Blog posts

<p>The bottom line: Organizations can no longer focus strictly on working, while ignoring living and learning. Neither can you, as a knowledge professional. The enterprise of the future must bring all three of those areas into balance.</p><p>Living means loving what you do and finding fulfillment in it. Working means doing what you love, in a way that is both challenging and rewarding. Learning means continually making new discoveries and putting those discoveries to work, both personally and professionally.</p><p>In essence, you and your organization, and your extended network, are now co-dependent. Your ability to grow is limited if your organization and network aren’t growing. Likewise, if you aren’t growing, you are inhibiting the growth of the organizations to which you belong. Think brain trust, as opposed to assembly line.</p>

Results showed that, while instructional designers apparently do make use of process-based ID models, they do not spend the majority of their time working with them nor do they follow them in a rigid fashion. They also engage in a wide variety of other tasks that are not reflected in ID models.

Rowland (1992) reported his results to be congruent with the research on expertise and indicated that expert instructional designers clearly employ a definable problem solving and decision-making process. He suggested that ID tools, unlike procedural design models, should foster a deep understanding of the system of concern and should include such characteristics as flexibility of structures and processes, a workspace for construction of problem representation, and mechanisms for making multiple links between problems and solutions. Rowland suggested that, rather than to be taught procedures or even problem-solving heuristics, novices need to develop experience in the design process and that a case-based method of teaching, providing involvement with real or realistic situations, might be the most appropriate way for new instructional designers to learn the design process.

Design is always about making judgments about design situations that are complex, rich and replete with tensions and contradictions.

People earning over $100,000 a year are almost twice as likely to apologize after an argument or mistake as those earning $25,000 or less, the survey found.

They were also asked whether they would apologize in three situations: when they felt they were entirely to blame for a problem; when they thought they were only partly at fault; and when they believed they were blameless.

In all three cases, "a person's willingness to apologize was an almost perfect predictor of their place on the income ladder," the study says.

Few Internet users say they Google themselves regularly -- about three-quarters of self-searchers say they have done so only once or twice. And most who have done so consider what they find accurate. Only 4 percent of Internet users said embarrassing or inaccurate information online resulted in a bad experience.

<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">Kirshner</span> argues, very clearly, that non-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">instructivist</span> methods result in no better learning than direct instruction, and sometimes in *less* learning, because of the 'cognitive overhead' required in self-directed methodologies.<br><br><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">Kirshner's</span> argument on this point is not based on experimental data, but rather, on his theory of cognition. Specifically, he argues that short-term memory has a limited capacity, and that if some of this capacity is not available for new facts (because it is taken up 'selecting scientific principles') then the transfer of information to the student is reduced.<br><br>I respond to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">this</span> argument by showing how <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">Kirshner's</span> theory is false. We do not 'retrieve theories' into short term memory and then 'select' from them. That is not how thinking works; that is not ow scientific thinking works. And therefore, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">Kirshner's</span> argument, on these grounds, against student-directed learning, fails.

The best mechanism for demonstrating knowledge is not likely the production of a certain set of facts on demand. Expertise in a discipline on the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_54">part</span> of a student is something that is typically *recognized*, not measured, by people who are already experts in the field.