Unsurprising

Jeff Dieffenbach

Having spent some time learning about and playing around with ChatGPT, I began to think about why its text outputs are often good but only under specific circumstances great.

ChatGPT in its current incarnation was released in Nov of 2022 and is based on the GPT-3 language model, which was trained on 45 terrabytes of data and introduced in May of 2020. (As such, ChatGPT doesn’t “know” about anything that’s happened in the last two years.)

ChatGPT is a “next word predictor.” Given a seed prompt (for example*, “What is the ‘science of learning’ and how can it be used to help teachers and students?”), ChatGPT will generate a text answer. Framed simply, ChatGPT is analyzing its huge database to predict the next word in a sequence. Put another way, what is the “average” or “unsurprising” word that’s likely to come next.

“Average” and “least surprising” explain why ChatGPT typically generates B- but not A+ text. Think instead about great writing. Great writing engages the reader, often by playing with language that surprises the reader and ignites curiosity.

Great writing: surprising

ChatGPT: the very definition of unsurprising

– – – – – – – – – –

*Here was ChatGPT’s impressive, if dry, response to the “science of learning” prompt:

The science of learning is the study of how people learn, including the cognitive and neural processes that underlie it. It encompasses a variety of fields, such as cognitive psychology, neuroscience, education, and instructional design.

Research in the science of learning can be used to inform the design of educational materials and instructional strategies that can help teachers and students learn more effectively. For example, studies on cognitive load theory and the spacing effect have shown that it is more effective to present information in smaller chunks and to spread out study sessions over time, rather than cramming all at once. Research on metacognition, can help teachers teach students how to monitor their own learning and understand their own strengths and weaknesses. Research on motivation and self-directed learning can help teachers design more engaging and meaningful learning experiences.

By using the findings from the science of learning, teachers can create more effective and efficient ways to teach, and students can learn more effectively.

One way that ChatGPT can shine is when a prompt includes an instruction along the following lines: “What is the ‘science of learning’ and how can it be used to help teachers and students, written in the style of Hunter S. Thompson?”

The science of learning, my dear friends, is a wild and wooly beast that can be tamed only by the bravest of teachers and students. It’s a field that seeks to understand how the human brain processes and retains information, and how we can harness that knowledge to improve the way we teach and learn.

But let’s be real here, this ain’t no walk in the park. It’s a journey that requires a strong constitution, a willingness to experiment, and a healthy dose of gonzo spirit. You gotta be willing to take risks, to push boundaries, and to question everything you thought you knew about teaching and learning.

For the teachers out there, this means embracing new technologies and techniques, and constantly experimenting with different approaches to see what works best for your students. It means being open to feedback and willing to adapt your teaching style to suit the needs of your students.

For the students, it means being active learners, taking ownership of your own education, and being open to new ways of thinking and learning. It means being willing to take risks, to try new things, and to question the status quo.

So put on your shades, grab your notebook and pen, and let’s take a journey into the wild and wooly world of the science of learning. It’s a ride that’s sure to be one hell of a trip.

Great writing? Perhaps not. But surprising? At least somewhat.

– – – – – – – – – –

[blog header image credit: DALL-E | prompt: A reader sitting in a leather armchair
alone in an elegant personal library takes surprise and delight
from the antique book they are reading]

facepalm

Jeff Dieffenbach

Photo by Junior Teixeira from Pexels | license

“Facebook leads the industry in stopping bad actors online. That’s because they’ve invested $13B in teams and technology to enhance safety over the last five years. It’s working. In just the past few months, they’ve taken down 1.7 billion fake accounts to stop bad actors from doing harm. But working to reduce harmful and illicit content on their platforms is never done.”

– Facebook ad on a popular podcast, December 2021

If automobiles caused as much harm as Facebook, those vehicles would be recalled. If a drug caused as much harm as Facebook, that drug would be pulled from the shelves. And yet, toxic Facebook remains unimpeded in the damage that it causes. Their own ad copy acknowledges enough when it concludes: “… is never done.”

Rather than laud Facebook for the money that it’s spending not to solve the problem ($13 BILLION!”), let’s all acknowledge that their spending 100x as much or more wouldn’t put a dent in the problem. Their business model is fundamentally broken … and trivial to fix.

Craft laws–akin to those laws that bar defective automobiles and drugs–that require social media platforms to shift their income stream from digital advertising and the resulting need for keeping and growing user attention to a subscription income stream use can be healthy and not based on amplifying rage and falsehood.

SXSW EDU like a BOSS

Jeff Dieffenbach

Somewhere in Austin just outside the normal conference haunts

I’ve SXSW EDUed three times: 2017, 2018, and 2019. I was slated to go again in 2020 until they announced the pandemic-driven cancellation one hour before I was supposed to head to the airport.

Whether you should attend SXSW EDU depends, of course, on what you hope to get out of it. I’d estimate that the content is at least 1/2 K-12, about 1/3 higher ed (but perhaps less), and maybe 1/6 workforce (again, perhaps less) If one or more of those content areas is a fit, consider the four primary reasons for going to a conference: to learn, to teach (that is, to be a presenter), to sell, and to meet (general networking). SXSW EDU is fairly good for all four of these. There are a fair number of practitioners (who generally aren’t buyers) in attendance, but there are buyers around.

SXSW EDU is characterized by a large number of sessions across the Sun-Thu event. Spending time with the program/calendar in advance is a MUST (there are so many sessions that winging it isn’t practical). If there’s a session you really want to attend, get there early, as some sessions fill up. Sessions are back-to-back with no downtime in-between, and while the conference is at the convention center and hotel right across the street, you should really plan on 10 minutes to get from one session to another (it’s possible to get lucky and have back-to-back sessions close together). The back-to-back nature may mean leaving a session block open in advance of a session you really want to attend. Note that attendance on Thu (which is a half day) really starts to drop off.

Sessions are 20 mins, 30 mins, 1 hour, and longer (mostly for workshop-type sessions). Look for the 20 and 30 min sessions–most people don’t have more to say on a topic than that.As Mark Twain is alleged to have said,

“I didn’t have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one.”

– Mark Twain

I also go through the directory perhaps a week before the conference to identify people I might want to meet with. I reach out via the conference app and/or LinkedIn to try to set meetings up in advance.

Try to stay in the conference hotel–it may be a bit more expensive, but the easier logistics can make the extra cost worth it. Lunch options aren’t great (there are a couple on-site) unless you’re willing to spend several session blocks leaving the site and then coming back.

I think of each day as having four “blocks:”

• Early to mid-morning when there are no sessions–good meeting time
• Sessions
• Formal evening social events
• Later evening/late night bar hopping

If you look around, you can often find examples of 3 and even 4 on someone else’s dime. If you dip your toe into 4 too many nights in a row, well, 1 and even 2 the next day will test your stamina. Ask me how I know!

Sixth Street in Austin is a must-see: restaurants, bars, etc. If you need a break from the conference, the bike-share bikes are a quick way to get around the city, including riding down along the river. And if you’re a cyclist, Mellow Johnny’s (which, unfortunately, is part-owned by a certain Austin-area discredited pro cyclist) has road and mountain bike rentals. The mountain biking down along Zilker Park and Barton Creek is a blast albeit a bit rugged in spots. I don’t know if this happens every year at the same time as the conference, but Zilker Park had a massive kite-flying event one year that I was there.

Wall art at Mellow Johnny’s

There are legendary BBQ spots in Austin, but with notoriously long lines and perhaps an inability to make reservations. Check those out in advance.

The opening social on Sun can be good, but it’s not well-suited to introverts. On Mon morning, they have an “orientation” session that’s worth attending.

On the topic of introverts, I wrote this 2-part “How to network at conferences as an introvert” guide:

• PART 1: https://propelskills.com/a-salespersons-guide-to-conference-networking-for-fun-education-and-profit-part-1-of-2/
• PART 2: https://propelskills.com/a-salespersons-guide-to-conference-networking-for-fun-education-and-profit-part-2-of-2/

If the above description sounds like your kind of event, 10 out of 10 recommended. Additional images here.

Well, they were the ones who raised education as an issue …

Jeff Dieffenbach

Credit: Photo by Max Fischer from Pexels

Let’s address the elephant (ha!) in the room right up front. My politics lean progressive. But I’ll do my best not to let those politics get in the way of my comments on a June 28, 2021 Boston Globe article entitled, “Generation Z seeks the kind of results that Republicans can bring to the table.“

In keeping with the theme of this blog, let me note that my comments aren’t completely out of school–authors John Olds and Samuel Garber raise education as one of four “Es” that young Americans care about: “entrepreneurship, education, the environment, and equality.” While I don’t know where “entrepreneurship” would poll among this demographic, I’d certainly agree with the other three.

On the topic of education, Olds and Garber might consider a trip back to school to brush up on critical thinking, argument, and debate.

For those outside the paywall or unable/unwilling to muster the energy to click through to the article, Olds and Garber begin:

As a generation born into endless foreign wars, tempered by a devastating financial crisis, and coming to maturity during a pandemic, Generation Z has a persistent yearning for any semblance of attention to the issues affecting young Americans. Throughout the past year, we have listened to and learned from our peers on the ground throughout the country and heard their complaints about our current state of politics. Our generation is frustrated that the political system does not care about them. Unfortunately, the byproduct of this sentiment has been a Democratic Party that feigns interest in us in exchange for our votes. The Democrats manipulate young voters with undeliverable promises such as free health care and free education even though these so-called solutions are not free, substantive, or even able to be implemented. The frustration of young Americans is not borne of innate progressivism; it is borne of a lack of choice. Over the past year, we have engaged with members of Generation Z across the country with town halls, grass-roots programming, and social media campaigns through the organization we cofounded: Gen Z Grow Our Platform.

My main objection will be one of asking for evidence, the foundation of making an argument. I won’t tread into the waters of what-about-ism, so I’ll just ask for evidence that the Democratic Party has a monopoly on feigning interesting in exchange for votes, manipulating voters, and the like. Readers interested in learning more might start with Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter with Kansas? I’ll certainly agree, however, that young Americans have a lack of choice.

Not that Olds and Garber are looking to conceal their partisanship, but I suspect that I’m not the only one to notice that “Gen Z Grow Our Platform” abbreviates to Gen Z GOP.

Young Americans feel ignored by political power structures. As Democrats pay lip service to their causes, Republicans are seen as antagonists. And through it all, the next generation of American leadership desires a good-faith engagement on the issues they care most about: entrepreneurship, education, the environment, and equality. These four policy areas have Republican-inspired solutions, but the party needs to communicate its position on these ideas and have a conversation around them to properly engage young Americans.

“… have Republican-inspired solutions as well as Democratic ones, but the party needs …” There, fixed it for you.

This generation has a deep desire to innovate and create the businesses of the future [ENTREPRENEURSHIP]. We want to be our own bosses and manage purpose-driven enterprises. Republicans have long supported the free market, but we have failed to share how those policies allow this generation to fulfill their dreams. The conservative movement has an opportunity to own this issue. It’s time to communicate the connection between market systems and personal independence. On policy, Republicans stand with the risk-takers and dreamers, but we must highlight this mission.

Failure noted.

Generation Z is faced with an educational crisis: mountains of student debt and a general feeling that the EDUCATION system does not serve them adequately. Republicans must prioritize solutions that reduce the cost of attending college and prepare students for real life. Republican administrations have long spoken about the value of educational choice and academic freedom. Yet these messages and policies have not translated into narrower achievement gaps or a sense of hope. Republicans must address educational issues proposing real solutions to the issues families face. Conservatives can offer a pedagogy that prepares students for life and for the specific job they intend to hold upon graduation or the businesses they want to build, all while standing for free speech and the advancement of free thought.

Failure noted.

As for addressing student loan debt, that’s an area in which the noise is all made by Democrats.

While Generation Z cares about the health of the natural ENVIRONMENT, many Republicans are continually sandbagged by climate change denial. While Democrats dominate environmental policy discussions with talk of a Green New Deal, Republicans cannot be unengaged. As Democrats posit doom, Republicans cannot offer denial. Generation Z seeks results, and Republicans can bring these to the table. The conservative movement should prioritize free-market solutions to climate change, propose common-sense pathways to a renewable energy future, and give some indication to Generation Z that they care about the global issue of our time. Republicans can put forward solutions that will actually work and be enacted.

Failure noted.

It’s of course not fair to say that Democrats “posit doom”–the Green New Deal is all about positing a future that works. On the topic of the environment, we quickly find ourselves back on education’s turf. Namely, a belief in science.

EQUALITY is an important issue for Generation Z. Whether it be on the basis of religion, gender, race, or sexual orientation, young Americans are keenly aware of the inequalities that persist in our society. If the Republican Party is to be successful, we need to discuss how conservatism must offer equal opportunity in our economy, our workplaces, our communities, and for our families. A Republican Party that values inclusivity of races, voices, and identities is the only GOP that can win the hearts and minds of Generation Z. As cancel culture and “woke” politics pervade the national discourse, Republicans can occupy reasonable ground. Valuing equality of voices — conservative and liberal, traditional and nontraditional — is crucial and common sense.

Failure noted.

The cancel culture extremes of the left are admittedly a reaction too far. But they are by far not the perspective of the left as a whole.

These four issue areas are the keys to success. Republicans and conservatives have the solutions, but we must talk about them. The defining feature of Republicanism can be a devotion to positive change for the next generation, or it can be a preoccupation with the past. As Gen Z Grow Our Platform refocuses its energy on these important issues, we intend to show Generation Z that the American right can meet them where they are and deliver real progress. John Olds is the executive director and Samuel Garber is the executive vice president of Gen Z Grow Our Platform.

If the American right can meet young Americans where they are and deliver real results, I’d be thrilled. America should aspire to a vibrant two-party system. We’re only one party away.

The article’s subtitle echoes the point above: “But the party needs to engage the next generation of leaders in good faith.”

Indeed.

Ignorance is bliss?

Jeff Dieffenbach

[Credit: Student Loan Hero]

Fordham political science professor Nicholas Tampio’s Boston Globe opinion piece, “How much do English majors make? Don’t ask” (PDF), wouldn’t rate a passing grade in any college course I’ve ever taken.

Professor Tampio eventually gets around to an interesting line of thought (more on that below), but not until he’s weakened his credibility beyond repair. His central argument is that students in higher education shouldn’t know anything about the earnings that result from their selection of university and major, lest they be steered away from by some measures worthy but less lucrative professions. Perhaps he’s due for a re-read of the mission statement of the very university where he plies his craft?

Fordham University, the Jesuit University of New York, is committed to the discovery of Wisdom and the transmission of Learning, through research and through undergraduate, graduate and professional education of the highest quality. Guided by its Catholic and Jesuit traditions, Fordham fosters the intellectual, moral and religious development of its students and prepares them for leadership in a global society.

https://www.fordham.edu/info/20057/about/2997/mission_statement

“Discovery of wisdom” indeed.

In an ideal world, people would be free to follow their educational passions. And if that education were free, likely more would. But as Student Loan Hero reports, Americans owe $1.7 trillion-with-a-T in student loan debt, almost $740B more than they owe on credit card debt.

A freshman matriculating at Fordham in the fall of 2021 faces a tuition, fees, room, and board bill of over $80,000. Is professor Tampio really suggesting that these student should know less about the implications of their higher education decisions than they do about their choice of mobile phone?

I’d take issue with professor Tampio’s stance were he an objective observer. But he’s not–assuming that his Fordham compensation reflects a significant portion of his income, the self-interest is blinding.

Professor Tampio’s opinion piece comes in response to a bipartisan group of US Senators backing the College Transparency Act (CTA), which would ensure that

students, families, policymakers, institutions, and employers have access to accurate, timely, and high-quality information to answer critical questions about college access, affordability, completion, workforce outcomes, and equity.

Sounds reasonable to me. Professor Tampio continues …

Professor Tampio: "Unfortunately, the College Transparency Act could reshape how students, families, policymakers, and the public view the purposes of higher education."

Unfortunately?

Professor Tampio: "The system would publicize only some outputs of college — especially how much money students make — and not, for instance, surveys of graduates’ satisfaction. This would have the effect of nudging students and families into viewing college as being primarily about making money."

I’d love to see measures such as satisfaction be added to what the CTA proposes to collect and report. But I wouldn’t let the absence of such measures stand in the way of passing the CTA.

Professor Tampio: "American higher education’s commitment to academic freedom means that professors get to choose what to teach and research, and students have options about majors and courses."

Why shouldn’t students have access to information to inform their selection from among those options?

Professor Tampio: "Do we really want central planners to set up a system that leads students to think more about their anticipated income?"

The CTA is hardly suggesting the creation of “central planners”–rather, it’s suggesting a source of data not unlike that collected by the Department of Education or the Department of Labor to inform wise decision-making.

Professor Tampio: "Does anybody doubt that engineering graduates earn more than comparative literature graduates, at least shortly after graduation? Most students already have a decent idea about what they will be able to do with their degrees."

Professor Tampio asserts without evidence that “most students already have a decent idea about what they will be able to do with their degrees. Unless he’s defining “decent idea” so abstractly as to be without use, I see no support for this claim.

Professor Tampio: The College Transparency Act could lay the foundation for the government to eventually refuse to pay for programs with modest student economic outcomes.

Here, finally, professor Tampio has an interesting point. Data collected as part of the College Transparency Act could be used by the federal government or by state governments to choose how and where to direct funding in support of higher education.

Do we want government making this type of decision? That is, directing funding toward institutions and majors that demonstrate good outcomes? We do. But the debate here is worth having, unlike the debate on whether to collect the data and inform students and families.

May I have my attention, please?

Jeff Dieffenbach

[credit: Fast Company March 2016 – anti-distraction helmet]

As the Fast Company article at the link in the caption above spells out, distraction’s assault on attention is hardly a new phenomenon. It’s long history makes it no less an assault, however.

Maybe the “everything’s available at a click” essence of digital isn’t the culprit. Maybe attention has never really been my thing. Maybe my attention challenges fall well within the norm. Maybe it’s just that the way I perceive my attention fails to live up to my attention ideals.

Of late, I’ve been fighting back. And gaining ground. So I’ll tell you about it … just as soon as I’m done checking out this new cycling video my friend Slacked me.

Where was I? Oh, right, regaining control over my attention.

I don’t recall exactly when this attention quest captured my, well, attention. But Barbara Oakley’s excellent “Learning How to Learn” self-paced online course on Coursera (free, or with a credential for a nominal fee), co-taught with Dr. Terrence Sejnowski, gave me a great first tool in my attention toolbox.

Namely, the Pomodoro Technique.

1. Decide on the task to be done
2. Set the “pomodoro” timer (traditionally, to 25 minutes, but vary as works for you)
3. Work on the task
4. End work when the timer rings
5. Take a short 3-5 minute break and then return to step 2
6. After 4 “pomodoros,” take a longer 15-30 minute break and then return to step 1

I’ve found the Pomodoro Technique to work well, but only within a larger tactical approach that I developed to help me train my attention where I want. They key here is “tactical”–my objective has been to find practical techniques that work for me, not necessarily extend an evidence-based body of work.

To that end, I searched for practical, published, evidence-based approaches, but quickly find myself awash in a sea of articles: “5 steps to pay attention,” “7 easy ways to avoid distraction,” “8 tips and tricks to focusing your mind,” and so on. That’s not to say there isn’t a great resource out there, but I haven’t found it. (Granted, while looking, I may have gotten distracted … if you know of something good, please post in the comments.)

My approach:

1. Commit to wanting to pay attention to the task at hand. Without this commitment, the shiny objects will win every time.
   
2. Appreciate that attention to some tasks, such as participating in a meeting or class, can be really hard to regain once lost. Once you stop following the thread, tuning back in and trying to make sense of what’s going on can be quite difficult, making regaining attention even harder still.
   
3. Don’t try to be a superhero. Commit to paying attention for a reasonable amount of time. That duration will likely vary with the nature of the task, the time of day, and other factors. The Pomodoro Technique’s 25 minutes is a good place to start.
   
4. Don’t fall prey to thinking that you need to finish a something during your period of attention (another lesson from Learning How to Learn). That kind of “product” thinking will get you in trouble for all but the smallest/most manageable products. Instead, think process in the form of feasible units of time.
   
5. Hide distractions. I have my digital life set up that I only get notifications on my phone, and with a couple of exceptions, only visually. So when I’m in attention mode, I turn my phone upside-down so that I don’t see the new message indicators. (Note that research shows that even having a phone in the same room with you, literally turned off and out of sight in a drawer, still creates a distraction–if you can, put your phone and other devices in another room or even on another floor.
   
6. Take notes or otherwise practice active, engaged learning. In essence, a note you take is a test you’re giving yourself. Tests have the effect of cementing information in your long term memory. And active learning is shown to be more engaging than passive.
   
7. In keeping with taking notes, jot down on a to-do list any unrelated tasks that come to mind. Don’t head off to check the weather, simply note down to check the weather when the task at hand is complete. [source]
   
8. Train yourself to pay attention to when you’re starting to lose attention. I quickly developed the meta-awareness to sense when I’m drifting off-task and direct myself back on.
   
9. Reward yourself for having stayed on task. The reward isn’t just the break between “Pomodoros.” It doesn’t need to be a cookie, a New England IPA, or cold hard cash. It just needs to be an immediate self-pat on the back to prompt a brief hit of dopamine for accomplishing what you’re trying to accomplish (see 1, above).
   
10. Don’t punish yourself for imperfection. You won’t always pay attention when you want to. That’s okay, water over the dam and all that. The only thing that matters is the next attention you pay, not the last one you didn’t.

Is the list above tried-and-true? Well, it works for me. Has it been subjected to a randomized control trial? Certainly not by me.

The list above speaks to tactical steps to help stay on task. More broadly, generally healthy practices will also help with attention. Be well-rested. And well-nourished. Be physically fit. Develop a mindfulness practice (this article references unspecified research citing the attention benefits of meditation). Practice paying attention–doing so leads to a better ability to pay attention [source].

With the tactical approach outlined above, I’ve been paying better attention. And feeling better about myself for doing so. I now think of myself as the kind of person who can pay attention, and that’s a change in mindset that’s making a far bigger difference than I would have thought.

For further reading … interesting and potentially useful articles on attention

• What Brain Research Says About Paying Attention [ASCD]
• Academic Gains through Improved Learning Effectiveness (AGILE) [U of Southern Maine]
• The Science of Attention: How To Capture And Hold The Attention of Easily Distracted Students [InformED; the instructor’s perspective, not particularly actionable by the learner]
• This Is How To Increase Your Attention Span: 5 Secrets From Neuroscience
• 8 Quick Ways To Improve Your Attention Span [Fast Company]
• Attention, Please! What Every Man Ought to Know About Focus [part 1 in a series]
• Become the Supreme Commander of Your Mind: How to Effectively Manage Your Attention [part 2]
• Your Concentration Training Program: 11 Exercises That Will Strengthen Your Attention [part 3]

(Don’t) Do the Hustle

Jeff Dieffenbach

With apologies to Van McCoy and the Soul City Symphony …

In November of 2019, I attended MIT’s third annual “AI and the Work of the Future Congress” congress at the Institute’s iconic Kresge Auditorium.

[credit: Wikipedia Commons]

Imagine the lobby area below not empty as if in pandemic, but buzzing with activity only partially fueled by the morning coffee service.

[credit: MIT Division of Student Life]

Guests excitedly chatted with speakers and each other. Business cards were exchanged, digitally and the old fashioned way. Clusters of people formed, chatted, then morphed into new clusters. The networking energy was such that a few hands were even empty of mobile devices.

In a word, the scene conveyed “hustle.”

The hustle was contagious. Who wouldn’t want to be part of MIT and a topic as future-focused as AI? Who wouldn’t want to be making the rounds, pressing the flesh, connecting, advance their career in some way small or large?

In the moment, it dawned on me that my musing wasn’t just a rhetorical question: who wouldn’t want to be part of the hustle?

In leading companies and universities and other organizations, it may be easy to lose sight of the fact that hustle may not be a ubiquitous trait. In fact, it might not even be a majority trait. Or even a necessary trait to the adding of value.

If true, then, what’s the opposite of hustle? The words that came immediately to mind weren’t of the more positive variety.

Merriam Webster helpfully shares some insight. “Near Antonyms” include “slowness,” “lethargy,” and “inactivity” among numerous others. Not how most people would like to be characterized.

Reading further, I quickly came to “Antonyms” (the adjective “near” having been dropped) … “deliberateness” and “deliberation.” Much more positive than the Near Antonyms.

A vibrant worlds needs hustlers. They invent products. And create companies. And plant the seeds that change the world.

But a vibrant world also needs deliberators. They make products. And staff companies. And nurture the plants that change the world.

We don’t tell grand stories about those who go to work, put in real effort, get a quality job done, and then go home … to families, to friends, to hobbies, to life. But at the median, this is who we are.

It’s a truism to say that the rate of societal change is always increasing. It’s likely, I think, that this rate of change will soon surpass the ability of humans to adapt to and thrive in the face of this change.

Hustlers will resist this inflection point … for a while–it’s the deliberators who will be the first to find themselves in its crosshairs. The key here is “for a while.” For the good of deliberators and hustlers alike, we must strive to be a robust, symbiotic collective rather than a collection of individuals working separately to hustle their way ahead.

Hustlers work well in implicit environments. Deliberators benefit more from explicit structures. Organization and learning leaders must cater to both. For deliberators, that means drawing clear career paths. Recommending specific learning experiences. Making direct connections to coaches and mentors. And rewarding a job well done.

Since writing this post, I came across the writer Tessie McMillan Cottom in a guest spot on an Apr 2021 episode of the Ezra Klein Show (an NYT podcast). In a fall 2020 essay entitled "The Hustle Economy," she makes the point expressed in the sub-title: "inequality—especially racial inequality—is not only produced through the job market but through people’s ability to hustle." Her take on hustle is different than mine, and important in that difference, but as I started to read it, I was expecting (dreading?) that she was going to make my point both earlier and better than I did. Crisis averted.

I’m honored to be a member of the McKinsey-convened Consortium for Learning Innovation (formerly Consortium for Advancing Adult Learning and Development). The CLI enables “rewarding lives and work through distinctive, continuous improvements in adult learning in the workplace.” In the four annual meetings I’ve attended since joining in 2017, and in numerous conversations in between, I’ve been impressed by the primary focus that the impressive collection of CLI members have on the “vulnerable worker,” whether that means someone at risk of or already falling behind because of intrinsic abilities, technology, globalism, … or simply being a deliberator.

Are colleges over-promising?

Jeff Dieffenbach

EdSurge Higher Ed (No. 192 | November 22 2019) posed this question: Are colleges overpromising?

Here’s more context and my response (a version of which was published in No. 193 | November 29 2019):

 

“If our career aspirations surpass the available opportunities, and our self-perceived talents exceed our actual talents, we are surely destined to be miserable at work, and perhaps this explains the prevalence of low employee engagement ratings despite more and more money being devoted to giving employees a consumer-like experience. The equivalent in the world of love would be if everyone aspired to date movie stars like Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie: the result would be an epidemic of single people.”

—Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic and Becky Frankiewicz, both executives at ManpowerGroup, in an op-ed that argues colleges overpromise and set up unrealistic expectations for students

We’re curious what people think of this argument. Are colleges overpromising? Shouldn’t students aim high?

With the caveat that my experience attending college is now decades in the rear view mirror, and that my visibility into my sons’ much more recent experiences was limited, the short answer to the “Colleges over-promising?” question is no. At least, I don’t see colleges making the explicit, tactical pitch to the effect of “Come to Wonderful U, launch a wonderful career.”

More broadly, though, I think there *IS* a general “in the ether” perception that college is the golden ticket. And historically, that’s been true, at least from a lifetime earnings perspective.

In an era with much less granularity of information, the college degree was for employers the best signal going. It just wasn’t necessarily a very good signal. With at least the potential for much higher resolution around competencies that job candidates offer and that job functions require, we can do better at making an effective match. And that “better” may result in a college degree meaning less than it did in the past.

The new mantra must be “always learning.” It’s not so important where this learning comes from as it is that this learning is integrated with, valued by, and at least partly paid for by work. That no longer needs to mean beginning at age 22 with a degree (and a big stack of debt) in hand. Why not start at age 20? Or 18? And with the mindset that it will come in smaller chunks, just-in-time, and lifelong.

Two stories from the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting

Jeff Dieffenbach

At the Fri MIT reception with TPPers Katie (’16) and Sarah (’18)

At first blush, neither of these stories fits a more formal definition of teaching and learning (the purported domain of this blog). But I learned a lot from both.

ONE

I’m down in our nation’s capital for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Arts and Science (AAAS). Heading into the opening expo Thu evening, the woman ahead of me asked the staffer if she could enter despite not having a badge yet (registration had just closed for the evening).

The staffer turns to a colleague and asks if it’s okay.

Colleague says to the woman, “Can you at least name a scientist?”

Woman replies with the best pro move ever, “Me. I’m a scientist. I’m speaking tomorrow morning.” Boom, mic drop.

 

TWO

Sunday morning at the MIT booth gracing the AAAS expo. The conference puts out coffee and tea service to help draw people into the expo area. Being a good environmentalist, I take my tea in one of the mugs and not a paper cup.

My colleague Bob similarly avails himself of the offered caffeine. In a similar mug. But coffee, not tea.

Amazingly, or maybe just oddly, I’ve never had coffee. I mean, never. A single drop had never crossed my lips. (Coffee was always a drink for grown-ups.)

Maybe you can see where this is headed.

Bob puts his mug down next to mine. Or maybe I put mine down next to his. I absent-mindedly reach for my mug and take a sip. But I’m distracted by a conversation Bob’s having with someone from NASA. An actual rocket scientist. Which, the rest of this story demonstrate, I am clearly not.

The distraction’s such that I only subconsciously notice how foul my tea has become. A second sip, though, and my frontal cortex is fully aware. I’m looking not at a crisp brown elixir, but rather, a cream-infused taupe sludge. I’m suave enough not to spit the vile brew all over the NASA scientist, so I swallow, grab my tea, and do a 60 second silentish gargle. That doesn’t quite do it, but two more do and I’m back to normal.

Scarred, but normal.

Back in Boston, I related the story to my sons. My older son, the teacher, sums it up this way, “You had lukewarm coffee. Generic stuff, from the conference food service. And with cream. You really couldn’t have done First Coffee any worse.”

Kid’s not wrong.

What does it mean for a team to learn?

Jeff Dieffenbach

 
Moose skin boat, Canadian Museum of History

A colleague of mine studies how teams learn, perform, and learn while performing. After a bit of mulling on this topic, it occurred to me that I didn’t really know what it meant for a team to learn separate from learning acquired from the individual team members.

I failed to adequately express my confusion and the conversation didn’t really get anywhere before dropping off both of our respective front burners. The question that I should have asked, but only recently formulated, is this: when a team disbands, in what form does team learning continue to exist?

Fast forward a year or two. In the course of the MIT Open Learning Journal Club that I lead with another colleague, we read the excellent Joint interactions in large online knowledge communities: The A3C framework (Jeong et.al. 2017).

The A3C framework posits that when individual interact, they may do so with varying degrees of shared–or unshared–goals, processes, and outcomes. The authors elaborate on four degrees of this sharing, from least to most: attendance, coordination, cooperation, collaboration.

Attending individuals have individual goals, processes, and outcomes. Imagine, for instance, a learner in a massive open online course (MOOC) interested in learning for himself but not in any way invested in the learning of others.

At the other end of the spectrum, consider a symphony. Yes, the individual members may have their own goals, outcomes, and even processes, but in the actual performance of the symphony, those individual wants are subsumed by melding of talents into a single piece of art.

By comparison, coordination and cooperation fall somewhere in between. The distinctions (unimportant for the topic of what team learning means) are illustrated in this table.

The article introduces the term “stigmergy,” the mediation of team interaction via artifacts. By virtue of the existence of an artifact (for instance, a job aid, training manual, or how-to video), it’s not necessary for all team members to participate in all facets of creating the artifact. Rather, they might contribute a specific part of the artifact along the way.

More important, the artifact serves future members of the team, or even members of different teams who subsequently encounter the artifact after the original team has disbanded.

What does it mean for a team to learn? It’s the collection of artifacts (including the documentation of the processes that arrived at those artifacts) created by the team in the course of carrying out its work.

postscript 2019-07-09: In doing some reading on and thinking about the topic, it occured to me that “team learning” goes beyond just artifacts to include the team members themselves, to the extent that they remain available to be asked by others for lessons learned.