"Results Day....Yay I can stop learning now"






This time of year always takes me back to memories of the school summer holidays and the one day we all dreaded, GSCE results day, A Level results day and actually every single assignment result I waited for whilst at University. Every time I received these results I felt a big sigh of relief and thought 'no more learning....until the next one obviously'. And when my final year marks where given to me at University I thought 'no more learning EVER'. At the time this felt like the greatest feeling and it was one that was of course celebrated in traditional student fashion.

But I look back now and think 'o how wrong I was' and not in a negative way at all. Without even realising it everyday since completing my final year of University (and in-between) I potentially have had a learning experience everyday that has helped me in the working world without even realising it. It took awhile for me to realise that after my educational years learning can happen outside of the classroom.

In our conversations we can see that many organisations still don't see learning outside of the classroom as 'learning'. The well known 70:20:10  model (which of course isn't a prescriptive model) shows that 70% of learning is from on-the-job experience, 20% from coaching and relationships and then only 10% from formal classroom learning.

It certainly is a mind-set shift to realise that you are learning outside of the classroom and is one that can be embraced by organisations. It can inspire organisations to use non-formal learning as part of other learning programmes or as an on-going learning support. Getting L&D to understand and implement this is the easy bit, but where you need buy-in and the shift to be noticeable is for the employees to go on the culture shift with you.

Even at times when informal support is in place, employees still say that they don't get any training in their organisation. Therefore it is important that employees understand the concept of informal learning. Through continued targeted communication and simple messaging to employees you can start to get employees to recognise 'informal' as learning and most importantly understand and get the value out of it.

We have had first-hand experience of taking employees on this mind-shift journey and as a result have supported clients through their own journey's, which in a formal sense can be seen as culture change and managed in this way and as result is a process and a journey that shouldn't be underestimated.

Take a look at our digital learning info graphic: http://capitakpconsultants.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/our-digital-learning-infographic.html 
or tweet us @LearningBoffins. We would love to hear your experience of moving to informal.....

What is the difference that makes the difference?


We’re all well into the Olympics now, and a question I’ve pondered is how much difference the equipment makes to the performance of our elite athletes?

In diving for example, it’s pretty clear-cut, there is no equipment: Tom Daley and Dan Goodfellow jump through 10m of air into the pool below.  But what difference does Andy Murray’s choice of racket make against his opponent?  Or the quality of Greg Rutherford’s running shoes affect his long jump?  However I’ll let you decide what difference Amber Hill’s spray painted shotgun and pink cartridges make to her performance.

Following a series of crashes on the cycling course, a TV interview showed that whilst competitive cycling allows some latitude in the dimensions and weight of the bikes, they’re all very similar: perhaps the most significant decision a cyclist makes is how hard to pump the tyres (higher pressure means less drag, but also less grip on corners).

In sport, the rules quite rightly seek to create a ‘level playing field’, so athletes compete as much as possible on equal terms.  Any difference is therefore down to the skill, strength and wit of the athlete, not their equipment.

Now here comes the rather predictable connection to L&D…

… because when it comes to formal training, I notice we make a very different assumption – that the outcomes of learning depend very heavily on the quality of the training course.  Generic content is usually frowned upon in favour of something bespoke: specifically designed for our purpose.  We take a lot of time developing the training.  If we’re outsourcing, a great deal of time and thought goes into choosing the right supplier.  And even if we find something suitable on the shelf, we’ll still want to tailor it for our purposes.  “Content is king” we say (and preferably content built to high standards of instructional design).

Content is important, no doubt about that.  But I have noticed that if you look at learning in terms of outcomes, then content does not influence the result anywhere near as much as our practice would suggest.

Here's my list of the 'Big Four' influences on learning outcomes:
  • Motivation: whether the learner has the desire to learn
  • How relevant the learning is to what the learner needs to be able to do better
  • Line manager support and encouragement of the learner (before and after the training)
  • After training, how much the learner uses the knowledge and skill they have learned.

In my experience, unless these things are right, it doesn’t much matter whether the content is good bad or indifferent.  And yet, how often do we give them even the briefest consideration, let alone investment. 

My conclusion is that, rather like our top athletes, the outcome is down to the people.

Millennials, learning and PokémonGo




Where have you been if you haven’t heard of PokémonGo? I’m a millennial that collected Pokémon cards and played the red, blue, gold and silver games on my colour gameboy in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. I got a little excited when I heard the game was going to launched (even though I am now 25).

If you find yourself still asking what is PokémonGo here is a little intro. It’s an augmented reality game available on IOS and android devices, it uses GPS and camera to capture, battle and train virtual creatures. When the GPS finds a Pokémon it shows on the screen as if it were in the same real-world location. You catch it and it's yours. You collect as many as possible and the game is to catch them all, all 250 of them (especially Pikachu). Looks like I will be doing a lot of walking to find them then!

I wanted to understand why I am so addicted and engrossed into the game, what were the factors that were affecting this and could these elements apply to how we approach and think about learning. So here were my top 3 points that have helped to drive my interest and addiction to the game.

1. Ease of use: 

It’s on my iPhone (basically an attachment to most people now), I open it when I can. So, on my walk for lunch, on the train, just as and when I need it. It’s also simple, straightforward and with little instruction I understand the objectives of the game. Removing all barriers of me accessing it and getting involved.


Learning link:

So looking at this point from a learning perspective. If learning is available when I need it and has limited complexity on its objectives, it removes barriers to get involved. Not saying this increases the motivation towards learning, but it certainly doesn’t block it.


2. Part of a community:

Being part of the game allows me to be part of a Pokémon community which helps to drive my involvement in the game. I talk about it amongst peers and would feel excluded if I wasn’t part of the Pokémon world.

Learning link:

This feeling of being part of a community and being connected is certainly a characteristic of the millennial world, but I think as the growth of technology has allowed us to be a more connected world we are seeing all generations stating that a community element is something that is desired in learning. This ‘network effect’ makes learning interactive and participatory, allowing people to learn from others experience through discussing and experiencing content together.


3. Personal:

Although I am part of the wider Pokémon community, it’s my game. I move through the levels as I wish and only interact with the parts that are of interest to me. I move through it at my own pace and don’t feel pressure to get into all parts of the game.

Learning link:

Having something that I choose how and when to work through at my own pace and only interact with what is relevant to me, reduces the feelings of pointless learning. It also allows for the time spent on learning to be more productive as what I am focused on is more relevant to me as a learner.

I think these 3 points are an important take-away from PokémonGo. Looking at ease of use, community elements and personalisation of learning can help to make for more engaging learning environments according to research. However, this article and research that was done for it is all from a millennials perspective. Do we think these elements we have discussed for learning is something that applies across all generation and not just millennials?

Learning in a VUCA environment: don’t confuse passion with outcomes


One of the best acronyms I’ve come across in recent years is VUCA, which stands for Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous.  These four words describe very well the environment in which we currently live and work and learn.

The last few weeks has served up a particularly unsettling series of events, which emphasise just how VUCA our world is.  Whether it’s the result of a referendum or a football match, political leadership contests or resignations, attempted coups or the appointment of new leaders, terrorist attack or rail accident, our world is daily shaken by unexpected events.  Even in our personal life and work, we face complicated situations which demand that we solve problems with half the data missing.
Of all the media output that has recently washed over me, a brief excerpt stood out.  I can’t remember verbatim, but from a radio interview I heard something like this:

“it’s fashionable for politicians to say how passionate they are about an issue.  But I don’t want my politicians to be passionate - I want them to do something”.
And here’s the thing.  In all the complexity of life and work, we love to hear people that are passionate: it cuts through the confusion and we rightly recognise it as A Good Thing.  Being passionate may well contribute energy to achieving an outcome.

But being passionate is not the same as getting things done.
The parallel with learning is this.  When evaluating learning I hear much about how learners enjoy learning, how learning is important for their development, and anger when access to learning is restricted.  I also see excitement in the eyes of L&D professionals as they plan new content (particularly when it’s of the digital kind).

However for all these expressions of passion (or as close as learning brings anyone to that emotion), we rarely seem to know what difference learning makes.  Nor, when planning learning, is there a clear view of what difference we expect it to make.
Getting excited about learning is not the same as achieving a learning outcome.

If learning is to achieve anything in this VUCA environment, we absolutely must focus on the outcomes we want learning to achieve.  Being passionate about learning isn’t enough.  Enjoyable learning just helps learners along the journey.  Recognising that learning supports development gives energy but not direction.  Brilliant learning content sows the seed of behavioural change, but real change only occurs if it’s applied in the workplace.  The storms of our VUCA workplaces will too easily blow all this off course.

To stand a chance of learning ever making a difference, we need to focus on the outcomes of learning:

·        Before you do anything, start by describing the tangible outcomes you want by the end.

·        Throughout the learning process, keep on articulating the hoped-for outcomes.  Increasingly my experience indicates a precise learning path is much less important than articulating the endpoint.  If learners can describe a worthwhile endpoint, they will get there regardless of what L&D do (or don’t) do.

·        At the completion of the learning and embedding, ask to what extent you can see the hoped-for outcomes?  I guarantee the answers will give you great insights into the learning process.
Always encourage passion, but never let it be a substitute for actual outcomes.

How ‘DogFest’ reminded me of learning styles


Over the weekend I attended a ‘DogFest’. It is what it says, a festival for dogs. There were stands with different nutrition, bedding, toys, photography and massage and much much more. But the best thing….dogs. 1000s of dogs all over the place, extremely excited to socialise with so many! As a big dog fan I absolutely loved it, seeing tiny Chihuahuas to beautiful Bernese Mountain Dogs was great to see, but especially seeing the puppies of all kinds of breeds ...they got my vote!

What I loved to see was the agility classes. It is incredible to see the relationship between dog and owner and how they work together to go through the course of jumps, ropes, bridges and tunnels. But the interesting thing for me was the different styles and techniques each owner would use to suit their dog, which they had obviously built over time. Plus how they got the dog interested in the first place, either using toys or treats, they knew what worked for their particular pooch. For example, I saw different starting tactics, different command distances away from the dog (some doing a lot of running and keeping close and others not) or a squeaky toy or bone for encouragement. It highlighted that even though they were all there to do the same course at the same event they had all be taught slightly different, taught in way that suited the dog as a learner to get the best result.  

When you think of workplace learning  each learner has a different style and it is sometimes overlooked. On many occasions one course is rolled out to all employees, meaning they are faced with learning in the same way.  In reality each of us learns differently and what works for one doesn’t always work for the other. After seeing all the doggies learning styles, I thought it was a great time to re-visit the typical learning styles of us humans. One of the most widely used models of learning styles is ‘The Index of Learning Styles’ developed by Dr Richard Felder and Barbara Soloman in the late 1980s, and based on a learning styles model developed by Dr Felder and Linda Silverman:


Although some people have a preferred and dominant learning style, many of us actually use a mix of all of these styles. And most commonly people find themselves using different styles to suit different situations, plus people can actually develop ability in less dominant styles so you certainly don’t find yourself in one style, so it certainly isn't the case of always sitting in the same bucket. But when asking most people they have an inclination of what their preferred learning style.  
So with the learning that we deliver to employees can we say that the learning can accommodate or support different learning styles?

As learning professionals  these seem obvious to have covered this right? But when it comes to curriculum design this is something that can be overlooked. In some organisation a 'one-size-fits-all' approach is taken when it comes to learning (granted in terms compliance this may HAVE to be the case, but surely not with other training?). Not recognising different learning needs and styles can be extremely demotivating for some people. Training content should stem from a desire to improve knowledge in any given area and should increase employee's values to the company and increase engagement, so we should think about varying the learning to suit learners needs.

Understanding learning styles are a great tool for us to understand how we can create and support environments in which everyone can learn from. The challenge is to deliver or curate a variety content that helps them learn effectively and to a good standard for the organisation.

Can you be confident that your curriculum supports a number of different learning styles or that your trainers are able to adapt to support different learning styles?
We have experience in curriculum transformation and how to build a curriculum that is aligned and impactful for your organisation. Speak to us or tweet us @LearningBoffins to find out more.

    

England in Euro 2016: what can we learn from England's demise?



So last night England failed yet again to make it deep into a major competition.  To make matters worse, the unanimous opinion on their performance was that it is the poorest they have ever had!  In the aftermath of their defeat no less than 20 minutes after the final whistle the manager, Roy Hodgson, had resigned and the twitter-sphere was awash with jokes regarding two exits from Europe in almost as many days.  So where did it all go wrong for Roy and his England Team?

Fundamentally I think it boils down to a lack of strategy on Roy's behalf.  The pundits on BBC and ITV both slated Roy for not having any understanding of what the teams best formation was and who its top players were despite having ample opportunity to work this out during the qualification process and the pre-tournament friendlies.  This lack of strategy can be seen in the decisions made in each of our group games in terms of substitutions, starting players, playing positions and even the timing of specific decisions.  A common thread post game was that we lacked purpose and it looked like we had no idea what we were doing on the pitch.  This simply cannot be allowed if you want to succeed.

This is also true for business.  All too often decisions are made, or not made, at a strategic level that directly set the tone for how a business's L&D function will operate and the success they will have.  A good example of this would be IT infrastructure.  In an age where technology is becoming more and more integrated into daily life it is expected that e-learning or learning platforms can be implemented to full effect.  These solutions are often built with cutting edge technology and yet they often struggle to be implemented in a business environment due to the lack of IT infrastructure investment.  Somewhere along the line a short term view has set the strategy for IT in learning and it is now having dramatic consequences on how effectively L&D can deliver learning to the end user.


Another failing of the England performance and in particular Roy Hodgson is the ability to recognise strengths and weaknesses and act accordingly.  There was a lot of media scrutiny regarding Roy Hodgson's decision to take Jack Wilshere to the Euros this year.  A player who had barely any league time due to injury and who could not be considered 'on-form'.  Roy chose to take Wilshere instead of other players who had played all season and shown an ability in the England squad.  This has been put down to his loyalty to his chosen few.  This loyalty would also govern a number of key decisions he would make during the four matches we played at this year competition.  At its base level Roy is probably guilty of not being able to spot a problem because of his unconsciously biased view point.

As before, business cannot allow similar tendencies to creep into their world.  Our activities, initiatives, programmes of learning, processes, etc. all need to be constantly reviewed.  What worked well a year ago may not work now.  A process of unbiased self-reflection is required in order to truly perform at the highest level possible and I believe that this is one of the most difficult things for a business to do.  Internal politics, lack of time and just the day to day pressures of an ever changing world make it hard but if L&D and the wider business is to succeed then they need to be smart about where they focus their time and ensure that they are leveraging their best assets and their successes.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and it is easy for us all to criticise the England performance after the game, especially given the fact that it is unlikely that anyone reading this is a professional footballer.  However, we do understand our own world of L&D and we should take the hard lessons learned by the England team and apply them to our own day to day activities.  Essentially, have a well thought out strategy that is forward thinking and makes the best use of the assets that you have whilst constantly self-reflecting and improving on your winning formula.

A Brief History of (Formal) Training



My industrial history might be a bit patchy, but try this story out for size.

Around the start of the 20th century, pretty much all 'industrial' work was craftwork. It was practical. It was about making things, making them better, more reliable and making more of them faster. This required practical skills, the kind of skills an expert craftsman could show you how to do, often over an extended period of time. 'Management' was discharged by the rich and powerful, and was pretty basic: you worked, you got paid; if you didn't do enough work or good enough work, you got fired. No unions, limited workforce mobility, even less employment law, no need for great management skills either.

Then came mass production and Taylorism, and with it mass employment at relatively low skill levels. With 100s of people doing the same job, you needed them all trained up the same. So training (face to face, of course) also became a large-scale repeatable activity, and it worked, with armies of workers trained to execute practical tasks in the One Best Way.

By the early 21st century, all manner of technological advances have changed the nature of work and given rise to all kinds of work that never previously existed, requiring new skills and different knowledge. Automation, enabled by IT, profoundly changed what we do and how we do it. Telecommunications has diffused the location and timing of work. The skill levels required tend to be higher and more cerebral, knowledge workers are commonplace. Company value, previously measured in physical assets, is now dependent on intangibles like Human Capital: it’s all about what's in the employees' heads, their ability to innovate, etc..

Not only has the work changed, but management now assumes far greater importance. Human Capital depends as much on how humans work together, as it does on the intrinsic level of their skills. Add to this high levels of technological change, economic turmoil, workforce mobility and skills shortages, then management and leadership emerge as vital and complex disciplines.

Given how the world of work has changed so dramatically, I am surprised that our prevailing image of the main task which equips people for work (i.e. the classroom course) persists so strongly. In passing, I’m also curious that at the same time, on-the-job training still holds derogatory connotations, through phrases like “sitting by Nellie”.

We have known for a very long time that formal instruction is just part of the development process. Medieval craftsmen knew this – it was partly why they formed Guilds. For all their faults, Guilds provided a great framework for the development of skills through the medieval forerunner of the apprenticeship.

Today, so much business success is dependent upon employees being skilfully creative, for example:

· interpreting each particular customer situation and responding accordingly;

· regularly making rapid decisions based on incomplete data;

· developing innovative approaches to maintain competitive advantage in an ever-changing marketplace.

In such an environment, how can we expect any kind of standardised formal training programme to really deliver significant improvements?

Don’t get me wrong, large-scale formal training still has a place, but it’s unlikely to deliver high levels of competence, and certainly not on its own. For more advanced skills, some kind of personalised, on-demand (and probably on-the-job) learning is vital. We need to embrace the technologies that facilitate peer-to-peer information sharing on a global basis, and give employees freedom to experiment and innovate.


Kevin Lovell

A Night at the Museum, Our view on Curation








I was working for a client and curating content for them from the internet to use as a resource for their learners. I love doing this work but in terms of efficiency I can’t claim to be making a profit. I will explain why this is the fault of the ‘hyperlink’ not my fault!

To do this properly you need to assess the material for suitability, you need to have criteria for selecting people for the materials. Don’t get fooled by thinking this is an easy, cheap or one off activity for your learners.

 Think of curating for a museum. You may have a lot of ‘stuff’ but it doesn’t mean a visitor leaves your museum having had a positive experience. In fact quite the reverse, with too much to look at, with no discernible connection or symbiosis between the items the visitor leaves feeling bewildered, exhausted and frustrated. With most modern museums less is more, they leave space for thought, the footnotes are brief and there is a pathway which tells an evolving story as the visitor progresses through the well curated space.
We can learn a lot from how museums have changed over time. They know what works for their visitors and their visitors, like ours, are learners. 

So what are the ‘musts’ for meaningful curation?


  • Know your audience, how do they learn? What do they need to know and what do they want to know?

  • What does your company want the learners to get out of your curated materials? It might be hard fact absorption, it could be to build a collective base line of understanding in the company or it could be developing a sense of curiosity in the learners for learning outside of their job role. Is it their objective to build a learning organisation? 

  • Do you need to create a pathway of developmental levels? (a good idea) Be open minded to the learner who will access the highest level first to see if they can understand the topic at the advanced level before dipping into to the lower levels. 

  • Add texture to the learning. Look for videos, blogs, articles, infographics, and LinkedIn communities. Research papers and free courses, published dissertations, book reviews and Ted Talks, home-made videos from your own SME’s. Vary the tone from the serious to the lighthearted and vary the length from the short hit from an infographic or a 15 hour Open University free course.

  • You might want to create ‘boxed sets’ of learning, perfect for the binge learner who will work through them in order looking for a plot twist in each article and enable them to create their own taxonomy from the learning you put in front of them. 

  • At all times focus on quality, it is fine to have content which looks at topics from opposing standpoints but make sure it is correct; there is a lot of incorrect information on the internet so stick to reliable sources.                                                                       
  • Nobody likes governance but if you are putting up information from the internet ask people not to click on advertisements, explain this is curation of ‘free materials’ and not to sign up for anything which costs money and set a rule about the purchase of books following a book review.



So what about the hyperlinks and my efficiency? I get so absorbed in the material itself and the thirst to know where things are referenced from, I follow every hyperlink there is. Walking through my own endless museum of facts, history, and futurism and without ever having to stand in line to view something is my idea of a happiness (possibly my MD might want to put a closing time on my museum.)




For help curating materials for any subject for your organisation contact me – it will be a pleasure to help you. Rachel.kuftinoff@knowledgepool.com
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)