#adjunctchat November 10, 2013: Managing your commitments at the end of the semester

This is the time of year when the walls begin to close in. Not only might you be finishing the semester, getting semester grades in, preparing for the holidays, and in many cases juggling multiple workplaces. Perhaps you have a full time job which now requires an end of the year report, or you are responsible for a quarterly AND annual report for research funders. An added stress for the adjunct is IF you have a job next semester, what will you be teaching (is it new or do you need to dust off and update a course you've taught before).

On top of this, this is the time of year that there are stronger family pressures, either due to travel to be with family, attending children's performances (if you have children or other young relatives), etc...

This week we will be discussing strategies to manage the commitments so we can enjoy this time of year. Among the questions will be:

1) How do you prioritize work commitments?
2) Are there devises (including social media) which could make your work flow easier?
3) How do you balance work and personal time commitments?

Hope you can make it tomorrow (Tuesday, Dec. 10, at 4PM Eastern Standard Time) and we will keep it to 1/2 hr for all of us pressed for time!

Creating the felt for the velcro to stick

I believe that colleges create a felt upon which the velcro of future learning can adhere. In other words, schooling should prepare students to be receptacle to learning from new environments, interactions, information, and experience. Like felt, new ideas will "stick" best to younger learners who have more room in their developing brains. However, as we age, the felt becomes crowded with knowledge we have accumulated. Older learners may need to change their thinking (lift the velcro from the felt) which can be difficult. In addition, like velcro, there will always be a bit of the felt that stays behind and makes it difficult for new information to stick.

So what is the "felt" of education that we should developing in education and training?

1) Learning is lifelong and does not stop with formal education. Even now my kids talk about how they look forward to getting out of school and never having to learn again. We need to start at an early age acculturating students with the idea that learning is lifelong and will never stop.

2) In a recent article in Thought & Action, Chad Hanson identified 4 area that businesses could learn from colleges and universities: innovation, structure/tradition, diverse lines of inquiry, and social relations. These are good places to start in creating a citizen that will be flexible enough to retool/relearn and be productive in a knowledge society.

Colleges and universities should prepare students to look beyond what is to what can be. Unfortunately, many businesses say they want an innovative employee, yet are looking for skills to answer just-in-time needs of the company. This tension can be resolved by identifying the parameters of a field, but at the same time, helping to push the parameters past current culture. In other words, it is not enough to teach students within a structure of current discipline or business structures, there must also be the push beyond what is known to what can be.

This is where the diverse lines of inquiry come in. Students must understand how to move between disciplines. The liberal arts education pushes students to work with different vocabulary, different knowledge bases, different rhetoric, epistemologies, and forms of inquiry which will develop them into employees that can move between departments, cultures, and work environments. My own research confirms that the most successful members of distributed groups were those that were able to move between and within groups. Their expertise in accessing resources, translating them for others, and bringing that knowledge back to their departments made them invaluable.

The social networking by employees are only one aspect of of social relations. Living with a diverse population, working with those of varying abilities, and understanding the way a community works are all skills colleges develop which can be brought into the workplace.

3) Colleges and universities require students to learn things that may not make much sense to a student today, but which may be important for future environments. I think, for example, of the economics class I took, which did not make sense until I was in the working world. The content was not as important as the theoretical basis upon which the content (which has changed in the 30 years since I took the course) was based. The same is true of computer science, which was in its infancy when I studied it. Many of the models and basic understanding of programming remains the same, although the languages I learned are no longer used.

While some people complain that colleges are too theoretical, students without that theoretical underpinning cannot keep up with changes in the field, the environment, tools, and knowledge. These theories make the felt of learning flexible and strong, allowing for change and the ability for learning to stick.

Learning in the future

In order be successful, our educational system needs to create life long learners, who are flexible, able to see possibilities, understand the social structure of knowledge (including transactional and negotiate knowledge), able to access resources though social networks they have created (partaged knowledge), be able to move between disciplines, learning the language and rhetorics of those disciplines, and, most importantly, develop a positive attitude towards lifelong learning and self-regulated learning.

To accomplish this, the educational system, especially undergraduate education, needs to continue to require students to have a liberal arts basis so students can develop knowledge within the context of multiple disciplines. They must also develop problem solving skills, communication competencies,technology/digital literacies, and critical reading/thinking skills. This needs to be accomplished through exposure to multiple environments and unstructured problems (e.g. project based learning). The focus needs to move from content to either content within context or skill based learning.

The history of training in US companies

The role of education and training in the US correlates to the management practices that have developed over the last century.

In an agricultural economy, labor was divided into small individual pieces. Knowledge of work practices were passed down from expert to novice through the apprenticeship. In the US, the labor movement developed apprenticeships so that the burden of training in a Union shop was carried mostly by the union.

After WWII, however, college education through the GI bill made university affordable to those who would not have been able to attend college before. In addition, technology and the depression made business more mobile and workers were expected to leave their home towns to work in massive manufacturing plants. The need for educated managers created a system in which college educated employees who had skills in reading, writing, computation, critical thinking, problem solving, technology, synthesizing information, and communication were trained throughout the manufacturing process. There are still these management training type of programs in large multinational companies. The key to these programs to develop a generalist that can step into any plant/situation/field and manage. Today, many of these management training programs require a Master degree as the basic skills, especially in critical thinking, synthesizing information and problem solving, are not integrated into the college curriculum until the Master's level.

There was a two prong system, the on-the-job training from the unions and the management training from the corporation. However, as manufacturing became more specialized, more specialized training was needed. This required a higher level of expertise and investment than companies were willing to contribute. At the same time, in the 1970's and 1980's, there was a new model of business developing in which employees were expendable. An employee that did not contribute to the corporation was laid off. In addition, corporations used outside contingent labor to augment their cyclical labor needs. This meant that the burden of training shifted on to the employees. Unions looked to community colleges to train their workers and individual employees looked to the colleges to train them for specialized jobs.

During this time, higher education changed. Majors became more specialized, training a student for a future job. If a student was not able to be employed after receiving a college education, the college was blamed. As a result, college programs, especially those in business and technology, worked closely with businesses in developing specialized curriculums. This was fine when companies were looking for specialists. However, the economy changed in the 1990's with the advent of the internet.

In the 1990's knowledge based companies began to take over the economy, with companies requiring more efficiency and cross training. Teams replaced specialists so that more could be done with less resources. Individuals were expected to be able to learn multiple tasks outside of their specialties. In order to address the training needs, companies developed training departments that worked with traditional and in the 2000's, online methods. The training was perpetual, but specialized training was the responsibility of the individual, usually. This was because companies did not want to invest in an employee's training only to have the employee leave.

On the part of the universities, this was a change in the nature and culture of the university. First, the average student now could include those returning to college after years of experience. No longer was there a clear cut divide between "continuing education" and "day classes". In addition, there was a demand from the students to provide specialized courses they needed to get ahead in their career, which companies were no longer interested in investing.

This brings us up to the current state of training and education. Companies are still expecting colleges and universities to provide the specialized training to students that companies need at any given time. However, I know in my own career, over the last 4 years, my computer mediated communication class has changed drastically in terms of the content I have taught. Four years ago I taught about two and multiple communication. Now I teach about networking. Four years ago I taught about visuals using powerpoint on flickr. Now I teach about video conferencing, video production, interactive visuals, etc... A student who took my course 4 years ago is already irrelevant if all I had taught was content. However, even 4 years ago we were discussing the changes happening because of facebook and linkedin. I taught my students how to teach themselves about new technology and its uses. I focused on technology affordances and the impact of technology. I taught them how to observe trends, generalize best practices, reflect on their work and how to make it better, research new trends, implement new practices, and evaluate and correct those new practices. These are life long learning skills that will allow them to be successful throughout their careers.

Unemployment, training, and education

I watched an episode of Moyers & Company yesterday in which the Conservative Expert divided the US into three types of people, those with a university education who were successful, those that were poor and dependent upon the "welfare state", and the "middle class" with a high school diploma who were loosing ground in our economy. He repeated the often heard call to education in Science and Technology as we had openings in the US for these jobs that companies could not fill.

Looking at data from the Department of Labor, however, from 1974-2010, those with an associate's degree and "some college education" came out better in some demographics when it came to number of times they were unemployed. Specifically, Hispanics and white males had less unemployment spells with an associate's degree than with a college education. In fact, according to Allegretto & Lynch (2010), the labor force with only or without a high school diploma has shrunk since 1983* and the percent of the long-term unemployed who fit in this category is less than in the most recent recession. In fact, unemployment rates increased for those with some college or at least a bachelor's degree.

In addition to education that does not match the conservative profile, is the disregard for another major change in the characteristics in the long-term unemployed profile: age. While unemployment is high for the 16-24 year old age group, according to Allegretto and Lynch, this age group is able to find a job faster than those over 45 yrs old. In my mind, there can only be one explanation for this: salary.

With these statistics about unemployment, education, and age, therefore, we must reconsider our policies about training, education, and the unemployment rate. Namely, training for a specific job will not make employment decrease. It is no longer enough to require someone to get a college education or to educate our workforce. Rather, there needs to be some changes to the way corporations hire and train their workforce. With an integrated approach with educational institutions combining both theoretical with practical training/education, we should be able to have a workforce that can be continually trained/updated, but also have the creativity upon which the US successfully expanded into the information economy.

Interestingly enough, the US stopped collecting data on workplace training in 1995. This means very little is known in terms of what training or knowledge assessment companies do today. To understand, however, how our children should be educated to be successful in the knowledge economy, it is important to understand the past and current role of education and training in the US economy.

Tomorrow: The history of training in US companies
Friday: Creating the felt for the velcro to stick

*Allegretto and Lynch looked at long-term unemployment during the last four recessions.

Are there differences in learning at different educational levels?

I have addressed this issue in the past in which I find many people at different educational levels (primary, secondary, higher ed, adult/training) differentiate the learning at different levels. What I always find interesting is that K-12 teachers discount me because of my limited experience in formal primary and secondary schools (although I have extensive experience in informal learning at these levels) and training professionals discount much of what I say as not being relevant for the workplace (despite the fact I my first 5 years of teaching was at the corporate level).

Recently, I commented on another blog in which many of the blog basically discounted what I had to say because they labeled me an "educator" rather than a "trainer". One person commented that because I used "student" instead of trainee, that I really was speaking from the traditional "education" sector (as if this were different than corporate training). This has been bothering me for a while and I finally tried to reflect on what the differences might be.

In my experience (informal education at the k-12, formal education in higher ed, and formal and informal education at the organizational level) basic learning concepts are the same. I try to be student centered, while at the same time maintaining a "teaching presence" and being aware of the technology, social and cognitive presence of the content and learning environment (Garrison and Anderson, 2003). I feel Garrison and Anderson's model is universal in today's learning, regardless of mode of delivery, content, or level of education (even though the model was developed for elearning).

HOW a teacher, instructor, or trainer makes their presence known and the amount of support a student or trainee might need in learning IS dependent on the level of knowledge the student/trainee already possesses about the topic/content, their motivation in learning, the amount of time they have to learn something, how they will be assessed in their learning, and their expectations for instruction.

For example, my daughter goes to a school that is based on experiential and cooperative learning methods. Most of the students who go to the school come from traditional educational environments. It takes the students about half a year to become familiar with these methods. By sophomore year, they need less direct teacher instruction, and thus less teacher presence. However, newer teachers have difficulty balancing student need with teacher instruction. It takes a new sophomore or junior level instructor about half a year before they become comfortable allowing students to come to them. This, in fact is no different than a trainer understanding when to direct trainees and when to react to their questions.

Suddenly, as I began to work through this difficulty I had with different levels of education thinking that they are different in their approach to teaching, I realized that the 21st century needs a new model that will follow through all levels of education. I saw a model on a blog this year (I can't remember whose or where it was...let me know if you have the post so I can bookmark it!) that was a grid of formal and informal learning and on the other axis, the level of complexity of the content. The intersection resulted in different categories of learning objects. I could see this adapted so that there were different categories of syllabi or curricula based on the level of formality of the learning and the complexity of the content.

All of this points to me the need to train teachers and trainers in the art of developing a flexible curriculum and syllabus. My point in the comment in which the trainers did not like what I posted was that sometimes there needs to be a more rigid structure for training (i.e. to comply with professional laws, such as CPA's, healthcare providers, or lawyers) and other times there can be more flexibility. However, there should always be structure. Just like an open amphitheater can deliver the same service as a music hall or arena (a venue for concerts for example), to do so there has to be some structure (seating area, performance area, acoustics). But definitely it's structure is much more open and less formal than the other two venues, so some concerts will have different "feeling" in an amphitheater than in a small concert hall or a large arena . Likewise, the "feeling" of learning will differ with different learning structures.

Resource: Garrison, D., & Anderson, T. (2003) . E-learning in the 21st Century. London: RoutledgeFarmer

Assessment and preparing for the 21st century

As I am trying to get finish up my grading, issues of assessment and evaluation keep coming up.

Some of the questions/problems/issues I am dealing with include:

Should we be using rubrics? Don't they limit creativity and motivation? My students will only do what is on the rubric. I am restricted to grading them only on the rubric. So some students who just do a mediocre non-creative job may get the same grade (or higher because I used the rubric) than those that used more creativity, not really doing what I outlined as expected, but addressing the problem in a whole new way.

If this is what we are training our future workers to do, we will have the "best" workers (those with the highest grade) doing only what their managers told them to do, thus stifling the possibilities and creativity of our workers.

Should we be telling our students our expectations for every assignment, giving them detailed instructions? How many times have you received detailed instructions on the job? Shouldn't we be creating the skill to negotiate "outcomes" with our superiors? Situations change, factors we can't control require us to change outcomes, and there might be a disconnect between strategists and front line workers. Companies would benefit if workers and managers began to communicate about outcomes be and open to the changing environment.

If graduates only expect to do the work that a manager has outlined for them, an organization loses incentive, ideas, and reality checks from both those at the top and those on the front line.

Should all grading be "fair"? How is "fair" defined and aren't there instances when a standardized means of evaluation is in fact "unfair"? I have students that excel in class. They are engaged, apply concepts or take ideas to new levels. But they don't "evaluate" well. Neither papers nor tests get at their level of understanding that I see in class. They do the work, but it does not translate into their grades. Is this fair? They will be great employees on day. In addition to their academic work, they are good team players, contribute to the class, have a good work ethic, act responsibly in class, and add to an overall good environment. Others that test well are over critical, stifle others ideas, create a negative environment, and really don't do much work, but are good writers and/or good test takers. I'd rather have the ones that don't grade well than those that do grade well. So how fair am I in my assessment?

So, a word of warning to all those in the training and HR departments: make sure you are using other measures to identify the ideal employees. GPA's don't really reflect a student's potential. A word of warning to educators: we need to re-evaluate how we assess in the current climate of "standardization." We may be doing our society a dis-service.

The future of the training department

Although it's a bit late, and I have my grades to finish (or because I have my grades to finish), I did want to post something as part of the ecollab's blog carnival. ECollab is a bilingual multi-author blog on enterprise collaboration.

This month's carnival was about the future of the training department. As an educator of the future users of the training department, I thought I would give my insight into some of the challenges and expectations of future workers about training and education.

1) Instant feedback: my students don't want to wait to hear how they have done. If they write a report, they expect feedback immediately, perhaps even as they are writing it. As a result, any training they receive will need to be interactive (either electronically or face to face). It will not be enough for them to post something, for example, without any feedback with an hour or two. They do have more patience if you can give them a specific date. But even then, they will put it out of their mind until that date.

2) Choices in learning: Unlike students when I started teaching almost 20 years ago, students want a choice in what they learn, how they learn it, when they learn it, and who they learn it from. This means that training departments will need to offer both formal and informal choices in a variety of mediums (online, face to face, mentoring, tutors, simulations).

3) Just in time learning: If students don't feel it is important for them to know something (at this point, for a test or a grade), they won't bother to learn it. As a result, students are used to picking and choosing what they learn based on direction from authorities and whether or not they perceive what they learn as being useful. Translated in to work related learning, employees won't go through the training if they think it is not useful to their current work unless they have some incentive (promotion, location of training, paid training). Related to this is the idea that anything they will need to know in the future, they will be able to learn quickly, so why bother learning it until it is needed. Any training will need to be situated in a person's job.

4) Situated learning: My husband just had some standard computer training which he found irrelevant until the last class in which they were able to learn the software based on the problems the trainees were experiencing themselves. While there is societal and organizational push to standardize training, most employees won't undergo training unless it is situational. I see this a trend within organizations so that organizations will require more "targeted" training that allows for the training to be pinpointed for a specific employee. This means training departments will need to do a lot more assessment and develop a different model of training that is not standard across an organization.

5) Assessment tools: My students want tests. Why? Because they have a standard way of assessing how they have learned which they can then take with them to the workplace. More and more I am getting students who demand a detailed rubric on how they will be evaluated and assessed. In the workplace, especially as workers have greater access to informal learning, they are going to want the training department to assess their learning, rather than plan their learning. This means the focus of the training department will move from providing resources to assessing skills and knowledge, but in a way that workers accept. Coming from a background of standardized assessments, this next generation will expect the same type of testing to demonstrate their knowledge and skills. The training department will look more and more like the civil service or professional organizations (i.e. legal bar, CPA, NACATE).

School of the Future

As my daughter enters high school, she will be transitioning into a new way of learning. Especially important is the way that Math and Science will be taught.
Among the differences between her current school and new school:

• Projects as a source of learning
• Interdisciplinary curriculum and integrated learning (i.e. math and science are taught together and writing is taught in context across the curriculum)
• Integration of technology within the curriculum
• Technology is used as a tool for learning, not learned as a tool
• Group work
• Parental and community involvement
• Focus on learning, not on "tests"
• Student accountibility for their own learning (assessment is much more involved)
• School to work, high school to university transition

For the first time in a long time, my daughter is excited about science and math class. In addition, she will be learning Chinese. The only misgiving she has (which is the same for all those entering high school) is the social climate. As the year goes on, I will be blogging about her experience, especially in the context of my work at the two colleges/universities where I will be teaching business and communication courses (the transition into the workplace).

I just wish that all disciplines would begin to use these same principles in their teaching. I am hoping the Chinese instruction will make the real life connection like science and math. It would be nice if a push were made to improve teaching in all disciplines and new forms of assessment were created as this administration begins to take up the topic of educational reform. I have seen to progress science and math has made with the investment made during the last administration. Now lets improve creativity and innovation with the same investment in the arts and humanity.

Teaching in the 21st Century: The discussion continues

I am swamped with getting my grades in for the end of the semester and working on my dissertation (while I have some time). However, I could not let Ken Allen's comment on my previous post go unanswered. As I composed a response, I realized it had turned into a post!

Technology for teaching vs. teaching technology

I agree with you that this is a "learning" issue, not just an elearning issue. I am sure you have had the same experience with the debate of how much science a science teacher needs to know to teach science.

I think teachers are underappreciated as the assumption is that if you know a content area, you can "teach". In New York State, secondary school teachers need to have two master's degrees, one in their content area and the other in education.

What gets dicey is what should the education degree include and in New York state the degree includes courses on writing (across the curriculum), but not necessarily technology. In other words, should high school teachers be teaching technology per se or should they be integrating the use of technology within their classes so students get the practice of using technology in multiple contexts (as happens currently with writing?) In addition, many of the new graduates are armed with new pedagogies which might integrate technology into the curriculum, but the system of assessment and the pedagogical structures within the school make it impossible for these teachers to implement these new strategies into their teaching.

An alternative school, which my daughter may be attending in the Fall, integrates these new pedagogies. The fact that they had 15 times more applications for each teaching position than most schools demonstrates how teachers would LIKE to use a more updated pedagogy in their teaching, but are not allowed to due to the curriculum and organizational culture within many schools.

Preparing Teachers for the 21st Century

So back to your original question as to how to prepare teachers for the 21st century, I would propose the following:

1. Teachers should learn technology and how it can be used (conceptual and pedagogical) as part of their education degree. This should include the same format that writing across the curriculum course include such as technology for science, technology for communication, technology for the humanities, etc...
2. Teachers should understand the implications of the use of technology on learning
3. Teachers should learn how to work with technology specialists in designing activities that will help to reinforce the theoretical principles learned in "technology class" (i.e. allowing for practice in multiple contexts so students understand the affordances of technology within a certain context)
4. There should be a push to implement "technology classes" as part of the curriculum, just as there are "writing classes." These classes focus on the conceptual and skill building needed for the 21st century. Then other classes reinforce these concepts and skills in throughout the curriculum.
5. There should be an effort to have "technology curriculum specialists" the same way there are "writing curriculum specialists" that teachers can use as a resource. In addition, teachers should be required to integrate technology use into their class (as is currently being done with writing) with a certain % of activities using APPROPRIATE technology for that discipline. For example, the use of a graphing calculator or SPSS software for a math course would be appropriate. Concept mapping or blogging would not be appropriate as it does not teach computing which is needed in the field of Math. On the other hand, the use of excel would not be appropriate for a Language Arts course, but a Ning would as a means of improving communication skills is central to most English Language Arts curriculums.
   

The ideal University

Since my kids are on break from school right now, we borrowed a number of DVD's from the library. One was a movie called "Accepted" which was about a bunch of kids that start their own university when they are all "rejected" from other colleges. This got me to thinking of a lot things surrounding university study in the US.

University is an experience

First of all, this movie supports the idea that in the US "college" or university is a rite of passage into the work world. During the movie, the parents come to check out the college and are pleased when the "Dean" tells them that college is just a preparation for the work world. However, the actual school is one in which there is damage to the dorms, constant partying, and students are allowed to create their own times and curriculums.

This is the paradox I live with on a regular basis. On the one hand, students want to experiment with living without "rules" but on the other hand college is perceived as the gateway to the disciplined, rule based world of work. In fact, college is the first place where students need to learn how to live with others who have each been brought up with different values, lifestyles, and beliefs. There is something called the "Sophmore principle" in which students between their freshman and sophmore year have values that are the furtherest from their parents than at any other time of their life.

What this movie brings out is students that have been conformist their entire life are given the opportunities to live a different life style at the university, whereas students that are "different" are excluded from this experience. Is this really fair? Is this done because those who have lived a conformist life style need the college years to experiment because they will never have this opportunity again?

College Curriculum

One of the most striking concepts this movie presents is the idea that curriculum should be based on what student interests are and that students can teach themselves. The curriculum for the new college is based on students writing up what they would like to study, then organizing themselves to learn. The idea comes when a friend at a neighboring traditional university complains because she is not interested in the courses she has to take for her major, but at the same time, she will not credit for courses she is interested in.

This addresses the issue that many faculty, as well as students, struggle with on a regular basis: having to take courses that central adminstrators require, but many students and faculty do not find necessary. Why should I have students in my class that don't want to be there? If they can demonstrate that they have knowledge of the core competencies needed for the degree, why must they take the course? When I studied in Europe, students took courses that prepared them for their exams. They chose which courses they would need to fill in the gaps in their knowledge that they would then need for the exam. I would like to see a system where students chose their courses based on their strengths and weaknesses, however, with consultation with faculty to help them decide which courses would be the most useful.

Some of the courses offered at the "new" university included skate boarding (in which students learned the laws of physics and engineering), stess reduction (based on the principles of religion, philosophy, and psychology), and understanding women (using concepts from socialogy, women's studies, and biology). The assumption of the movie was that students would be able to teach themselves without any help from faculty. I would contend that faculty who set up the course could still have students teach each other, but point students in the right direction on resources and issues to research/investigate.

University as a place of dialogue

What I found especially interesting was the idea that traditional universities stiffle dialogue and conversations whereas the new university encouraged these conversations. This is something that I do believe has happened in colleges in the US as over the last decade there has been a move to "standardize" education (read cookie cutter approach). This ties back to the first point in that there is pressure from corporate America to crank out cookie cutter workers that will be creative as long as it fits into the mold of the company. Studenst that are allowed to ask questions and discuss issues will turn into employees that question the way things are done, power structures, and even things such as equity in pay.

I would love to see more dialogue and conversation in my classes. However, I am always surprised at how much work it takes to get students to present opposing views. In this movie, students are excited about giving their opinions. Is it because of the atmosphere that has been created in the learning environment or is it because these are students that are basically smart, but have been rejected from the best schools because they don't conform? Should we change the admissions process, identifying smart but creative students that are outside of the mainstream? How would this change our colleges and the students that come out?

Defining a University

Finally, in the conclusion of the movie, the college is brought before the accredidation board. They define a college as having a curriculum, faculty, and facilities. It was interesting that facilities was a requirement as today, many universities don't have facilities (they included having sports facilities, interesting that that was considered important by the movie writers).

So how would you define a university? What makes something a "university"? What curriculum should today's university have? What is the role of the faculty, student and administration in today's university? What should it be?

Understanding the Patterns of Organizations and Students

I just spent a wonderful week in Georgia (the US state, not the country) for Thanksgiving. We were visiting relatives. Our cousin's husband works in the construction industry and was telling us some of the recent initiatives he and a colleague had developed to improve safety.

"Bob" is a middle manager who worked his way up through the ranks. He supervises groups of workers on large constructive projects (commercial and industrial). What struck me as he described his "training" programs was how well he understood the students, his workers. Not a trained educator (he has a high school education), he intuitively knew how to get a concept across to those that would benefit from the training, engaging his workers, teaching them what they needed to know about safety, and motivating them to use what they learned.

This led me to wonder what he was doing differently from the "fancy" paid outside trainers they had brought in for training in the previous years. It also get me to thinking about the in-house-outside training debate that often comes up in training departments.

Differences between in-house and outsider training

Yakhlef (2002) had an interesting study looking at the impact that outsourcing IT services had on an organization. He found that there was a shift in knowledge from within a department to a mediator between the outside contractor and the end-user. The middleman became more and more important as functions were taken outside of the department and created in a distributed means both within and outside the organization.

The same could be said for having outsiders do the training. In some cases, this is a goal as an organization would like to change its culture. But more often than not, organizations are looking for subject matter "experts" rather than looking for experts in the "field". In other words, Bob's company might have looked for someone who has studied the roots of accidents and then delivers this to the workers.

However, what organizations should be looking at are those outside the organizations that understand the patterns of behavior of the students. To do this, they may have to interact with the workers, have an expert in the community of practice, or have someone from inside the organization as a team member. In other words, having an engineer who understands the types of time constraints workers might feel which might lead to them cutting safety procedures is more important than having someone who is an expert on the safety procedures that will cut accidents. In the first case, a trainer can identify those situations that workers are most apt to let down their guard and give ways to counteract the temptation to cut corners. For example, if there is a deadline for completion of a project, a supervisor might not have a worker who comes to work without the proper equipment go back and get the equipment. However, with an understanding of how much time lost might be the result of improper equipment, the supervisor might take the up front time so as not to lose time due to accidents.

Implications for instructional design and transition into the workplace/community

It seems to me, therefore, that it is important that instructional designers and university professors have a good understanding of the behavioral and communication patterns for organizations and communities of practice.

The following are questions that we must either ask as we begin a training assignment, or teach our students to ask as they transition into the workforce:

• Who decides what knowledge is important? What are the organizational, departmental, and group power structures in which someone is working?
• What is the usual way of communicating within the organization, department, and work groups? How might this be the same or different from the field in which a worker has been trained or is working (i.e. how do engineers communicate, how do accountants communicate, how do nursing personnel communicate)? What are the communication structures and formats used by the organization? by the field? Which technologies will accommodate those structures and formats?
• Who controls access to information? Who controls storage of information? What information networks are available to a worker within a community of practice? within a group? within a department? within an organization? What are the prerequisites to gaining access to information (i.e. training, trust by a superior, expertise, position, need)?
• Who are the reference groups that influence worker perceptions? work practices? perception of risk? organizational culture?
• What is the epistemology (belief in what "knowledge" is) of students, workers, the organization, and the field of expertise? How do workers resolve conflicts between epistemologies? For example, in business there is the belief that the bottom line is the main measure of success. However, healthcare workers are taught that they should do anything humanly possible to save a life. How do healthcare workers resolve the dilemna of saving a life at an exhorbatant price if the patient cannot pay (thus putting the organization into the red)?
  
  Yakhlef, A. (2002). Towards a discursive approach to organisational knowledge formation. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18, 319-339.

Facing the unknown

Two things inspired this posting today. First, I was speaking to a colleague today, who said that her daughter was having a terrible time deciding on a major. My colleague blames herself for her daughter's dilemma as she encouraged her children to choose a profession in which they will be able to make a decent living and be self reliant. Her daughter is an excellent writer, and feels that this skill will not give her a steady income. So while she really does not like science, she is taking science courses so she will be employable.

The second thing was while I was preparing lunch today, the only tomato available was a yellow tomato one of my husband's colleagues had grown and given to us. I cut into the tomato and had an immediate revulsion as it reminded me of a yellow plum. Finally, I forced myself to try a piece. It tasted just like a red tomato.

Sometimes, I feel we do our children a disservice by not making them take a taste of the yellow tomatoes in life. Trying something that goes against traditional wisdom is risky. I feel we need to support younger people to try doing things in a new way, but putting them back on track when the risk is too great.

I was lucky in life. My father, who went to Yale on a scholarship, regretted not taking the opportunity to learn new and different things while he was at Yale because his family (who were poor) counted on him to do well in College. His advice to me was to study what I was interested in, learn as much as I could while I was in college, and don't worry about studying for a profession. As he said, a good worker is a good worker and will learn what he or she needs to do well in their job when they are on the job. He believed that graduates were not, nor would ever be, prepared to do a job right out of college. Only job experience and the ability to learn in the workplace would prepare someone. The key to hiring good workers was to hire those that were prepared to learn and were not scared to face the unknown. Rather, they would be ready to study the situation, figure out how to work within any situation, and persist regardless of the barriers put in front of them.

Getting older workers to learn off of each other

I recently spent some time with my sister, a former science teacher who now does teacher training. I was helping her to load and try out new technology that she can integrate onto her computer. We are only 3 years apart, yet when working with her, she felt we were from different generations. "You at least have an understanding of the computer system and how it works. I just can't conceptualize it," she told me.

Part of the difference, when discussing it with her, was that I took computer courses in college (BASIC, and later for my MBA in International Business, a number of computer based programs for logistics and decision making on both mainframes and pc's). She felt that because she did not have a formal education in those areas, it is harder for her to figure out how to use the computers.

However, in speaking with her, we came to the conclusion that many older workers feel they need someone with "expertise" to talk them through a technology. Younger workers and students feel very comfortable asking others how to do things when it interests them (as opposed to only learning it when it is mandated). Rarely do older workers talk about what they can do or offer to show someone else how to do something unless they feel "qualified". I am not sure why, perhaps having lived abroad for some many years and relying on others to give me insight, but I have never felt shy about working with someone on how to figure things out. I am irritated with my children when they will "do" something for me (like put in names to my address book) rather than show me how to do it (as they will with each other).

I wonder, therefore, if we should be developing training differently between generations.

Making the transition from university to the workplace

I recently had an exchange with Dave Ferguson about a previous blog posting.

I wrote:

Perhaps I am unique in that I try to bridge the university and the
workplace.  I have taught in both the workplace and university, working in
business communication, international business, ESL, and business
communication.  I actually get upset at the line that business schools
make towards workplace learning (how can you discount years of experience
valuable learning) as well as the growing demarcation I find corporate
trainers are making between "school" knowledge and workplace learning.

One of my interests in the last 4 years (as I pursue a Ph.D. in Education,
because the program would let me focus on workplace learning with writing
and technology in an international context, something the Management
Schools would not allow) has been how best to prepare my students
(especially undergraduate) for future workplace learning.  What skills do
corporate trainers assume graduates have coming into the workforce?  What
type of learning will employees be expected to do in their career?  This
will help me to better prepare my students for the future.  I keep reading
the literature that says that businesses complain their students are not
prepared for the workplace, but no specifics.  How are we supposed to
better prepare them if we don't know what the businesses expect?

On the other hand, I think that businesses have a real disconnect in their
understanding of the next generation of employees.  There are many things
they can learn from this generation and I feel that learning professionals
in the workplace need to start preparing for a new type of worker.  After
18 years of teaching at the university level, I see a number of trends
that have effected my students learning.  This will begin to penetrate the
workforce at a lag behind the universities.  But I don't see businesses
coming to the universities and asking what is happening with their
students (it is easier to say the universities are not preparing the
students correctly).

For example, over the last two years, I have noticed the effect that NCLB
has had on our students.  These students (future workers in the next 5
years) are very "trainable".  Give them a check list or a list of things
to learn and they will do it.  However, many do not take the initiative in
terms of their own learning.  One of my students, an educator at a
health-related university coined this type of learning as just in time
learning.  Students won't learn something until they need it, and then
they want access to it immediately.  I foresee this as an issue for
workplace educators in the future.

I would like to hear from others on both sides of the school/work transition.

1. What skills do businesses assume students have? What would you like them to have?
2. What are the difficulties new employees have in transitioning to the workplace?
3. What skills do new graduates have that are different from 10 years ago? How can these skills be used to help an organization?
4. What type of training do you think new graduates will need when they first enter the workforce?
   

The difference between teaching at the University and teaching in the workplace.

Ken Allen posted a question about the differences I saw between workplace training and teaching in the university in response to one of my posts on Is there (should there be) a difference between workplace learning and "academic" learning?In addition to the factors Ken mentioned (time for study), I think there is a broader cultural difference. Past generations (and even now) have been educated to believe that once schooling is ended, we will not have need for learning outside of specialized programs that will help with our jobs. As a result, most workplace learners will ask the question, "how will this help me in my current job." One of my students (an instructional designer) pegged this as "just in time learning".

At the university level, I can tell my students that they might not have immediate use for something I am teaching (such as learning how to learn for business or communication majors), but it is a skill they will need for the future. In the workplace, my students would not put up with this.

Finally, I feel that there are many outside pressures that affect workplace learning (families, bills, work) that forces learners to turn off their brains once they step out the door of the classrooms (or training rooms). I know for myself that when I am in school full time, there is a culture that allows for discussion of ideas at a higher level outside of class. These discussions do not take place in the workplace or at home outside of training/classes. As a result, I cannot rely on my students in a workplace to "get" something between classes that require higher order thinking. Instead, I need to bring them through the higher order thinking while I have them and then let them apply it to their own context once they leave.

With University students, on the other hand, I will work through the process (thus creating the experience), then challenge them to use their higher order thinking while out of class (through blogging, reflective papers, and projects) to figure out what went on. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that a 19 or 20 year old is thinking about the impact of new communication technologies on an organization unless they are forced to. However, when they are asked to articulate their thoughts, they at least have others they can bounce ideas off of outside of class. They also HAVE the time (whether they use it or not is something else) to think about ideas (as opposed to thinking about who is picking the baby up from daycare, can I mow the lawn tonight, is there gas in the car, do I have enough money to buy a house).