SIMULATIONS – BRIDGING FROM THWARTED INNOVATION TO DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGY –

Gartner Research dubbed simulation the new “killer
application” in e-learning (Lundy et al., 2002) but even
assuming the best estimates for the adoption of simulations,
they represent a tiny proportion of the annual spend in
training and education. Considerable research has been done
to evaluate the effectiveness of simulations and, by and
large, the results suggest that simulations are effective but
there are doubts about even the most fundamental claims of
the efficacy of simulations (Feinstein and Cannon, 2002)
partly because there isn’t a clear, acceptable methodology,
partly because there is no real agreement on definitions, and
partly because there is little agreement on what should be
evaluated. Burns et al. (1990) consider the multi-fold
problem with evaluating experiential pedagogies stating that
there is firstly a need to compare the efficacy to ‘traditional’
approaches, and there is a need to compare alternative
experiential pedagogies competing to achieve the same
learning. Not surprisingly, they note a paucity of solid
empirical evidence regarding the relative effectiveness of
experiential techniques. Other authors (e.g. Pierfy, 1977)
note two particular problems with respect to evaluating
simulations or experiential techniques: the first being the
conceptual problems pertaining to definitions, domain
boundaries and the theoretical basis which underpin and
frame pedagogical research. The second fundamental
problem is that there remain significant methodological
difficulties including experimental design, constraints
within the organisations and institutions, time
considerations and ethical questions associated with any
comparative study.
This paper does not intend to argue in favor of one
approach, method or definition over another but to consider
why simulations have not yet emerged as training and
education’s “killer application” and how it may be possible
to bridge from being a thwarted innovation (Zemsky &
Massy, 2004) to a disruptive technology (Christensen,
1997).

Related articles by Zemanta

• World of Learning – PIXELearning presentation (slideshare.net)
• Teaching and Learning in Online Virtual Worlds. (slideshare.net)
• Summary Of An Evaluation Study Of Educational Technology 1 (slideshare.net)
• How to Measure Innovation in eLearning: The I-AFIEL Methodology (downes.ca)
• Goal setting advantage – Legend or Logic? (gainmoregolf.com)
• Review – your learning agility and potential (celsim.com)

The 2009 Learning and Development survey provides data on current and future learning and development issues and trends. This year we have explored the areas of employee skills, talent management, coaching and technology as well as economic influences and training spend.

CIPD – Learning and development: summary of key survey findings.

So, it appears that social networking use might make your grades suffer!
I wonder how they compare to students who spend that same amount of time watching TV?

This little snippet stuns me:

According to the research, 79 per cent of Facebook-using students believed the time they spent on the site had no impact on their work.

now that is dumb!

Facebook students underachieve in exams – Telegraph.

12 Step Plan to getting engaged with social media.

A nice, simple and straightforward step plan for getting your head around using Social Media for learning from Jane Hart.

Most people would accept that the ability to learn, and the ease of that learning, makes a difference in life. But, is someone who is more able to learn, more easily and in many different situations, better equipped to be a better leader?

Lombardo and Eichinger call this “learning agility”, and suggest that learning-agile people exhibit common traits: They:

• think critically and examine problems carefully, making fresh connections with comparative ease.
• are very self-aware, know and leverage their strengths effectively and know how to compensate for their weaknesses.
• enjoy experimenting and are comfortable with change.

• deliver results in through team-building and personal drive.

Learning agility is manifested in several ways. For example, there’s mental agility.

Learning-agile people have and use more tools for problem-solving. They use the emotional and logical sides of their brains equally well and easily. They can prioritize the urgent and the visionary and strategic issues.

Learning-agile people have results agility.

They show personal drive and can build teams. From this team-building ability they also develop their people agility. Comfortable with themselves and with diversity, they balance intra and inter-personal skills effectively. They will tend to be open-minded, non-judgmental about ideas and other people. Able to deal with and embrace change, they know which battles to fight and establish consensus when appropriate.

Lastly, they are conflict agile,

Learning-agile people know when to collaborate and when to compete. They know when to accommodate others and when to avoid conflict altogether.

Assessing learning agility

How can you identify learning-agile performers in your organization and position them for success within your organization?

A learning-agile person can be expected to exhibit success when dealing with new or difficult situations. You can expect them to volunteer for new experiences and will likely rise to informal (or formal) leadership roles in teams.

Once identified, deliberately try and move them out of their area of apparent expertise to a new area. Observe how they perform and how they relate to new colleagues, to new leadership styles, to a customer-facing role or to the back-office. Watch carefully for how they deal with different personalities and attitudes and people of different backgrounds.

Lombardo and Eichinger use a formula of diversity, adversity, intensity and complexity of experiences, combined with a willingness to learn as a formula for success. Learning-agile people will excel at:

• Turnaround projects – problems that need fixing
• Startups – starting a program, product, system or facility from scratch.
• Cross-functional moves.
• Line-to-staff moves — learning how to influence without authority.
• Changes in scope of projects and changes in scale or size.

All of these experiences requires the person needs to acquire competencies rapidly through the experience, feedback and integration of knowledge, skills and abilities.

Seriously consider how you might identify your own learning-agile people. They have the potential to succeed exceptionally in your organization.

Why identify learning-agility?

Michaels, et al (2001) in “The War for Talent studies” found just 7% of respondents agreed their companies had enough talented managers! Just 3% agreed with the statement: “We develop people effectively.” Sessa & Campbell, (1997) found that a third to three-quarters of new top executives fail in their first appointment! A third of Fortune 500 CEO’s have been replaced in the last 10 years (Bennis & O’Toole, 2000; Charan & Colvin, 1999). Such results have many causes, but one implication is that organizations have great difficulty in spotting and nurturing talent that has staying power once in key positions.

Someone with “high potential” is a person who has an open willingness and ability to learn competencies required for first-time, challenging conditions. They deliberately choose to learn and review their outcomes and make adjustments in their behaviours and skills to improve performance.