Harold Jarche » Changing the training and development role in the 21st C.

Changing the training and development role in the 21st C.
Posted on September 1st, 2008 by Harold Jarche

I received several comments on my last post on Learning and Performance in Balance. This post came about as I examined the role of training and development (T&D) in the workplace. My contention is that many organisational learning initiatives don’t achieve what they set out to do. They don’t enable learning at the individual level unless the person is already motivated and few are connected to performance objectives at the organisational level.

Instead, I think that a better approach would be for the organisation to focus on measurable performance and give workers the time and support to direct their own learning. The T&D function then provides support, but not direction, and also provides a feedback loop to develop better performance support from the organisation. This goes with Klaus Wittkuhn’s statement that:

It is not an intelligent strategy to train people to overcome system deficiencies. Instead, we should design the system properly to make sure that the performers can leverage all their capabilities.

Brent Uncategorized pre-smtwl, training workplace

I’m scrambling with so many priorities and deadlines.  I am way behind on my reading for my connectivism course so I’m cherry picking the comments and posts that resonate the most with me and at a later time try to respond more fully (via my blog or others blogs).

In this wiki post, George Siemens appears to get at the core of this course when he talks about “where does this learning occure? I really like how he has described the discomfort from having so much information and presented in such a unstructured fashion as this course.

Connectivism & Connective Knowledge » Where does the learning occur??

Where does the learning occur??

gsiemens on Sep 16th 2008

After the deluge of week one, it appears that things have slowed down slightly. At least in the moodle forum. Blog posts and comments are continuing at a hectic pace.

One of the challenges faced by traditional education is found in the very goal of its existence (second only to its role as providing value statements through accreditation): to present bounded structures of knowledge in order for others to learn a discipline. Or put another way, schools and universities help students make sense of a discipline. It’s why we take courses and programs. Complete diplomas and degrees.

There are two elements under consideration, however:

1. The curriculum itself

This includes the entire body of knowledge in a discipline. This is what learners must learrn. Curriculum/content is created and disseminated through research and publication. This content then forms the basis of instruction. Nothing new here, with the exception of the argument that the scholarly publication process is too slow.

It’s this content that most people see as the important part of education. Somehow learners must make sense of, internalize, and learn this content. We make learners do all sorts of fun things to get this to happen: cases, problem-based learning, games/simulations, lectures, podcasts, tests, eportfolios, and so on. We’ve seen a fair bit of innovation at the curricular level. Open content as advocated by MIT’s OCW and others theoretically opens the door for new learning opportunities for individuals from around the world. Tools like blogs, podcasts, wikis, skype, and virtual worlds enable people to dialogue around the content.

2. The framework of sensemaking.

This secondary level of the learning process is what we’re experimenting with in this course. Should the educator provide a formed narrative of coherence? Or should learners be tasked with this? Should the educator create a fully bounded content structure? Or should the content interaction opportunities be more fluid? And what about interaction? Should it be under the control of educators? Or should learners self-organanize as they deem worthwhile? This is where education truly begins to change. Tweaking content creating and delivery models is perhaps a start. But it’s not transformative.

Tweaking the very process and framework for sensemaking is more significant. It is, however, also more controversial as it causes us to ask hard questions about the role of experts. Or the financial model that would exist in education (we have several thousand people who have signed up, but accepted 23 learners for enrolment). These are tough questions that have already begun to play out in media and news fields. Is an editor needed for people to make sense of current events in the world? Admittedly, the concept does not translate fully into education. After all, education has always had greater levels of interaction than reading a newspaper. The question of expertise and the role of amateur content creation, however, is valid…even in education.

The structure of this course – as mentioned at the beginning – is to have participants experience connectivism rather than to convince people of its value. What does that mean? Well, for starters, it means that participants have greater autonomy than would exist in a regular course. It means the conversation is more chaotic. It means that we’re always missing something. Everyone is. Some important conversation, somewhere, is being overlooked. Why is that so discomforting?

It’s discomforting because it goes agains the very principles that we have come to expect form education. We expect the academy to be a place that provide clarity, a path forward. In fact, we view it as the obligation of the academy. When we then step into a course and discover the conversation is distributed and that the expected frameworks for telling us what to think don’t exist, we get disoriented.

But isnt’ that life??

Isn’t that how real learning occurs? In business? In our personal lives? Who actually possesses a framework fo sensemaking in advance of encountering novel problems? Or who can rely on the “narrative of coherence” provided in advance of becoming a parent? No, those experiences we must navigate without the value of someone’s pre-formed construct. Sure, we can rely on experts – such as the hundreds of parenting books read by new parents – but in the end, we navigate the complex environment using them as guides, not as drill sargents.

I’ve read several blogs today that indicate – to me at least – indivduals taking ownership of their own sensemaking frameworks. For example, Sinikka states she’s going on an information diet. Why? In her words: “After the rather ill-advised gorging, this week I know better to resist the temptation and only savour what I enjoy the most. I don’t want to feel overwhelmed anymore. Last week was a strong reminder and a good learning experience of what the deluge of information means in practice.” Beautiful! We can’t manage it all. We must choose. As we move through this course, we’ll focus more on what it means to choose – i.e. what types of networks we want and need to build. For now, realizing that our ability to make sense is under our control. Others have created mindmaps…or created tutorials for fellow participants.

Where is the learning in this? The learning exists in the process of forming and navigating networks. Some sources we filter. Some thinkers we value greatly. Others we ignore. On certain key areas of information within our range of understanding, we create tutorials, engage in conversations, or simply pause for reflection. Yes, The Daily, this blog, and the course wiki are all there as additional help. The learning exists in the process of sensemaking that educators are often expected to do for us. For each learner in this course that has decided to take a different approach to engaging with content or with fellow learners, the learning has been more effective than having someone create that framework for them. Consider reading a parenting book, caring for a “pretend baby” vs actually having a child and beginning to raise it as best you can. At least, that’s my opinion.

What has been your experience? Has the intentional absense of a narrative of coherence completely overwhelmed you? Or have you begun to engage in processes to make sense of the complexity on your own terms?

Filed in Uncategorized | 8 responses so far

Brent Uncategorized knowledge cck08

Connectivism & Connective Knowledge

I am pumped. This will be an incredible experience. I know I will never keep up with all the reading assignments and the other activities. I’m determined to give this my best shot though. I’m super busy with my work right now, but will sneak time in between my workshops and other commitments.

Here is the Moodle site

Here is the wiki

Here is the Daily

Here is the Connectivism Blog

Brent Uncategorized

Harold Jarche » Changing the training and development role in the 21st C.

Changing the training and development role in the 21st C.
Posted on September 1st, 2008 by Harold Jarche

I received several comments on my last post on Learning and Performance in Balance. This post came about as I examined the role of training and development (T&D) in the workplace. My contention is that many organisational learning initiatives don’t achieve what they set out to do. They don’t enable learning at the individual level unless the person is already motivated and few are connected to performance objectives at the organisational level.

Instead, I think that a better approach would be for the organisation to focus on measurable performance and give workers the time and support to direct their own learning. The T&D function then provides support, but not direction, and also provides a feedback loop to develop better performance support from the organisation. This goes with Klaus Wittkuhn’s statement that:

It is not an intelligent strategy to train people to overcome system deficiencies. Instead, we should design the system properly to make sure that the performers can leverage all their capabilities.

Brent Uncategorized pre-smtwl