“Those who say it can not be done should get out of the way of those who are doing it.”
Who said that? Was it George Bernard Shaw? Elbert Hubbard? Or is it one of those mysterious “old Chinese proverbs”…?
Regardless, in my experience it applies to the scaling of training across organisations, and I was honoured to discuss it with Michelle Ockers on her podcast.
Ice breaker questions – some of us love them, the rest of us loathe them.
They typically bear no relevance to the topic at hand, and if it’s even mildly personal, I’m too busy scrambling for something interesting to say instead of listening to what my colleagues are saying.
But I can see why trainers use them: they metaphorically break the ice.
We’ve all learned the hard way that regardless of whether our session is onsite or virtual, the attendees who don’t say anything in the beginning won’t have said anything at the end. By getting everyone talking from the get-go, we break down the fear barrier and promote their active participation.
So I propose an alternative. Instead of dispensing with the ice breaker altogether, change the nature of the ask…
What do you want to get out of this session?
This question achieves the best of both worlds: it gets the attendees talking and it gets their heads in the game.
More specifically…
I’m forever surprised when seasoned professionals struggle to join the dots between generic subject matter and their own roles.
Generic content isn’t inherently useless; it just needs to connect to the real world. Answering the question makes that connection.
The folks who struggle to join the dots might never do so on their own.
Hearing the answers voiced by their peers, particularly those in similar roles, helps the penny drop.
Training is an investment in time and effort on the part of the attendees, so naturally they seek a worthwhile return.
By identifying what they expect from the session, the trainer can tweak the coverage accordingly.
Until technology advances to the point at which we can offer Neo-style uploads directly to the brain, the learning process will remain a journey.
By identifying any expectations among the attendees that are beyond the scope of the session, the trainer can reinforce the message that it’s one step closer to mastery.
We’ve all been there.
The organisation invests an obscene amount of money in a course library, and after much fanfare and an initial spike of excitement, activity steadily dwindles until the platform resembles a ghost town vacated by all but the most enthusiastic of fans.
Similar problems with learner engagement beset other forms of digital training too; whether it’s the famously low completions rates of MOOCs, or the constant chasing up of laggards who are yet to complete their compliance modules.
So when David Swaddle called out for tips to help fight what he described as “zombie digital learning”, I was all too willing to share the Top 3 pieces of advice that I’ve formulated on my quest to transform conventional digital training into blended learning experiences.
Here they are…
Everyone’s too busy and they don’t have enough time to devote to their own learning and development. This has been the case ever since I started my career in this field and probably will remain so long after I retire.
So make time.
Add reminders into your participants’ calendars; schedule learning blocks; benchmark progress by declaring where they should be up by now; and host a complementary social networking group to keep the flame alive.
Digital content can be generic by design, because it’s intended to scale up far and wide. However our audience may struggle to join the dots between what they see on screen and what they do on the job.
By supplementing the generic content with customised content, we can explain the implications of the former in the organisational context.
And by facilitating live interactive sessions that explore that context further, we reinforce it.
Whether it’s a fair reputation or not, digital training is notorious for being a tick & flick exercise that fails to change behaviour in the real world.
So we need to ensure that the knowledge and skills that are developed via the learning experience are transferred by the employee to their day-to-day role.
By weaving an application activity into the instructional design – and by assessing the evidence of that application – we make it happen.
These are by no means the only ways to evolve your digital training.
However I hope that by implementing my three tips, you’ll supercharge it.
It seems like everyone’s spruiking the “new normal” of work.
The COVID-19 pandemic is keeping millions of previously office-bound employees at home, forcing L&D professionals to turn on a dime.
Under pressure to maintain business continuity, our profession has been widely congratulated for its herculean effort in adapting to change.
I’m not so generous.
Our typical response to the changing circumstances appears to have been to lift and shift our classroom sessions over to webinars.
In The next normal, which I published relatively early during lockdown, several of my peers and I recognised the knee-jerk nature of this response.
And that’s not really something that ought to be congratulated.
For starters, the virus exposed a shocking lack of risk management on our part. Digital technology is hardly novel, and our neglect in embracing it left us unprepared for when we suddenly needed it.
Look no further than the Higher Education sector for a prime example. They’re suffering a free-fall in income from international students, despite the consensus that people can access the Internet from other countries.
Beyond our misgivings with technology, moreover, the virus has also shone a light on our pedagogy. The broadcast approach that we deliver virtually today is largely a continuation of our practice pre-pandemic. It wasn’t quite right then, and it isn’t quite right now. In fact, isolation, digital distractions and Zoom fatigue probably make it worse.
I feel this is important to point out because the genie is out of the bottle. Employee surveys reveal that the majority of us either don’t want to return to the office, or we’ll want to split our working week at home. That means while in-person classes can resume, remote learning will remain the staple.
So now is our moment of opportunity. In the midst of the crisis, we have the moral authority to mature our service offering. To innovate our way out of the underwhelming “new normal” and usher in the modern “next normal”.
In some cases that will mean pivoting away from training in favour of more progressive methodologies. While I advocate these, I also maintain that direct instruction is warranted under some circumstances. So instead of joining the rallying cry against training per se, I propose transforming it so that it becomes more efficient, engaging and effective in our brave new world.
To begin, I suggest we go micro.
So-called “bite sized” pieces of content have the dual benefit of not only being easier to process from a cognitive load perspective, but also more responsive to the busy working week.
For example, if we were charged with upskilling our colleagues across the business in Design Thinking, we might kick off by sharing Chris Nodder’s 1.5-minute video clip in which he breaks the news that “you are not your users”.
This short but sweet piece of content piques the curiosity of the learner, while introducing the concept of Empathize in the d.school’s 5-stage model.
Next, I suggest we go social.
Posting the video clip to the enterprise social network seeds a discussion, by which anyone and everyone can share their experiences and insights, and thus learn from one another.
It’s important to note that facilitating the discussion demands a new skillset from the trainer, as they shift their role from “sage on the stage” to “guide on the side”.
It’s also important to note that the learning process shifts from synchronous to asynchronous – or perhaps more accurately, semi-synchronous – empowering the learner to consume the content at a time that is most convenient for them (rather than for the L&D department).
Next, I suggest we go practical.
If the raison d’être of learning & development is to improve performance, then our newly acquired knowledge needs to be converted into action.
Follow-up posts on the social network shift from the “what” to the “how”, while a synchronous session in the virtual classroom enables the learner to practise the latter in a safe environment.
Returning to our Design Thinking example, we might post content such as sample questions to ask prospective users, active listening techniques, or an observation checklist. The point of the synchronous session then is to use these resources – to stumble and bumble, receive feedback, tweak and repeat; to push through the uncomfortable process we call “learning” towards mastery.
It’s important to recognise the class has been flipped. While time off the floor will indeed be required to attend it, it has become a shorter yet value-added activity focusing on the application of the knowledge rather than its transmission.
Again, it’s also important to note that facilitating the flipped class demands a new skillset from the trainer.
Next, I suggest we go experiential.
Learning is redundant if it fails to transfer into the real world, so my suggestion is to set tasks or challenges for the learner to do back on the job.
Returning to our Design Thinking example, we might charge the learner with empathising with a certain number of end users in their current project, and report back their reflections via the social network.
In this way our return on investment begins immediately, prior to moving on to the next stage in the model.
Finally, I suggest we go evidential.
I have long argued in favour of informalising learning and formalising its assessment. Bums on seats misses the point of training which, let’s remind ourselves again, is to improve performance.
How you learned something is way less interesting to me than if you learned it – and the way to measure that is via assessment.
Returning to our Design Thinking example, we need a way to demonstrate the learner’s mastery of the methodology in a real-world context, and I maintain the past tense of open badges fits the bill.
In addition to the other benefits that badges offer corporates, the crux of the matter is that a badge must be earned.
I am cognisant of the fact that my proposal may be considered heretical in certain quarters.
The consumption of content on the social network, for example, may be difficult to track and report. But my reply is “so what” – we don’t really need to record activity so why hide it behind the walls of an LMS?
If the openness of the training means that our colleagues outside of the cohort learn something too, great! Besides, they’ll have their own stories to tell and insights to share, thereby enriching the learning experience for everyone.
Instead it is the outcome we need to focus on, and that’s formalised by the assessment. Measure what matters, and record that in the LMS.
In other words, the disruptive force of the COVID-19 pandemic is an impetus for us to reflect on our habits. The way it has always been done is no substitute for the way it can be done better.
Our moment has arrived to transform our way out of mode lock.
Learning & Development Professional has been running a poll on the following question:
Is the 70:20:10 model still relevant today?
And I’m shocked by the results. At the time of writing this blog, over half the respondents have chosen “No”. Assuming they are all L&D professionals, the extrapolation means most of us don’t think the 70:20:10 model is relevant to our work.
But what does this really mean?
In LDP’s article The 70:20:10 model – how fair dinkum is it in 2015? – by the way, “fair dinkum” is Australian slang for “real” or “genuine” – Emeritus Professor David Boud says he doesn’t think there is proper evidence available for the effectiveness of the model.
If this is a backlash against the numbers, I urge us all to let it go already. Others have explained umpteen times that 70:20:10 is not a formula. It just refers to the general observation that the majority of learning in the workplace is done on the job, a substantial chunk is done by interacting with others, while a much smaller proportion is done off the job (eg in a classroom).
Indeed this observation doesn’t boast a wealth of empirical evidence to support it, although there is some – see here, here and here.
Nonetheless, I wonder if the hoo-ha is really about the evidence. After all, plenty of research can be cited to support the efficacy of on-the-job learning, social learning and formal training. To quibble over their relative proportions seems a bit pointless.
Consequently, some point the finger at trainers. These people are relics of a bygone era, clinging to the old paradigm because “that’s how we’ve always done it”. And while this might sound a bit harsh, it may contain a seed of truth. Change is hard, and no one wants their livelihood threatened.
If you feel deep down that you are one of the folks who views 70:20:10 as an “us vs them” proposition, I have two important messages that I wish to convey to you…
While I believe the overall amount of formal training in the workplace will continue to decrease, it will never disappear altogether – principally for the reasons I’ve outlined in Let’s get rid of the instructors!.
Ergo, trainers will remain necessary for the foreseeable future.
As the forgetting curve illustrates, no matter how brilliant your workshops are, they are likely to be ineffective on their own.
To overcome this problem, I suggest using the 70:20:10 model as a lens through which you view your instructional design.
For example, suppose you are charged with training the sales team on a new product. As a trainer, you will smash the “10” with an informative and engaging workshop filled with handouts, scenarios, role plays, activities etc.
Then your trainees return to their desks, put the handouts in a drawer, and try to remember all the important information for as long as humanly possible.
To help your audience remember, why not provide them with reference content in a central location, such as on the corporate intranet or in a wiki. Then they can look it up just in time when they need it; for example, in the waiting room while visiting a client.
Job aids would also be useful, especially for skills-based information; for example, the sequence of key messages to convey in a client conversation.
To improve the effectiveness of your workshop even further, consider doing the following:
In my humble opinion, it is counter-productive to rail against 70:20:10.
As an L&D professional, it is in your interest to embrace it.
E-Learning Provocateur 