Learning

(Addendum added Nov 6, 2011)

I keep getting myself in trouble. Let me be the first to admit it. And this time, it’s because I’m proud of the work I did, and I hate to see other people cheapen the meaning of it. In this case, we’re talking about the word “Certified”.

When you drive your car into a garage, you see signs for an ASE Mechanic.  If you want to climb into the cockpit of a jet airplane, you’ve got to talk to a guy (or gal) who’s holding a CFI Rating. And, if you want to get into the server room at work, you’re gonna need a little something called an MCSE (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer) Certificate(Full disclosure, I spent a good part of my career writing big complicated courses to teach people to get that last one — which hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people — now hold around the world.)

My point is, when you bill someone as being “Certified” in something, you’re saying to the public at large that you’re in some way reassuring them that this person can actually perform the tasks expected of them in a competent manner.

The ASE Mechanic can diagnose the problem with your car, order the parts, install them and then test your car and return it to you without giving you a dangerous vehicle.

The CFI Flight Instructor can teach your pilot how to fly an airplane in such a manner that you will be safe riding with them, and that if a problem arises they will professionally and quickly resolve it and land the airplane without you ending up a small grease spot on the pavement.

The Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer will be able to install, configure and diagnose your computer servers and systems so that your data is safe, your users are happy, and that that guy from Nigeria doesn’t get into your bank account.

Now, of course, there ARE organizations that provide “certification” of crystal ball gazers, balloon animal makers, and those who make sculptures out of dryer lint.  Anyone can “certify” someone in a skill — coaching, finger-snapping, apple carving — and that’s their right.  While I think it’s amusing, I don’t really have a big problem with them.

But a year or two ago, a Large Learning Organization (Let’s call it the “Amazing Society for Trivial Development” decided that the world needed them to “provide a way for workplace learning and performance professionals to prove their value to employers and to be confident about their knowledge of the field.”

Great!  Sounds just like my definition above — reassuring, performance, competent…

Well, hold on there, Hoss.  The bar’s not all that high.  Here’s what you need:

1.  Three years in a “related” field.

2. “Pass” a multiple choice test (which apparently has not been validated)

3.  Submit a “sample” of your work (PPT deck?  Drawing of you in a classroom?)

Oh — one other little thing.  A check for $1,000 dollars. For a machine-scored test and to have a “blue-ribbon panel” look at your course plan?

Just for comparison, a Microsoft Certification test (for a single cert) right now costs around $200.  And having it will immediately boost your income about 25% or more in most markets.  Because the people who pass this test have to pretty much take a week of classes and then study really, really hard before they can pass.

If you got all five certs, you’d double your income.  Those tests would be about $1000 out of your pocket.  Probably a good deal.

So let’s get back to the Large Learning Organization.  Do they have any documentation that their certification maps directly to more income? Well, they do claim that the Fortune 500 “prefer their candidates” but they don’t give any hard data. If there were actual stats, I bet they’d quote them.

But come on — who in their right mind would say these people are competent at what we do? E-learning?  Instructor led?  Webcasts?  Curriculum Design?  Needs analysis?  Assessment?  Social Media?  Coaching?  Psychometrics? Data Analysis?

But (from their own data) the LLO has now administered their test to 3,605 people and charged users about $1000 each.  I’m not a math whiz, but that comes out to Three Million, Six Hundred and Five Thousand Dollars! Now they did have mimeograph costs for the multiple-choice tests, and they had to print up some nice blue ribbons for the panel, but other than that — pure profit. And people say Bernie Madoff was smart!

(Full Disclosure:  They will give you a $200 discount on the test if you join the org or are a member.  But that money just goes in another pocket, so I’m not discounting it.)

This causes an itch under my saddle because they’re supposed to be a Professional Learning Organization, and they should know better.  If it was a bunch of Balloon Animal Professionals, I’d cut them some slack and say “Well, what do they know about training and certification?”  But these people CLAIM to be the best and brightest.  In fact, I bet some of them even HAVE this certification. (Interesting side note would be to see if EVERYONE paid full price, or if the insiders got it discounted or for free.  I know what I’d be betting — how about you?)

So there you have it.  Call me cranky, call me snarky, or call me somebody that’s proud of my profession.  Proud of my skills.  Proud of the people that I work with every day who really provide Training and Development at a high level of quality.

And embarrassed to be associated with a money-machine that grinds out pretty certificates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Addendum:  Several people have written me personally, asking why I hate people who have certifications from the Large Learning Organization, or think that those people don’t have skills in learning.  PERISH THE THOUGHT!  I’d bet that a large number of people who coughed up the $10000 fee for this overpriced and poorly-designed piece of irrelevant documentation are likely highly skilled learning professionals.  I know several of them personally, and would recommend them highly, depending on what it is you wanted them to do.

The point is that this Four Letter Acronym really has nothing to do with whether they are skilled or not — it merely proves they can write a check and answer some multiple-guess questions.  It’s not a certification for a potential client that they can actually provide the services that the client needs, or that they have the skills that map to the project at hand.

Were I at the beginning of my career, with no other evidence of my skill (like advanced degrees or client referrals) I’d probably hold my nose and write the check.  But I’d have to take a shower every time I put the acronym after my name.

 

I work with lots of folks who create and deliver some kind of instruction — training, documentation, presentations and such. I’m planning to have this quote from Etienne Wenger tattooed on my forehead in large letters, just so they can think about it.

“Instruction does not cause learning; it creates a context in which learning takes place, as do other contexts. Learning and teaching are not inherently linked. Much learning takes place without teaching, and indeed much teaching takes place without learning.”

 

Yesterday I ran across an article in The Atlantic showing “The School Of The Future” that lives in a local YMCA. While they don’t seem to have a Quidditch field or a landing pad for flying cars, it sounded like a nice idea.  Working with the community, sharing the pool, innovating in education — what’s not to love?

Then I came to the author’s contention that “Eighty percent of charter schools don’t produce better results than traditional public education. And sadly, some results are much worse.” While not labeled as “op-ed”, I’m guessing Kathleen Kennedy Townsend does have a particular axe she’s trying to sharpen, here.

Since I have a nodding familiarity with education, and more exposure to self-designated experts than is healthy for most adults, I wondered where this had come from.  So I started doing some searching.  And searching.  Best I could do (‘cuz, of course, they don’t reveal SOURCES in the Atlantic) was some questionable research from a LARGE MAINSTREAM EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION that had numbers that looked a little bit like that, if you read really quickly and ignored the details.  And the source.  And didn’t ask any questions.

(I don’t have anything against experts.  Really.  Some of my friends are experts.  I’d even let my daughter marry one, if she was the last woman on earth and had a trust fund.) But in this case, I think it might be useful to stop for a moment and talk about the process of measuring results.  Something that we do a lot in my line of business.

If a client hires me to teach punch press operators to run their machines faster, one option is for me to just show them how to turn the speed dial up to “11″ and step back.  Job Done!  The machines are now running faster, I’ve accomplished the goal, and I want my check.  Ka-Ching!

(There will, of course, be a corresponding loss of fingers, an increase in damaged materials, lots of lawsuits, and explosions when the red-hot machines finally blow up — but I achieved my goal with 100% success!)

Still confused?  Let’s make it even simpler.  Let’s imagine that you’ve got a Dairy Barn. And you want “better results”.

Our goal is to get more milk from your herd.  Each morning, we’ll measure how many gallons of milk you get from group “A” and how much from group “B” and see which is “BEST”.  (Best, in this case, meaning more milk.)

At the end of the first week, Group “A” wins.  With weak, runny milk because the foreman fed them food with lots of fluid.  We couldn’t sell it because the fat content was so low, but there was more of it.

New goal — highest fat content.

At the end of week two, group “B” is the winner.  The foreman ordered in extremely expensive food, which raised the fat content for the second group nice and high.  But the cost per cow was triple what we usually pay, so we ended up selling the milk at a loss.

Week three — we aim for highest profits.  And the foreman butchers all the cows and sells them at market, showing a huge profit.  Oopsie.

So be careful when you hear people in Education talking about measuring results, or who gets “better results”.  Without asking a lot of very specific questions, and without a lot of experience at designing and delivering actual education to actual people, you may get slaughtered.

On May 12th, I’m doing a wee speaking engagement in Greenville, SC — Refresh Greenville.

 

 

Upgrading Your Customers

Nobody reads the directions, anymore.  A “readme.txt” file is a great place to store secrets.  And the “Help” button is something customers just ignore.  Today’s user base expects that your apps and sites will “just work” and they don’t expect to have to spend any time getting up to speed.

There are two ways to improve your apps’ customer sat numbers – rewrite the code, or teach your customers how to use them better.  Dick Carlson spent five years at Microsoft doing the latter for some of the buggiest software on the planet, and he can help you too.  You’ll leave with:

  • Models of trouble-ticket systems that help you identify issues fast and plan future upgrades
  • Ways to use social media tools to have your customers build the help system for you
  • Actual experience identifying key support information and building the architecture to implement it in a business support model

Dick Carlson is an Instructional Designer and Content Developer who can translate “techie” to “user” – making those annoying people who give you money happy and contented, so they don’t send you long emails or post one-star reviews on the web.  You can find him at www.TechHerding.com

 

Bug Tracking Tools

Java Bug-Tracking Tools

MS Watson Technologies

old-classroomLast week I was having a nice conversation with a new online friend about helping her move her “in-person” teaching into the land of the Interwebs.  (This is a conversation that I’ve now had 21,586 times — since I do this sort of thing for a living — so I’m getting better and better at it.)  As usual, she was bemoaning the fact that there were parts of the in-person teaching experience that you “just couldn’t translate” into the online world.

With great sensitivity and thoughtfulness, I told her that those of us with a great deal of experience in developing online learning had a technical term for that concern.  We called it “dumb”. As you might expect, a short silence followed.

(I need to interject here that my new friend understands that I’m an obnoxious, opinionated old bear and doesn’t object to that at all.  Had I been dealing with someone who was more sensitive I might have described this as a “possible disconnect in her evaluation of the potential learning modality available within the online form factor as it relates to the more traditional instructor-led design model” or something like that.)

When she asked me to give her more detail, I said that thinking of the digital world as a place to just move her in-person class model didn’t make sense, because she already had a great place to teach in person.  It was called real life. What she needed to do was learn about the wonderful things that you can do in the online world that you can’t do in person, the experiences that learners can have in the online world that can’t be replicated in the meat world, and the ways that a digital teacher can create amazing experiences that would never be possible if they were in a traditional classroom.

How About An Example, Then?

Thank you for asking. One of my favorites involves what I call the “Poindexters” that all of us have in our real-world classrooms.  They’re the ones who sit in the front, have a pocket protector and a fresh notebook, and wave their hands high in the air every time we ask a question.  They want to be called on, they crave attention, and hope that the whole class hears them answer every question. (I have a great sympathy for them, because I is one.)

In the back of the room, we have the Wallflowers.  Heads down, never engaging, terrified that you’ll call on them and make them look stupid if they answer wrong.  Many of these people have the correct answer — and often some of the most interesting ideas — but you never get to hear them.  Because over the years in education we’ve taught them that the focus is on getting the right answer at all costs. So they just won’t participate.

In the online world, I can ask every student to log in as their favorite candy bar for the day.  (This means nobody in class knows who they are.)  Then, when I ask a question, the Poindexters and the Wallflowers are on a level playing field.  You should see the sparks fly!  You should see the creativity, the passion, and the engagement!

There are many more examples.  Online offers learners more time to create their thoughts and craft them carefully.  Those learners who are glib and can speak quickly and easily (I’m also guilty of that) are no longer at an advantage.  Collaboration looks very different online.  Research looks very different online. And peer-to-peer learning works wonderfully online, meaning the poor teacher doesn’t have to be the source of every bit of information.

So Online Learning Is All You Need, Then?

Oh, Pish-Tosh!  It’s just one more tool in the bag.  Just because we got pens, we didn’t give up on pencils.  There are good parts and bad parts to any way of delivering knowledge to young skulls full of mush.  And so far, we’re only scratching the surface on how to do digital learning right.

Want to glimpse the future?  Take a look at Building Intelligent Interactive Tutors: Student-Centered Strategies For Revolutionizing e-Learning” by Beverly Park Woolf.  In a nutshell, it’s AI that watches how the student is doing and offers meaningful help just when it is needed.  (Think “Clippy” on steroids.)

We’ll always have classrooms, and I’ll always love to teach in them.

perfect-classroom450