For the last couple of years I’ve been researching how to improve my own department’s training offer to get more result and end-performance out of our participants. In this quest for learning on learning I’ve come across a multitude of ideas and theories that sometimes contradict each other but mostly actually agree with one another. I interpret this as serendipity, i.e. that they look alike since they’re close to reality, and have now done a comparison of four of the ones with the best end-results:
- Holistic Learning – Making sure everything you want to learn is connected, with an emphasis on creating mental models
- The Circle model – A way of increasing reading comprehension by writing, with an emphasis on learning from each other
- Peer Instruction – Utilizing your peers in class to increase the assimilation of new knowledge, with an emphasis on making sense of instead of transferring information as a focus in class and on lectures
- Story Centered Curriculum – Building courses as realistic stories with all assignments and tasks building upon the previous ones, with an emphasis in letting the students do the reading and fact finding with teachers set only as facilitators.
A couple of months ago I published the post Work-based learning (based on work by Niklas Angmyr and Charles Jennings‘ “Re-thinking workplace learning“) and the time has now come to update the model presented and take it to the next level. In short the change can be attributed to:
Beneficial knowledge is nice to have but
beneficial behavior is what gets you results
Let’s start at the top left. The classic L&D sector is the blue box of competence building activities. Here I’d suggest one would place activities described in the post Multi-Layer Learning, i.e. not only formal ones like classroom training but also informal stuff like communities, role-modeling and databases. And yes, by saying that the top blue box is the classic L&D sector I also say that L&D often doesn’t do anything else of what’s shown in the model above. This model is more applicable for a department working as a Knowledge and Performance Partner than that of a Learning and Development department.
This isn’t going to be a tirade of criticism like the last post but more of a reflection of how I think most people uses the Four Levels of Kirkpatrick, namely wrong. I’ve heard the following quite a few times:
“Yeah, we do course evaluation but we’ve only come as far as Level 1 and 2.”
So what’s wrong with this? Of course it’s very much easier to just measure what people think of the course (Level 1) and what they’ve learned (Level 2) than mess with change of behavior (Level 3) and result (Level 4). And of course people tend to do what’s easy instead of doing what they should do. Continue reading
Below I’ve embedded BJ Fogg’s keynote from the recent Healthcare Experience Design Conference in Boston. It’s a must-watch if you’re at all interested in the subject of facilitating (not motivating!) behavior change. (Follow the link to BJ Fogg’s website because there’s a wealth of really great stuff there!)
I’ve extracted two screenshots after the video that I think are especially interesting for the L&D crowd. Continue reading
In the post Aligning inputs and outputs of a change campaign I mentioned that I used the Kirkpatrick Four Levels as an inspiration but it wasn’t really clear in what way. I have therefore updated the model to show where the levels are and how to view them within a change process, campaign or project.
What we start with is the below picture that shows all inputs aligning and building upon each other to support that one specific output and end-result.