Newish Fields

Andrew had a terrific discussion the other day about the field of Adult Learning and how our field is relatively new. Our class at the moment is borrowing a lot from Adult Development and showing the links between the two fields. Andrew brought up several different passages that highlight this relationship and how they are playing off of one another.

I found the same things interesting as he did; the two fields being brought together, AND the fact that research into the distinct field of Adult Learning was so nascent. 

I made a note in my text on page 4 around the passage that states: 

“Despite separate advances in the human development and learning fields, it is only within the last 15 years that researches have begun to consider how adult development and adult learning might be integral to one another.”

It was at this point in the reading I went back to try and find when this was published and felt sure it had to have been in the 80’s or 90’s. When I saw 2011 I was stunned. I know I’ve always felt my industry has not been keeping up with adult learning developments as much as they could have been in the past several years, I’d always assumed other industries might be doing more. I was surprised that this was more universal than I had imagined. 

It does make me happy to see that my boss has invested in me and this field so much that he is sending me to these classes to get my degree. He recognizes that our industry can use this perspective and I’m enjoying being the person who gets to fulfill it. 

Reference:

Hoare, C. (2011). The oxford handbook of reciprocal adult development and learning (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Intelligent Child Works with Children's Intelligence

That title is a bit of a misnomer. It should say Intelligent Child Works with Children's Development, but that didn't come out as pithily as the one I just wrote. So what am I talking about?

Piaget. 

I don't really know much about Piaget. His work was primarily in the developmental stages of children, not adults. However, the little I've read about him makes me want to know a lot more about it. 

Based on this reading, Theories of Development; Concepts and Applications by William Crain, Piaget was an amazing kiddo. He was published quite early (10 years old) and asked to be a manager of a museum in his teens. By 21 he had his Ph.D. and by 23 had decided what he wanted to study and why. By contrast, when I was 23 I was just entering the Army cause I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life. 

What is genuinely amazing are the descriptions of his experiments with kiddos. I do a lot of experiments with the learning community I support. We work with spaced practice, we tried social media interactions, we tried chatbots, we try everything with those learners just to study and see how they do. 

Piaget did the same with kids, including his own. Most of his more famous experiments dealt with conservation of matter and children's abilities to work with the different matter at different states and understand how they worked through different phases of the 6 stages he identified. 

What does this have to do with Adult Development and Adult Learning? No idea. 

I'm guessing the professor is trying to inspire us to look at our own areas of interest as Piaget did. He studied and studied and studied and experimented and wrote and wrote. 

It makes me think of doing more experiments on our learners. First and foremost, taking a cue from Piaget, I would ask Jason that we immediately begin capturing years of experience. How awesome would it be to take that information, how long our learners have been in the industry, and begin to see how well they answer questions on different courses based on that year of experience. Then we might be able to see when or how quickly an inexperienced worker becomes knowledgeable. That would be useful for lots of folks. 

If my VR work for my dissertation falls through, this might be the track I follow. 

Managing to Win

The other day I wrote about Managing the Loss in Ukraine. What that meant to me, and how it is not a part of my makeup. I know I've written before that there comes a time when you have to cut away a towed jumper (see HERE). Actually, someone confronted me with that. "Isn't that managing a loss?"

Truthfully, no. Even cutting away a towed jumper isn't managing a loss or leaving a fallen comrade behind. If anything, cutting away a towed jumper allows that Ranger the opportunity to get back into the fight and hopefully continue to win. Sure, there are lots of problems in that thought, but in that situation the quicker you can resolve it the better chance the towed jumper, the squad, and the force has of getting back on a winning track. 

So, during the discussions on the post the other day on managing the loss, the question came up that I hadn't promoted any ideas to get back on a winning footing. 

It's too late to prep, it's too aggressive to send in our own forces or create a no-fly zone. I don't think it's too late to send them equipment and material they need to win (especially the Polish Migs, a huge mistake by the administration if you ask me) . . . but the single best thing they could do now is something our country has already done . . . an airlift.

There's a great article about an airlift in the WSJ (see HERE). In it, the authors, write:

an airlift would counter Russia’s strategy to besiege the Ukrainian people, boost Ukrainian morale, and increase international efforts to aid Ukraine. Countries around the world can contribute humanitarian supplies. This would give them more to do to help Ukraine than simply vote for United Nations resolutions.

The idea of an airlift is active, it's no longer managing the loss, but instead, it's an offensive maneuver that is not designed to provoke. I have problems with this constant worry that the administration should worry about Putin might react. Rather, Putin should worry about how we might react. Working toward an international airlift, similar to what we did in Berlin (see my thoughts on Leon Uris' novel on the Berlin Airlift HERE).

I think about those folks I was channeling when I wrote about cutting the towed jumper. Cutting someone away, especially that person, was done to help get back on a winning footing, not to manage the loss. It's up to that Ranger who is cut away to fix things for himself. Pull his own reserve, link up with the main element, continue the fight. If they don't, then the rest of the element moves forward, completes the mission, then goes back to find that Ranger before moving on. Is there a right answer? nope. Not in that situation or in the Ukraine situation. There are only least bad options. 

Managing the Loss

Lots of folks use me as their sounding board for military questions. Why? Well, I served in the military. I wasn't an officer, I was a just a door-kicking, bullet-stopper, Airborne Ranger Team Leader. But somehow the very fact that I was in, and the fact I was in Spec Ops seems to lead so much credence to me that people feel free to ask, "What should the US do about Ukraine?

To be honest? Not once in the military did we discuss the geopolitical implications of different decisions. All we did was a workout, train hard, shoot often, jump out of airplanes and helicopters and blow stuff up. Still, I do have some thoughts, but I hardly think they're any better than my neighbors. 

I read with some interest some of the initial reports about the VDV being chewed up and whole planeloads going down. Were these reports true? Who knows? There is a lot of propaganda, but the number of KIA soldiers and the jacked-up strategy seems to suggest that it might be. I can feel for these guys. There was nothing worse than being crammed into a plane waiting to jump or worse landing on a hostile runway. Air-Lando Commando we called it. Everyone wanted out of that plane as quick as possible. 

Regarding the wider conflict, however, I heard a term the other day and it stuck with me. Someone on the radio mentioned they felt President Biden was "Managing the Loss." This rang true. Most of what this administration has done has been toward Ukraine has already lost the war. This was anathema to everyone in our unit. 

I served in the years between Mogadishu and the GWOT. There were a ton of advancements and changes in tactics in our unit throughout the years I served and even more after that. Adaptability was our hallmark. Adapt, adjust, overcome was our motto (that and Sua Sponte of course). But one thing we would never have done is "manage the loss." 

We were even lectured on this as a Battalion Commander. They gave us a class on what went wrong in Mogadishu and they mentioned that the Rangers should have left, regrouped, and rejoined the fight. Maybe it was the way the leadership said it, maybe it was the fact that the fifth stanza of our creed goes directly against this, or maybe it was just that we were a bunch of kids, but several walked out (to be forced to do hundreds of pushups as punishment for walking out) and afterward, the entire enlisted and NCO class (the bulk of the battalion) agreed en masse that what the Battalion Commander just told us would never have a chance of happening. 

I remember quite clearly the secret meetings, the pledges among the enlisted in the team, the pronouncements from the NCO Team Leaders and Squad Leaders that just like the fifth stanza of the Ranger Creed says, we would never be okay with "leaving a fallen comrade behind." 

So, the point? Regarding Ukraine?

Managing the loss is not something I'm comfortable with. What should be done? Well, more should have been done before. I think they've been managing the loss since last fall. They've been preparing for a loss rather than getting ready for defense. Now, whatever is done is much much harder. 

Experiential Learning

I had a great conversation with another colleague in my Adult Learning and Adult Development class. She discussed an experiential learning class that took place over 3 weeks that is effective and engaging and the work our organization is doing to try and bring that to our learners. 

It's interesting that she brought up the experiential training that takes place over a long period of time.

We usually on see our learners for a few hours. One of our longer courses is a leadership course that takes place over 2 days. Those who take it come away usually having had a transformative learning experience. Sadly, many of our learners don't get the time to take 2 days away from work. 

I understand the problem, having lived it. We are asking for one of the organization's star performers, someone they want to invest in, and then the organization realizes that they can't lose that person for 2 full days. They look at it as more than just the registration fee (which is quite low), but also the time they have to pay that supervisor to be in a 16-hour class (16hr X 35/hour = $560) but then they add the amount of potential lost revenue that they could have expected by that leaders being billable for that same time. Usually, that employee could get $45 an hour billable time. Then there's the fact that they wouldn't be able to charge the client for the truck, the equipment or any other expendables and they realized that having the employee in the field working is more valuable to them than him getting some training. 

It's always a tight rope to try and show how the course can be as valuable or more valuable than the billable time for that employee, especially in terms of his potentially leaving for not getting the training, or not mentoring and leading his team as effectively as he could.

It's a tough equation to be on the wrong side of when you're the course developer and lead facilitator. It's always great to be able to provide learning opportunities that are transformative for the learner, engaging and enriching their lives. Finding ways to convince the sending organization is the tough part that we will keep working to overcome. 

Breaking Out of the Box Training

I had a chance to talk to a colleague at school in my class on Adult Learning and Adult Development and she had some interesting things to say about "out of the box" training. 

I think one of the difficulties I face is that the entire industry undervalues training. Training is something that "has to be done" not something that is valuable and thought to be a worthwhile investment of time and money for the contractor organizations we support. 

We are working to change that belief. Providing more engaging and effective training is a part of the answer. Another part of that answer is to find ways to help the learners understand that learning doesn't stop the second they exit the building. We are trying to find ways to keep the conversation between the learner and our organization going. These discussion posts and the cohorts we build in these classes are terrific examples of the dynamic I'd love to promote. Too often our learners come, they get some computer-based training, then they leave and forget the training. This is a cycle they've played out many times and it's a vicious circle, ingrained in their habit. Breaking that habit, showing them that learning can continue, and creating a stronger learning community is the key to this I think. It's a tough slog, but already we've seen positive results. More organizations are using us for more innovative training, our organization has started to see that the courses they've developed in the past can no longer be relied on. 

I appreciate her thoughts and the comparison you've made to teacher in-services. The one thing I don't possess is a view into other industries. My life has been in the contracting industries, both for refining and for construction. This means I don't know what other forces are at work in training development and adult learning that could be a part of our solution as well. It would be interesting to discuss more with her what she liked most about the course she got that buested out of the in-service boring paradigm. What would she think would have helped create teacher in-services that were more consistently like the speaker who spoke about growth mindset? Was it the topic? The speaker? The presentation? The style? Or a combination of these things?

 

Strategies for Teachers and Trainers

Although I enjoyed all of the readings for this first week, especially the overview that was presented in Hoare's Handbook since it did such a wonderful job of explaining why linking adult learning and adult development, and studying them together is so critical. 

What I discovered however is that I found the most resonance in a snippet from Taylor, Marienau, and Fiddler; Developing Adult Learners; Strategies for Teachers and Trainers. 

In it the authors write: 

"If learners come to the learning environment expecting to accrue knowledge as discrete bits of information, and if nothing is done to influence a change in that perspective, reproductive learning will be the outcome (Richardson, 1999)." 

Then this which comes several sentences later:

"By contrast, instructors who supported deep approaches to learning were those who saw the study of history as a process of developing interpretations and shared with their students their own process."

This hit home with me because as I said during our class introductions, I support a learning community that sees what we provide as "training" not "learner." The idea of providing courses as "discrete bits of information" is common and normal within our industry. It's not odd to hear safety and training leaders say, "this is just check the box training" a turn of phrase that I find short-sighted. 

It's the "by contrast" aspect of the quote that also hit me. How might we as a learning community inspire our learners to think more deeply and approach it from a different perspective? Hopefully, a perspective that provides for greater reflection and the chance to utilize and apply the learning in the field and with their colleagues on the job. 

They go on to state that when learners have that moment to reflect and explore the learning by applying their own expertise and experience:

"They are more likely to hold multiple perspectives, think flexibly, and deal with ambiguity - in short, they are not simply adopting new ideas but moving toward changing the ways in which they construct the ideas they hold."

This is exactly what I'm hoping to find. In some of my work, I've already seen that shift in some of the older learners we support, especially with the innovative training techniques we are trying to apply. But in most of those cases, it is pinpoint rather than a global change. Finding a way to bring this type of learning (as opposed to training) to a greater number of our learners is what I'm hoping to find from this class. 

Trainee vs Learner

I am in South Texas at the moment, working with a new safety council and hoping to inspire them to make some of the changes that we’ve already made at our organization. It’s fun to see how far we have come in three years, but it’s also interesting to see how much work the rest of the industry as to do. 

I’m currently in a class on Adult Development and Adult Learning and we have to decide on a topic for a paper. I’m toying with several subjects, emotion, culture, higher order thinking, and then there is self-efficacy. According to Bandura, self efficacy is an individual’s belief in his or her capacity to execute behaviors necessary to produce specific performance attainments. Self efficacy reflects confidence in the ability to exert control over one’s own motivation, behavior, and social environment.

This topic interests me because of the learning community I support. A lot of our learners see our work as “training” rather than “learning.” People in the industry says “go get training.” I think about this because here in South Texas, at this council that is new to me, they still say “trainees” and “training.”

For the past several years I’ve been trying to change our organizations lexicon from trainee’s to learners. Whenever I discuss the people that come to our organization I call them learners. I think it helps provide some self-efficacy to them. Training denotes something short-term and quick and over. Learning is something that you take along with you, grow from, and reflect on. Hopefully it’s something our learning community continues to use in the field. 

Higher order thinking might be a fun topic to dig into. A good deep dive into how to take our learners from remembering . . . To understanding . . . To applying. But self efficacy, the idea that by taking “training” and “learning” you can change things around you. Fun stuff to consider. 

Getting Empowered and Staying Empowered

I'm in the middle of reading a book right now. No, not a book club book (see here). Not a book for school, even though I've got plenty of reading to do for class. Nope, this is non-fiction reading. I like to wake up early and read, and usually, it's non-fiction. I started this when I lived in Belgium. I would wake up at 5 in the morning and read for a few hours. Now, my son wakes up at 6:15 so if I wake up at 5:30 I get 45 min of uninterrupted reading. The other morning I read about the empowerment triangle.

Before the empowerment triangle, there is the step of identifying that you aren't in the Drama Triangle. The drama triangle is above. It's a vicious circle, the book says, that doesn't allow the person to break out easily. Instead, you go around blaming others, being a victim, and believing yourself a hero that only keeps the circle spinning. 

The goal, as the title of this page suggests is to get to the empowerment triangle. 

As a part of the empowerment triangle you create, challenge, mentor and empower others. It's a funky ideal for me, but it's actually in line with what I'm reading about in my class on adult development. Self-authorship, the four pillars of development, the human learning and developmental cycles. I think it's funny that my non-fiction book and my class are aligning. Hopefully the others I influence in my life will start to notice a difference!

Statistics Homework

Someone asked me, following yesterday's post, why there aren't more posts from my statistics and my experimental design classes. The answer is easy. The posts would be incredibly boring. Here's a sample. I'll be stunned if anyone reading this post will actually make it to the end. 

Question 1 - An educational psychologist is studying the effectiveness of three different reinforcement schedules (I.V.) on certain gender-role (I.V.) behaviors in boys and girls in a middle school. 18 boys and 18 girls were randomly assigned into one of the three reinforcement schedules.  In the following table, the psychologist recorded the frequency that the desired behaviors (DV) were demonstrated by individual students. For the data below, use the critical value of .05 in the data analyses.

A. Show a Factorial ANOVA table. 

B. Explain the test results for the assumption of homogeneity.  

Based upon the sig value of .505 (Sig column, row 1) which is greater than the critical value of .05, equal variances are assumed. F(5,30) = .882, p = .505.

C. Explain your conclusion on the main effects and the interaction from the ANOVA results, including effect size(s).  

There was a statistically significant main effect of gender and the frequency of desired behaviors, F(1,30)=4.957, p=.034, partial eta squared = .142. Since this is less than the accepted critical value of .05, this main effect is statistically significant.

There was also a statistically significant main effect of reinforcement schedules and the frequency of desired behaviors, F(2,30)=22.201, p<.001, partial eta squared = .597. Since this is less than the accepted critical value of .05, this main effect is statistically significant.

Finally, there is most likely statistically significant interaction between Gender Role and the Reinforcement mechanism based on the results that show F(2,30)=7.917, p=.002, partial eta squared .345. Since this is less than the accepted critical value of .05, there is most likely a statistically significant interaction. 

d. Conduct the post hoc tests using Bonferroni correction and explain your conclusion from the results. 

There was a significant interaction between gender and reinforcement schedules on the frequency of desired behaviors, F(2,30)=7.917, p=.002, partial eta squared .345. When running a pairwise comparison with reinforcement and gender role, there is a statistically significant value of <.001. This helps us determine where exactly the significant interaction identified in the Tests of Between Subjects test. It exists in reinforcement schedule 1 for the "Girl" gender. 

This is also shown in the fact that the mean for reinforcement level 1 for “Girl” is the lowest mean value (M = 26.50, SD = 1.871). Both the SD and Mean for reinforcement level 1 for “Girl” is different than the others among all of the statistics. 

Question 2 - A researcher is interested in whether three methods of teaching are equally effective for students of different reading levels on their reading scores.  Students from high, middle, and low reading levels are randomly assigned to one of the teaching methods.  For the data below, use the critical value of .05 in the data analyses.

A. Show a Factorial ANOVA table. 

B. Explain the test results for the assumption of homogeneity.

Based upon the sig value of .467 (Sig column, row 1) which is greater than the critical value of .05, equal variances are assumed. F(8,27) = .988, p = .467.

C. Explain your conclusion on the main effects and the interaction from the ANOVA results, including F, p, and partial eta squared.

There is not a statistically significant main effect of method and the score, F(2,27)=.243, p=.786, partial eta squared = .018. Since this is greater than the accepted critical value of .05, this main effect is not statistically significant.

There was a statistically significant main effect of reading level and scores, F(2,27)=95.963, p<.001, partial eta squared = .877. Since this is less than the accepted critical value of .05, this main effect is statistically significant.

Finally, there is most likely not a statistically significant interaction between method and reading level on the score based on this test of between subjects effects that show F(4,27)=2.498, p=.066, partial eta squared .270. Since this is not less than the accepted critical value of .05, there is most likely not a statistically significant interaction. 

D. Conduct the post hoc tests using Bonferroni correction and explain your conclusion from the results.  

When considering the partial eta squared and comparing the values, the "Reading Level" effect shows the highest value, which leads to the assumption that interactions between the Reading Level show the most statistically significant values. When parsing the data between method, then looking at pairwise comparisons of Reading Level there are the most statistically significant values between the high reading levels no matter the method being used. (There is one statistically significant value in the interaction between medium and low Reading Levels with both methods).

Specifically, using any method on high reading level resulted in higher means (M = 34.83, SD = 3.30) than medium reading level results (M = 23.67, SD = 3.85) and low medium reading level results (M = 18.17, SD = 2.25).