How are you intelligent?

Isn't this a great question? I heard it recently when Sir Ken Robinson was interviewed on the Classic FM radio program. He suggests replacing 'how intelligent are you?' with 'how are you intelligent?'
I particularly like the difference in intention between the two questions. 'How intelligent are you?' is a closed question, designed to put you in a box - essentially 'are you good at IQ tests?' From a training point of view, the underlying assumption might be that if you are not intelligent there is not much we can do to help you learn (your problem, not ours!). The second question is much more open and is designed to find out more about you - and to determine the best way to help you learn and grow. The question 'how are you intelligent?' has a nice assumption that everyone is intelligent - that there are different ways to be intelligent. It puts responsibility back on the teacher, employer, or training team to find the best way to help the individual to learn. Imagine the difference this simple question could make to our approach to managing performance and designing learning experiences.

Sir Ken Robinson is a specialist in creativity and education. I highly recommend a video of a speech he gave at TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) about the ways in which schools kill creativity. His comments have implications for creativity and learning in the workplace, in addition to his focus on schools. His speech is worth watching as a great illustration of a speaker who uses stories to engage with the audience and make his point. And, for those of us grappling with the latest ideas about good PowerPoint design, it's interesting to note he has no visual support for his talk!

Do you 'play to your strengths'?

The concept of different ways to be intelligent reminded me of another author and speaker I've come across lately - Marcus Buckingham. His theory is that each of us should play to our strengths - we should find activities which energise us and make sure that's what we're doing for most of the time. He tells the story of a child bringing home a school report with something like one A, a few Cs and one F and asks which result would get the most attention from the parent. Most people respond that they would focus on the F, while Marcus suggests focussing on the A. This is based on his belief that we should put more energy into what we are already good at and enjoy. In his workshops Marcus asks people to identify activities which are strengths. His definition of a 'strength' is a bit different - it's something that strengthens you (not necessarily something that you're good at). If you'd like to find out more I need to admit that I first saw Marcus Buckingham on Oprah, but I highly recommend having a look at his workshop on her site.

Marcus suggests to workshop participants that they should find work which allow them to best 'play to' their strengths. This might mean changing jobs, but it might also mean redesigning your job or changing your focus. In doing this he acknowledges that there are always going to be some parts of a job you don't like doing (I can't tell the Tax Office I've stopped doing my BAS return each quarter because I've decided to 'play to my strengths!). Marcus does suggest, though, that an understanding of individual strengths can be part of a discussion about creative ways to assign work within a team.

One distinction Marcus makes is between things you're good at and things you like doing. There may be something you're good at (as you often hear from others) that you just don't like to do. This is not a strength, by his definition. This reminds me of a job I left once, after it failed to live up the promise of being a 'career enriching opportunity' (!) and turned out to be pretty high in administrative tasks. When I resigned, the HR Manager had me complete a series of psych tests - basically to make sure they didn't make the mistake of recruiting someone like me for the job again! The consultant who came in to administer the tests compared some of my aptitudes against the job profile and had to admit I'd been a pretty good fit. But when they looked at my preferences, they could see why I hadn't enjoyed the job (to put it mildly!).

Imagine if our approach to organisational capability followed some of Marcus' ideas. How could a performance management system be structured to focus on identifying and growing individual strengths (rather than identifying 'performance gaps' and addressing them)? How could the learning strategy support this idea?

What elearning isn't

Finally, in an idea 'borrowed' from a graphic design blog (http://www.myinkblog.com/)

elearning isn't:

· just converting PowerPoint slides to Flash movies

· beyond the capability of your organisation's learning and development team

· necessarily expensive (any more)

· the answer to all of your training needs

· a process of taking content and dumping it into web pages

· a cheap solution when you can't afford to do 'real' learning

· something which a Subject Matter Expert should be developing, without an instructional designer on hand

· necessarily successful just because it has some nice on-screen interactions

· engaging unless there is an opportunity for learners to complete meaningful and realistic activities, to apply the information and skills they are learning

· the same as classroom learning, from a design and development point of view.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments about this newsletter. I generally issue a newsletter about once a quarter. If you do not want to receive future newsletters, please respond to this email with ‘unsubscribe’ in the subject field.

Kind regards

Diane Wilson

P: 9960 7500

M: 0425 203 655

E: diane.wilson@synchronism.com.au

W: www.synchronism.com.au

Synchronism

design for learning

Note: Links to resources and other sites are offered in the spirit of sharing information. Inclusion of a site in this newsletter should not be regarded as an endorsement by Synchronism of any product, service or opinion offered by the linked site.