learners (or both) by means, for example, of keeping a learning log or of devising personal development plans; they also show how managers can help their staff to learn more effectively.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Thus the main take-away that I get from the paper if that if you are an instructor, manager, etc. who has to help the individual learners, then learning styles make sense. On the other hand, if you are an instructional designer or someone who directs her or his efforts at the group, then learning styles are probably not that important. Note that I am both a trainer and a designer so perhaps this is why my take-away makes sense to me.</p>
</body><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6093144579672342";
google_ad_width = 180;
google_ad_height = 150;
google_ad_format = "180x150_as";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Donald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.com9