It’s the start of the new financial year for many companies. Naturally that signals the time for making plans and figuring out the needs of the organization for the upcoming period. In fact, the latest LinkedIn report on workplace learning may reframe the focus for organizations to initiate plans for a longer period.

We agree with the consideration that it’s definitely timely to think of longer spans to address in training plans. We do disagree with the LinkedIn focus, but before getting into that, let’s answer the basic question.

WHY PARTICULARLY NOW?

What’s different now from the last year? Perhaps not a lot. But consider the last two years or so and there have been some changes. We identify 3 important influences.

EMERGENCE OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES AT THE WORKPLACE

While the training world has been discussing AR, VR, and MR for a while now, even in terms of device affordability, SDK options, and actual deployment, there has been a surge in the last year. We are also seeing a renewed and more serious interest even in older technologies like mobile-first training to meet the needs of on-the-job, just-in-time, and performance support training. Previously, organizations were interested but the conversation would die at reality check points like “Do we have a responsive LMS?”, “Do we provide devices or have a properly implemented BYOD system?”, or even “How do we control the security of the content?” By now, there is a lot of precedent to learn from and the solutions to these challenges are well-known.

HYPE OVER MILLENNIALS JOINING THE WORKFORCE

A lot has been written about the ‘millennial’ generation’s presence in the workforce. What implications can be worked out is presently the subject of debate. As we see it, some of the arguments are absurdly reductionist, saying things like millennials will learn only if the learning is delivered on mobiles through social platforms. The other end of the argument can be summarized as ‘millennial-shmillennial, it’s all just business as usual’. We’re not in a hurry to take sides ourselves; our thinking on the whole generational aspect is that:

However, whichever school of thought a talent or training head may lean towards, the sheer volume of noise being made over the presence of this generation has acted as a thunderbolt to make us sit up and notice the cumulative cultural changes that organizations have weathered and now may wish to consciously prepare for in the coming decades.

CONTINUING EVOLUTION OF TRAINING

Like any other industry training is not static. Over time, it becomes in some ways at least, more standardized, the common body of knowledge is added to and performance expectations and measures of success increase in sophistication. Corporate training has long known the inadequacies in the ways by which learning is tracked and measured. Now, while we have not all transitioned to that awareness (let alone tackled the problems), conversation about how to align training to business metrics and goals is certainly increasing. While this is not a shift confined to the last year, taken in combination with the other factors mentioned before, it certainly compounds why it may be worthwhile to reevaluate how organizations go about planning to develop, train, and build talent.

SO WHAT’S THE BIG PROBLEM?

We have grave concerns about much of the report. There are problems in aspects of the survey design, survey methodology, data interpretation, and the manner in which the conclusions are drawn. There is moreover a larger body of more established research and analysis that cautions against rushing to accept the insights of the LinkedIn report.

[This Special Edition of the Buzz aims to simplify and summarize the whole matter so that Training and Talent Development Heads may have a snapshot view. Naturally, therefore, the following analysis will not be comprehensive – however, if you want to have a more detailed discussion on this or anything else, our team would be happy to do so. Here, we have prioritized and aim to present the 2 largest problems clearly rather than present all analysis completely.]

A. QUESTION DESIGN

The first serious problem is the design of the questions that seem to have been posed. We’re going to break down one to illustrate:

What are the top priorities for your L&D programs in 2018?

Really, that’s exploding with possible interpretations! Prioritized how? By monetary investment? Hours of training? To track impact? Effort to build in-house capability for? The question has a much wider scope until the options whack it down to being ‘which content focus’.

Options to be ranked:

• How to train for soft skills
• Consistent valuable global training
• Deliver insights on internal skills gaps
• How to track skill development
• How to access skill competencies
• Understanding the impact of technology

Even keeping in mind that this editorial is written by an Instructional Designer, a breed that specializes in getting itself tangled up by overthinking, those options are skewed, unclear, and strangely phrased.

Let’s take a very common and widely relatable training context: sales enablement. Let’s say we’re talking about a large company with offices across the globe. Put yourself in the place of the Training Head for a geography. You want to improve the performance of the sales team in that territory. How would you answer the question we’ve just seen? Are you going to say soft skills are the only priority to focus on, even about product knowledge? How else would the training be ‘valuable’? Of course, you may roll out the trainings to all areas, but you typically start with one and then ramp up. You would want consistency in the trainings too (which technology could help with). And understandably, you wouldn’t be able to deliver valuable, substantial training to boost performance until you also figure out a way to measure skill gaps or skill levels required at each level of the sales organization. It’s absurd and impossible to pick one step in a process as the ‘top priority’.

You see the absolute disaster it would be to accept any conclusion drawn based on such a deeply flawed survey design. With this question, this diagnosis is reinforced by the accompanying ‘insight’ highlight on the same page:

As the shelf life of skills shrinks, business leaders worry that talent developers are focused on training for today’s skill demands, at the expense of preventing tomorrow’s skill gaps.

We told you there was a problem with the conclusions as well. We see it here with the broad assertion that “the shelf of skills shrinks”. This is completely unsubstantiated.

The more specifically framed report conclusion was from the WEF, which had also more reasonably presented a contextualized discussion of the influence of technology evolution on technology-linked jobs. More importantly, the report had repeatedly emphasized the importance of cognitive abilities as being still very much needed in the future, but no doubt needing more investment of effort spread consistently across a person’s education and workplace.

Inadequate knowledge of the implied source referencing makes for further errors in an unfortunate domino effect so that on page 5 you see this as a highlight:

All parties agree, the #1 priority for talent development in 2018 is training for soft skills

And thus training conversation trends are born without substance, reasonable evidence, and logic.

B. LACK OF LOGIC

There are many logical gaps and problems in the report. Again, let’s look at two illustrative examples.

For the first one, we will put together the 3 pieces of information about an issue to look at how these are then illogically addressed in the report’s recommendation.

Let’s start from the information on page 8. These are the two pieces of information we get – two relevant perceptions about a larger problem:

Each group in our survey identified ‘getting employees to make time for learning’ as the #1 challenge facing talent development in 2018.

[…] 94% of employees would stay at a company longer if it invested in their career development.

From this, you would understand that work happens at a constant and rapid pace. Employees are not able to interrupt the flow of activities to switch to learn. That’s a clear enough picture.

Then, this is what further clarification employees have offered about their preferred way of working and learning [page 29]:

The modern employee wants to take time to learn when they’re in the office. They want opportunities to learn at their own pace and to access learning at the point of need.

Okay, what they’re asking for is for the way of working to evolve, so that learning can be included in the flow of daily business activities. That’s again a clear piece of information. It’s also a common problem and something that everyone’s trying to figure out because it’s easier said than done.

Here is where we come to the part that ceases to make any sense. Here’s the report’s recommendation for meeting the challenge of why employees do not use the training materials provided [page 30]:

EMPLOYEES

Recommendations for Action

What learning resources do you use to train employees?

No part of the problem – pace of work not permitting time to learn – has actually been addressed in the recommendation. Training Managers may ask what employees want from learning opportunities, which seems like a good practice that’s hard to fault, but given that the issue is learners are saying they can’t take up the training experiences, following the recommendation means Training Managers would miss the point entirely.

Let’s move to the second example, shall we? From page 17:

What learning resources do you use to train employees?

The most used format (in 2017 and 2018) – ILTs. In fact, more people have reported using ILTs in 2018 than in 2017.

It seems as though the survey questions were never tested or tested inadequately. Because after the organizations surveyed indicated they don’t use as much digital training as classroom training, they were then asked about what was so advantageous about using digital media.

Talent development professionals are most excited about digital learning solutions that can support quick takeaways, immediately solve needs, and provide great engaging content.

They were no longer the right audience to ask! Yes, digital is powerful. But no it cannot wear a red cape and fly faster than a speeding bullet. What does a claim like “immediately solve needs” even mean? It’s a dangerously vague promise for a training function to make, and will be an express ticket to a lack of credibility.

OUTCOMES

Given the problems with the survey, it is only due diligence to check if the report is able to deliver on any of the questions it set out to answer.

The questions are clearly listed on page 3:

But you don’t actually get answers to any of those questions. Or, if we try to understandingly re-interpret the third question in terms of what they meant rather than what they say – What do executives think about learning and development – maybe there is a partial answer to one question.

You do not get to know about differences in practices between savvy and ineffective talent development leaders, unless the researchers are making the claim that every talent development person they reached to was in the ‘savvy’ category. There is also actually no definition of the differential. Considering the report purports to have identified the strategies of trail blazers, we think it’s kind of a big miss to have not even figured out who the trail blazers are.

Not a question that we have any insight into, even at the end. If anything, the reports insistence on using the word “platform” makes us wonder if the problem is itself wrongly phrased-

Meet them on platforms they’re already using with messages that align to their on-the-job needs and professional aspirations.

That was the advice given to talent development. So the problem isn’t about not making time from work in general but rather, not making time on specific platforms (LMSs?) on which the learning material is hosted…? One is left bewildered and uncertain.

Take that question literally first – wouldn’t it have actually been brilliant to know how people think? What techniques do they arm themselves with, what sources of information, how many years into the future do they factor in their plans…?

But alright, let’s extend the benefit of the doubt and say the question intended was “what”, not “how”.

For all the hullabaloo about millennials, how about considering what Talent Development Heads are doing to ensure that they and their organizations actually understand this generation or what characterizes them?

For instance, one possible consideration for the future could be actually factoring into training and development plans that in some countries students are underperforming in their reading levels. So, the workforce in 5-10 years may need to deal with even less qualified or knowledgeable candidates. Are organizations pushing for stronger induction training?

To answer this question, the first step would be to define the parameters to identify successful learning programs (missing in the report), and study learning programs that came close but missed so that we know which differentiating factor makes for success (also missing in the report). We grant you (in fact, we’re quite sure) that if these preliminary steps were to be conducted, we wouldn’t get a single conveniently clear answer – it would actually open up more questions. But to not pursue that simply isn’t rigorous. And so no, yet again, we have no answer.

CONCLUSION

The post The 2018 LinkedIn Workplace Learning Report – What Does It Really Mean For You? first appeared on The Upside Learning Blog.

The single thing that had the largest impact: TV or no TV!

Spending an entire day in front of a computer screen is not the same as spending it watching TV. With a TV, you don’t need to seek. Content is pushed to us. But with the net, we have a much wider variety to choose from and we have to seek what we want. That really helps with the passivity thing.

I mean, you first make the effort to figure out what exactly you’re into and then you get used to exploring what you’re interested in rather than having it conveniently delivered to you. Even with content-push apps like Flipboard or Newsstand, a generic “technology” subscription is interesting no doubt, but you really only spend hours digging deep when you have managed to find and subscribe to “technology forms that rock your boat”!

I do realise this no TV business is a big, almost unthinkable thing for many people. So I figured – how about making a proportion rule? If you happen to watch TV for 10 hours a day, say you have to watch a channel for 2 hours and then you have to change to a new one. At least you’re not just staring at the same sort of gunk; you have to mentally shift to new topics/formats. (Baby steps!)

Having interests and exploring variety

I love experimenting and it makes me feel mentally peppy. Honestly, I find it appalling when people say they love music and have only heard one genre of music and cannot even talk about that passionately! Given how easy it is to research – or plain just look up things!- on the net, it’s fun to find out what other people are up to, the schools of thought that exist around the thing that interests you.

Experiencing things vs. consuming them

I think what falls by the wayside in constant content push (e.g. TV-style) is the cycle after the initial exposure to the content (i.e., after reading or listening). Reflecting on the content when you’re doing something totally unrelated (long live housework!) makes it even more interesting. It’s the act of turning it over in your mind. Did the program/information really make sense? Why was it really interesting? Was it good, was it bad, was it controversial, what are the statistics around it, or what issues and social conventions?

Scaling sensibly

Many friends and I have faced this: we’ll get worked up one day with no longer doing X (playing music, writing…) and swing out wildly in reaction: we’ll start a blog or commit to practising every day for 4 hours. Unsurprisingly, that didn’t last with many of us. I think what helped was phasing the change. Especially when it’s something like quitting TV or starting to learn to be critical, you kind of need to find something that gives you pleasure or interests you! If you’re used to being totally passive and are trying to shake it off, do give writing independently (like on a blog) a chance, but I think it also helps to think of easier-to-sustain things like maintaining a scrapbook, trying flash fiction, curating a Flipboard magazine or participating in an active forum.

Learning where there’s variety on the internet

It’s still possible to be utterly unimaginative and fall into a rut on the net. After all, the net gives you what you ask for, right? I found my reading habit was back to stay when I figured where there was good variety. Special interest forums can be really diverse within your interest area, and before you zoom in on an interest area (if you’re still figuring out what that is), try the generally famous-for-variety places like the TED or BBC portals – they’ve carefully curated and abundant high quality content on various topics, so you can sample lots in a single place without having to spend an hour just searching! (And by the way, TED is also a brilliant trap for passive consumption, so be extra alert! It is really important to critically evaluate the ideas however wonderfully they’re presented, so the reflection time is super necessary.)

There. Those were quite a few of the things I found helpful!

The post Overcoming Passivity in Our Intellectual Culture first appeared on The Upside Learning Blog.

Basically “unlearning” refers to learning what you may already know, in order to understand it better and from a different perspective. Nobody captured (or warbled!) what it takes to survive as well as Bob Dylan did:

[…] IF YOUR BREATH TO YOU IS WORTH SAVING
THEN YOU BETTER START SWIMMING OR YOU’LL SINK LIKE A STONE
FOR THE TIMES THEY ARE A-CHANGING

And indeed they are. Which brings us to reason #1 for why you should consider adopting unlearning:

1. Change in learning circumstances and contexts

“Frogs can be poisonous.” See? Power of Context!

The conditions under which you first learn something could be different from the conditions you’re in now. Think of something you learned in school, like the function of adrenaline. Back then, your sincere younger self with the terrible haircut and pimples earnestly learned it as the answer to a potential question in the test.

But picture the nightmare of public speaking. If someone were to come to you seconds before the presentation of your life and tell you about adrenaline… Okay, your first reaction can be to slap them. But after that! – You would have a new understanding and appreciation of the flight-fright-fight response. And then you’d have an even greater appreciation when you learned how to overcome this response by deep breathing.

That’s a difference in the way you’re seeing the same thing, from ‘a way to crack the exam’ to ‘a way to keep rational under panic’ to ‘a way to master your body’. What information you gave importance to at each point would also be different, as would how much information you took in.

Which is closely related to reason #2…

2. Your growing abilities, knowledge and experience

As we go through life, we improve and become better at lots of things. (Except irrational numbers. Nobody was meant to understand that stuff.) Your mind develops wider and more sophisticated webs of knowledge, and simply becomes more disciplined about concentrating when learning. So this means you can look even at the very same information and take away different understanding over time. (For example, that sideburns are not always cool, in fact they’re pretty tricky to pull off!)

Nope.

You may have heard this kind of sentiment, if you haven’t experienced it yourself – but we’d all ace several classes now that we struggled with in school. Even organic chemistry!

3. Undo cognitive kinks

Just search online for cognitive biases and you’ll have no sense of self-respect left (until you remember we all struggle with them). The smart way to overcome them is not to try to stop the mess, but just be aware and clean up regularly. Parents among you may recognise this as the Diaper Approach.

Heed the Didactic Diaper! It WORKS!

Especially in our long-term areas of work or interest, it’s easy to fall prey to various biases. We assume we’ve perfected things we know through experience – even if we never tested this notion, or tried explicitly to learn. We assume we’ve learnt all the right things, with a magical immunity to sloppy shortcuts, bad habits and misconceptions. Now wouldn’t it be wonderful if it were true!

4. Integrate knowledge more deeply

Think of it this way. The more the number of ropes in a mesh, the more securely it can hold stuff. Work a bead into a knitting pattern and it’s more secure than if you tried to glue it on to a thread.*

As you get smarter, the more connections you can draw for a piece of information, and the deeper you’ll understand it and be better able to use it.

*(To win fabulous prizes, come up with your own handicrafts metaphor and share it with info@upsidelearning.com. The prize money is sponsored by a famous Nigerian prince. You’ll get an email from him soon.)

5. Revalidate and examine learning

And there’s the final reason to learn what you already know – again. What we know, even really well, could become outdated in time. And that’s twice as dangerous if we also didn’t really do our due diligence the first time around. Many of us fell for the 7-9 chunking myth. We fell again for learning styles. Now we’re scarred. We know we should read the original source of information plus we’re more critical. Next time around, we’ll read more deeply, dig more diligently for proofs and be more sceptical of magical claims. And live longer. And bulge with muscles. And fly faster than a speeding bullet. Okay, just checking if you’re paying attention…

So now you know my 5 main reasons to embrace unlearning!

The post The Big Idea: Unlearning first appeared on The Upside Learning Blog.

So here’s what I learned:

1 – When you think of medium matters

When designing, the stage at which you think about the medium matters immensely. The same idea for choosing a certain medium can completely wreck the design or add to it constructively depending on when it’s factored into the picture, especially in a case like this where it’s almost a foregone conclusion.

We focussed on the learning value we wanted to create, focussed on developing instructional clarity throughout the curriculum and only then analysed where we could use videos to achieve the targeted outcomes. The idea of using interactive videos, considered after instructional clarity was developed, was very helpful in manifesting the approach. But starting out with the medium in mind derailed design thinking completely!

2 – The medium isn’t the message

How technologically advanced (or y’know, fancy) a medium is, has nothing to do with how clear the instructional intention is. (In fact, it’s so much easier to lose sight of instructional integrity when given a gimmicky thing to play with!)

We had a round of exploration where we gathered any number of samples of interactive videos. This was actually more confusing than constructive because our brainstorming was reduced to designing interactivities and trying to work in mechanics… all with no clue of why. What was the learner supposed to take away from the experience? So we had to scrap the information collected and start over.

3 – Experiments help explore the medium

The medium was useful to create a way to experience the stress and fear of the problem situation (i.e. a violent crime at the workplace). I’m not saying it isn’t possible to draw out these reactions with other media (it most certainly is), it’s just that it was easier to do with a video – it needed a lot less skill on my part.

4 – Instructional focus matters

Had the focus been on in-depth knowledge of the model, a video-based approach would have been decorative, ineffectual, high-cost clutter. As we were going for an appreciation of the importance of the model, myth busting and situational skill building, videos were a good option.

5 – Design is shaped by instructional convictions

Videos are a wonderful way to bypass the false dichotomy of learning by doing vs. learning by observation. Movies are the simplest way for each of us to see honestly whether we tend to unquestioningly consume content or engage with it. When you’re playing a video clip and explicitly being asked to observe or study a specific thing, whether the focus of analysis is in the video or in your reaction, you’re being taught excellent long-term learner behaviour: to engage with the content. That’s with just the externally added cues. Going further, breaking the fourth wall has so many opportunities for wrecking learner passivity if you can shoot custom videos for a course!

6 – Ditch the documentation (well, almost)

Storyboarding should play a smaller role than conversations and doodles. To have everything driven by documentation makes such a complex, experience-oriented production more difficult. In this experiment, we were working off existing video clips rather than shooting our own. So it was important to really talk through what each of us in each function pictured and wanted to do. To capture discussions, we doodled.

7 – Fancier can be tougher

The need for UX is more pronounced when designing interactivities for videos as compared to other media. If things are constantly changing on the screen, the interactive elements have to be well designed, otherwise the assessment of learner performance is more clouded (than in other media) by lack of mechanical skill than actually improper learning.

This was an area where it particularly helped to have a fresh pair of eyes critically look at the output and give feedback!

So there you have it, the merry mix of things I learned from my experiment, from process and pitfalls to challenges and opportunities.

If I had to tell you the biggest impact on my thinking, it’s that instructional clarity comes before everything else.

The post 7 Takeaways from Making an Interactive Video first appeared on The Upside Learning Blog.