Public Promise of Certification

Every credential (certification, degree, license, accreditation) makes public promises.  There may be specific promises to each credential, all credentials make three basic promises:                                     

• the credential holder will be better off with the credential than without
• the industry will be better off with a credential providing standards for practitioners
• the general public (those receiving services from the credential holder) will be able to see and experience a difference in services received by credential holders.  

Yes, those are positive differences.  There's no point in doing this if the difference is negative.

That is, a public promise of any credential (certification, in particular) is that the world is a better place because that credential exists.

Now, comes the challenge of measuring, and proving that the promises have been met.

The individual is better off 

How might we know that an individual credential holder has benefited from the certification?

• Gets work in the field 
• Gets promotions or get promotions sooner
• Receives higher pay than an uncredentialed person 
• Is perceived as valued and valuable 

Work

Many instructional designers look at themselves and say, "I have work; therefore, I don't need a certification".  They might be consultants working through staffing and consulting houses or they might have full employment or they may be working irregularly as independents.  They have work. So, they don't see a need for credentials, because they are working today. 

However, as individuals mature and their skills increase, they find themselves competing against the newcomers.  Now, newcomers keep the field fresh.  They also help keep the pay scale down. Without a credential, it can be more and more difficult to ask for the higher salaries and promotions that different your experience from that of a newcomer.

In addition, hot new tools, theories, and methodologies comes along.  As IDs we enjoy the energy that these innovations bring to our field.  However, regardless of experience, innovations also dumped back to beginning competing against the least experienced members of the field.  This becomes a career form of that board game, Chutes and Ladders (Milton Bradley; Hasbro) or Snakes and Ladders (UK).  Without an external third-party endorsement of ones skills, the instructional design field is much like Chutes and Ladders. ID's work hard to demonstrate their skills, build credibility, learn new tools/theories/methods and generally stay on top of their field.  That is, each ID works to climb their individual career ladder through demonstration of work and skill.  Then, along comes a 'chute' -- a new elearning tool, a new learning theory, a new development methodology, the need to be a project manager as well as an ID, etc., etc.

In addition, having work today, does not mean that one will be employed in the future.  That next chute could simply be a downsizing or recession.

Credentials do not guarantee that you as an individual will have work; however, they do work toward demonstrating that their credential holders have jobs and better jobs than those who are not credentialed.  In a world with credentialed players, the non-credentialed player is the one who is more competing for work less successfully.

Promotion

Promotion is a harder concept in the instructional design world.  A few very large full-employment situations do have levels of instructional design (ID-1, 2,3 or Learning Analyst, ID, Learning Architect, etc.).  These organizations typically have more than fifty instructional designers, making it worth their time to different skill levels.  Otherwise, employers seldom make different skill levels or provide promotions.

Independent consultants do not see promotions at all in their career.  In fact, any beginning learning consultant can bill themselves as a Learning Architect or Learning Strategist, if they want to be known as such.  They is no requirement that they demonstrate advanced experience levels in order to use an advanced level title.

Consultants who subcontract through staffing or consulting houses seldom see an opportunity to move up to a higher rung in these organization’s temporary hire career ladder.  At best an ID may become a Sr. ID on their payment scale.  More about pay in a moment.

In the world of promotions, the movement upward is tied to pay and respect -- the next two public promises for IDs.  Job titles are one reflection of promotion.  Check out the job boards.  Instructional designers have very few job titles that differentiate skill level.  You’ll seldom see listing for and ID-3, Learning Architect or Learning Strategist.  Our field is weak in promote-ability.  

Higher Pay

Everyone wants better pay.  Advanced degrees and credentials are often used as hallmarks of advancing skill that warrant better pay.   Strangely enough, individuals coming out of college with a doctoral degree often find themselves making entry level salaries.   A degree does not constitute higher pay.

Internal consultant IDs usually see an annual salary increase along with bonuses.  Meanwhile, external consultants subcontracting through staffing/consulting houses fight for $5 an hour increases and more balanced projects (ones that don’t require 60 hours a week for 6 weeks, then leave them without work for 6 months).  The independent consultant building a practice usually works that 60-hour week in order to manage the administration and marketing of their business (themselves) and is able to bill at a rate acceptable to their clientele.  That is, their first year or two of projects bill a very low rates.  Slowly, over time, they are able to increase their rates and create a form of increasing pay scale.

In this mixed pay environment, credentials will eventually lead the credential holder to an position of where they can prove their worth and ask for higher salaries.  Certified individuals often do see the benefit of being certified, because industry values the certification process.  Certifications, especially evidence-based certifications, are deemed to demonstrate business acumen, while college degrees tend to be de-valued as being more academic than business orient.  Certification can make a difference in your paycheck.

Valued and Valuable

Everyone wants to be valued by their employer whether that is a full-employer supervisor or manager or a consulting client.  Proving ones value to an employer is usually all about doing the work first.   This means that anyone changing jobs or entering the field finds it difficult to demonstrate enough value to generate interest in hiring them.  We have all been in that position and asked that question: “how do I get my first job, when I have no experience to show for it?”

Now, think about being 50 years old with 25 years of experience and losing your job.  Suddenly, with massive experience, you are back in the soup with newbies trying desperately to land a job (or client).

Your experience has been devalued by the process of losing your job.   You are worthless… and expensive.  Who wants to hire a 50-year old ID?  In 2007 -2011, this was a common phenomenon due to recession.  By the cyclic laws finance, it will happen again every 10-15 years.  

What do evidence-based certifications provide that experience and degrees do not?

They provide a third-party review that validates that work meets standards.   The field must value the standards, of course.  This is a challenge for the instructional design and development world, because they have been a poor cousin to human resources whipped about by the winds of changing technologies, theories, and methodologies.  Just visit some of the social media discussion boards, everyone and their brother is promote a new theory, a new technology, or a modified methodology guaranteed to make your development more effective.  Into this chaotic stewpot, The Institute for Performance Improvement (www.tifpi.org) has provided a series evidence-based certifications specifically for instructional designers and developers.  These certifications are based on work that the ID has already done and measures that work as “insufficient”, “acceptable” or “outstanding” against nine standards.

Certified individuals can use their certification as a platform to demonstrate value.  Individuals with evidence-based certifications reviewed by field experts can ‘talk up’ the fact that their work has been reviewed and validated by experts.  This provides immediate proven value and increases ones valuableness to clients and employers.

The industry will be better off

The second set of public promises are to the industry (and employers) receiving credential holders. Credentials purport to improve the industry by setting standards  and ensuring that credential holders meet those standards.  Where the credential is evidence-based (i.e., based on work samples rather than on testing), the industry has proof that an individual has produce work to standards at least once.

While this is not proof that the individual will always do work to standards, it does increase the chances that they want to work at that level and will strive to produce work that is at least that good and, perhaps, better.

Every field has charlatans, individuals who talk a good line of schmooze but delivery poorly.  These may be individuals who are great sales people – great at selling themselves, at any rate – or just individuals who have learned how to play the smoke and mirrors game to give appearance that they are producing work, while getting others to cover for them.  

Well-structured certifications take this into account and provide techniques that will allow them to not certify individuals whose work does not warrant it.  How?  The following is not a comprehensive list, but it will show some key techniques used to weed out the charlatans.

• Blind reviews – a review where the reviewer does not know the person whose work is being reviewed and does not know who else may also be reviewing that individual’s work (a double-blind review).  Blind reviews mean that reviewer must judge the work, not the individual, their rank, or popularity.  
• Rubrics – a written description of what performances or outputs of a performance demonstrate working to standard.  Combined with any kind of expert review, rubrics provide a clear structure for evaluation of work.
• Standards –set a minimal expectation for the field.  Standards are set through a job/task analysis or a practice analysis.  These standards, then, become the measure of success in acquiring a credential, whether that success is a passing score on a knowledge test or passing rating on an evidence-based rubric in a double-blind review.    
• Proof of eligibility (e.g., experience, degrees, specific courses or schooling, passing scores and pre-test, etc.).  Where the goals is to demonstrate advanced skills, the eligibility requirements can be quite intense.  Where the goal is to set a minimal bar, the eligibility requirements will be less intense.  
• Evidence – in a testing-based certification, the evidence is knowledge validated through testing.  However, evidence-based certifications require proof of real work done for real clients.  Evidence here usually combines a reflection (an essay about the way that the candidate met that standard on the project submitted) plus artifacts or exhibits that demonstrate the standards. 
• Attestations – this letter from a client or supervisor usually attests to the fact that the individual candidate did do the work that he or she is submitting.  Attestations provide a level of assurance that the work is original and valid.  Attestations are important when working to ‘spec’ is not desired or when candidates are not given equally valid possible cases or projects against which they are measured (think of the college entrance essays).  Attestations provide a measure of reality.   
• Code of Ethics – every field has inherent ethical standards for everything from client’s information security to finances to legalities.  A signed agreement to the fields code of ethics is a starting point that says the individual pledge to behaving ethically.  However, that does not guarantee ethical behavior.  Therefore, organizations backing certifications must be empowered to respond to non-ethical behavior by removing individuals who demonstrate that they did not live up to their pledge. 
• Continuing education – certifications are time-delimited.  Some are annual, while others may be on 3-, 5-, or even 7-year renewal cycles.  Continuing education is one of the keys to renewal.  It is proof that the individual, once certified, does not sit on their laurels, but continues to grow within the field. When they ceased to grow and contribute, their certification ends.  

For a full-spectrum list of credential development techniques, consider taking courses in credential development.  Dr. Judith Hale provides a free webinar, Overview of Credentialing, that will start you down the credentialing path.  The point here is that the certification credential process is designed to bring the qualified individuals acclaim for their skills while weeding out those who do not qualify.

The general public

In every profession, there is a general public who receive the work of field and is served by individuals in the field, but who really do not know enough about the field to make informed judgments.  They know what they like and they may or may not be able to describe what they need.

Those personal perspectives are their (our) points of reference or personal needs lenses are the general public’s basis for judgment of the work in the field and practitioners.

Consider your own response to medical advice, for example.  Unless you were trained in medicine, your response is about personal perspectives and not about the science of the field.  Your personal needs lenses inform you whether you are receiving the medical care that you need and want… or not.
Likewise, as instructional designers and developers work with clients (internal or external), their work is evaluated and valued by a ‘public’ who are viewing it through their own personal needs lenses and not through the lens of work quality or working to standards.  ID’s often roll their eyes at the requests that they get from clients, but this is all about the fact that the client is unaware that their personal need lenses are interfering with their ability to get what they need.

What IDs (and any certified professional) wants is for their professional expertise to be acknowledged and valued by the general public.

In return, the general public appreciates certifications and other credentials as way to validate the practitioner in front of them has valid experience and will (probably) give them the best advice available.

Certifications help the general public feel that they are getting the best of the field; they increase confidence by the public in the practitioner.  They also ease the relationship between the certificant and the client-of-the-day by increasing that client’s confidence in them.

Are you certifiable? 

We have considered the role of the public promise of credentials (certifications, in particular) to individuals seeking certification, to the industry and employers of those certified and not certified in the field, and to the general public.  

What insights or ah-ha’s did you have while reading this?

Where these the promises you would have expected from a certification?  If not, what would you have expected?

One statement that comes up often when a new certification, like the ID certification, rolls out is: ‘Is this in demand by employers?’  Of course, for a new certification, it is not, yet, in demand.  However, this is an opportunity to be on the leading edge or on the trailing middle.   Individuals who step up to early certification build the base that causes employers and the general public to begin to, first, ‘prefer’ those who are certified and, eventually, ‘require’ the certification.  Individuals who wait, find themselves in the unenviable position of having to play catch-up when the field moves to requiring a certification.

So, are you a certifiable ID?  Check out the eligibility requires, the rubrics, the standards, and the process for application to this evidence-based credential in one of 15 different learning solutions.

Remember, you can acquire multiple ID certifications to build up your portfolio.  Each certification comes with a mark and badge.  I am now an ID (SEL) – the mark for Instructional Designer/ Developer of Synchronous Elearning.   

Join the ranks of certified IDs.  Learn how to use your current work projects to demonstrate that work to standards and deserve to be valued as an competent instructional designer or developer.

How Standards Build Workforce Capability

You may have noticed the dramatic news articles about insufficient workforce capacity.  Business wants to have the right people with the right skills working on the right tasks in the right location.  The drama occurs when locally available workforce does not have the right skills and cannot tackle the tasks.   Enter ‘capability building’.  

Capability:  A measure of the ability of an entity (department, organization, person, system) to achieve its objectives, especially in relation to its overall mission. (Businessdictionary.com).

For many, this definition jumpstarts our thinking and moves us directly to ‘provide training’, but training is only one of the tools in the capability market.  Notice the phrases ‘a measure’ and ‘achieve its objectives’.  In order for capability to develop, there must be a way to measure the workforce in relationship to the work (achieving objectives).  Sounds simple.  In some cases it is.  If all you need to measure is the number of widgets produced per shift, both the measurement and the objectives are relatively straightforward.   However, for many businesses, today’s work is very complex.

Instructional Design and Development

Consider the field of instructional design and development.  The work and market are fragmented, diverse, and undifferentiated (see blog, The State of Instructional Design).  In this field, any one assignment may be simple to produce, where the next one may be extremely complex.  Individuals may be required to use specific tools, specific methodologies, specific techniques, and even specific theories.  Others may have a range of such tools, methods, techniques, and theory from which they are expected to select the appropriate ones.  Comparison of work production is nearly impossible.

Only a fraction of the instructional design and development (ID) workforce comes with degrees in the field.  Everyone else layers ID experience on top of their own (non-ID) specialty where that specialty is could be represented by any other workforce field in existence.  Some simple have talent that they hone through experience.  Others have knowledge and practice supplemented with insight and wisdom. 

Many business leaders would prefer to hire the cheapest available talent, which often exists in distant markets and comes with little or no experience or expertise.   Many of the most experienced and talented seek better assignments, living venues, and pay.  Some choose to move out of full-employment into self-employment in order to fulfill their own dreams, while others start there, and still others are forced into self-employment by a market that refuses to hire experienced employees over age 50.  In the meantime, individuals with newly minted degrees in the field find it difficult to prove sufficient experience to be hired.  Once hired, their career path is fuzzy, at best.  

The field of instructional design and development, in particular, is experiencing the pains of a workforce with capability issues. The right workers are not in the right locations with the right skills and where expert practitioners exist they often find it difficult to distinguish their work from that of charlatans with low prices and expert sales techniques.  For more detail on the state of the ID field see the Whitepaper: ID Practice Analysis and Survey Results published by The Institute for Performance Improvement, L3C (TIfPI).

Standards Measure Competence

Standards provide that measure toward which capability development can build.  Standards are the mark of a successful practitioner in any field.   That is, the competent practitioners already practicing in a field use standards that distinguish their work.  These standards transcend practice venues making them customizable for local needs.  In turn, this means that standards can transcend geographic borders, ideological boundaries, language differences, and even variations in tool sets.  Individuals in different practice venues, geographies, cultures, regulatory environments, with different levels of access to materials or equipment can still successfully demonstrate the ability to meet a standard. 

Think of the world of medicine, the techniques, tools, and resources for suturing wounds vary around the world.  However, every healthcare worker around the world is expected to meet common standards in suturing, but meet them using the tools and resources at hand in their part of the world.  Standards like these define the competent members of the field.

Likewise, instructional designers and developers (IDs) need to have a common set of standards to help them build professional competence.  As of 2014, the most common language for IDs is around the use of development models such as ADDIE, SAM, Lean, Six-Sigma, or around theories posited by learning theorists. There are secondary and tertiary languages around tools (Captivate, Articulate, Lectora, etc.) and production processes such as project management and content management. The complexity of variables abound when application of models, theories, tools, content, and projects create unique results with unique parameters.  Under these conditions, it is difficult to compare work.  In fact, the field does not have standards upon which it can compare ID work.

Defining common standards that cross boundaries is not difficult, even though it does require access to the people who know well the work of competent practitioners and can identify competence and cull out the incompetent. With standards defined, it is time to measure.  Those who meet or exceed standards receive a mark of distinction.  Those who do not need to have the opportunity to improve their level of competence through training, effective supervision, and key work tasks that grow their skills.  This is the real power of standards.  When an individual is not meeting standards, skill building begins. The knowledge of which areas need improvement allows one to focus skill-building efforts, demonstrate success, and grow.  

The Public Promise

Where a workforce needs to build public standing, the individuals who succeed at meeting or exceeding standards need to be publicly recognized.  This is partially a personal reward for their expertise.  However, it is more important as an industry marker showing that the industry has tools for recognizing experts and marketing their expertise. 

This is where credentials come into play.  A credential defines the competence of the individual as one who meets standards.  A competent individual is the implied public promise of all credentials.  Most credentials also indicate whether that credential (and associated competence) is a one-time, lifetime award or one that must be maintained and regularly renewed through professional development or reassessment.

In addition, the purveyors of credentials must provide public information describing the methods that they use to define the standards, measure them, track individual’s maintenance of the credential, and ensure that the credential’s standards remain current as work in the field changes over time.  The rigor involved in setting up and managing credentials provides those purveyors with “authority” for backing the credential.  When in doubt, check the source of the credential to be sure that they are actually measuring competence against standards. Authentic purveyors of credentials will be willing to explain the standards used and the measurement and evaluation used.   

A credential is any mark of distinction; a way to identify competent practitioners within a field of shared knowledge, skills, and behaviors.  On the sidebar that describes types of credentials and some of their unique characteristics you may notice that certifications, some degrees, and some accreditations come with “marks”.  A mark is that set of letters used to promote the credentialed individual or organization as one that meets standards.  You may see these marks as initials – CPA, MD, and Ph.D. are common one – or as icons – ISO or UL marks are common.   

About Badges

Badging like gamification has become a buzzword in the learning industry. Many organizations wish to ‘badge’ their employees and students for work related behaviors. Badges have become difficult to assess.  Badges are used across a wide range of credentials and do not match specific types of credentials.  Therefore, two credentials with very different requirements may have very similar looking badges.   

A badge is merely an icon representing the completion of something (e.g., scouting badges, sports patches) or the acquisition of responsibilities and attendant rights (e.g., law enforcement badges, employee badges). 

In the world of credentials, a badge signifies both the completion of something and the acquisition of attendant rights and responsibilities.  However, it becomes the public’s responsibility to determine what was completed and what the badge holder’s rights and responsibilities are.   Then, they must match their own needs with those of the underlying credential. 

Enter badge verification software.  This software allows badge earners to share their iconic badge through social and electronic media (e.g., email, websites).  Clicking on the badge connect the interested public with a website that houses critical information about:

•  The credential,
• The credential holder,
• The organization providing authority to that credential,
• What the credential holder did to acquire the credential,
• What the maintenance requirements are, and
• The credential holder’s status.  

Badges are a symbol (icon) for the credential.  Employers and clients will want to look deeply into the performance evidence required by each credential.  At this time. there are badges available for degrees, certificates, awards, endorsements, and certifications.  The digital badge itself is a marker.  Any two credentials may have similar badges while being very different in the performance requirements needed to achieve the badge.  The value of the badge is in the authority of the credential.  Seek out the authority backing your badges.

Emerging Standards and Microcredentials for IDs

TIfPI has completed a practice analysis that defines nine new standards for instructional designer and developers.  They have defined the standards and the performances expected for each as they relate to learning solution development, a subset of the overall field of instructional design.  Therefore, they are making a series of learning solution development microcredentials with digital badges available to IDs.

The objective is to strengthen the field by providing evidence-based credentials validating that individual IDs have demonstrated their ability to apply international, theory-free, model-free standards in the development of one or more types of learning solutions.  Individuals providing evidence of their ability to meet all nine standards will be awarded a microcredential (with digital badge) for the development of one of 19 learning solution types.  Individuals may acquire as many microcredentials as they wish.  

Individuals receiving microcredentials will be able to assert that two expert instructional designers evaluated their work against standards and that they have met standards.  The ability to show competence increases individuals’ standing within the field, makes it easier for employers to choose competent candidates, and builds professional credibility for the field.  Standards are the key to measuring and evaluating performance, which in turn creates a language of competence and opportunities for continued growth as well as opportunities to build key skills in order to meet standards. 

Watch this blog for more on each of the nine standards for Instructional Design and Development (ID), which state that the competent ID:

•  Addresses sustainability
• Aligns the solution
• Assesses performance (in learning)
• Collaborates and partners
• Elicits performance practice
• Engages learner
• Enhances retention and transfer
• Ensures context sensitivity
• Ensures relevance

To learn more about the 19 learning solution types, standards, available whitepapers, and application process for learning solution development ID Badge, or to join me for one of the free webinars, Overview of ID Badges, provided by TIfPI, go to www.tifpi.wildapricot.org/idbadges.

As always, comments and discussion are appreciated.  Please share your thoughts and insights.

Go to https://tifpi.wildapricot.org/IDBadges

Gamification versus Game-based learning (GBL)

GBL vs Gamification?  I have been building learning games and building games into learning for decades. Both are game-based learning (GBL).  Both, situate the game as a way to experience and learning key skills – usually action-oriented skills, process flow, or decision-making skills.  On the other hand, gamification is actually about the application of game mechanics to a business purpose and is most frequently used in marketing.  Think market loyalty;  www.bunchball.com often has some great white papers on the use of gamification in marketing.   

Can the corporate learning function use gamification in marketing learning?  Certainly!  However, we now find ourselves in a recursive loop where it get hard to tell what’s GBL and what’s gamification.  Try the following examples; they may clarify (or not).  At least this is how I explain it to myself and my clients.

A new employee in corporate orientation is sent on a “treasure hunt” to gather signatures, take pictures, or bring back artifacts from various departments in the organization.  Is this game-based learning or gamification.  Are they learning anything?  Maybe.  They might be learning where to find information, departments, and resources.  To that degree this treasure hunt is a learning game.  I would contend, however, that the real point of the activity is new employee (customer) loyalty and that find information, departments and resources is more about building employee satisfaction than actual skill-building. (Which doesn’t mean that finding stuff is not a skill – just that skill-building is as disguise in this instance for customer/employee satisfaction,)  However, it works and it is a valuable technique.

This same new employee receives an email from the LMS (a coach or other entity) congratulating them on becoming a new member of the organization and reaching the rank of Apprentice Explorer (or any other rank name you want to substitutes).  Our employee receives a badge icon as Apprentice Explorer along with the request that they enroll in and complete the following three e-learning classes to complete the rank of Explorer 1.  (Implied assumption: another badge will come with the new rank.) The courses cover legal requirements, how to use software, working effectively at XYZ  corp, etc.   This is pure gamification of the learning function.  Game mechanics of awards (badges) and leveling up encourage our new employee to complete essential tasks and provides feedback on whether these tasks have been completed.  Again, those tasks include key skills, but the skills are entirely secondary to the purpose of the leveling up based on task accomplishment (a market loyalty technique for return engagements).    

A few months later our new employee attends a workshop on quality assurance and their role in their organization’s interpretation of quality improvement.  The workshop includes a 1-hour game using a board game format to walk learners through the quality process and discover key aspects of that process (what happens when documentation is incomplete, reviews, change initiatives, etc.).   This is pure game-based learning.  The purpose here is build familiarity with the process steps, decisions, and artifacts of quality assurance and to build a common set of expectations for what all employees do as part of corporate quality improvement.  The goal is learning -- building knowledge and skills.  If the learning is fun enough to also build customer (employee) satisfaction, that’s a nice benefit. 

A year or so later, our employee moves up to a somewhat higher level position in the company.  In doing so, they are now expected to participate in a 1-week long goal-based scenario or war game.  For example, our employee moves into a regional sales executive role that requires a 1-week simulation of the sales process.  Herenew sales execs have to build a cold-call list, make a certain number of cold calls,  build a warm-call list (previous clients who are not using a newly released product – a white space sales opportunity), call the warm-client, give a web-based product demo, demonstrate closing the sale, use the CRM software, and write a quarterly report of sales results. This simulation might be done entirely with actors as clients or staff acting as clients.   The goal here is learning and demonstrating skills.  Everyone involved is interested in whether this employee can do key skills and make key decisions.  No one really cares whether the employee has a good time or has fun… or not.  This form of game-based learning is very serious and very intense with high stakes and serious “do you keep the job” implications.  Fun and loyalty are entirely outside the purpose.  However, anyone designing one of these war game/simulations also knows that they need to build in fun, positive feedback, encouragement, and opportunities for learners to feel good about themselves and the company.  They will build in social events, mini-competitions, prizes, team building, and progress markers to help learners power through the very intense and focused learning required by these events.   In the end, the learner comes out feeling very upbeat and positive about the company (employee loyalty) and them themselves and their skill set.  However, the purpose of simulation game was skill learning; employee loyalty was incidental (put in place to keep the employee from dropping out of the intense and often fearsomely competitive learning experience.)  

With these four examples, we can see how gamification and game-based learning blur.  Not sure which you're seeing.  Consider using the primary purpose of the activity as your guide to whether it’s gamification (game mechanics applied to business functions) or game-based learning (games to build skills). Is the purpose building satisfaction and return engagements?  If so, it's probably gamification, even if it is being done in the classroom.  Is the purpose learning and demonstrating skills and knowledge?  If so, it's probably game-based-learning. 

Note:  Some games (e.g., the ubiquitous Jeopardy) are about recall.  The question becomes whether these are valid learning games.  If recall is the skill required, then, yes, these games are game-based learning.  Otherwise, they are gamification of the classroom in order to build learner excitement through fun (a game mechanic) and  to consolidate knowledge before moving on (leveling up – another game mechanic.)  In other words, their purpose is to keep the learning come back into the classroom for the next dose of "learning".   The technique works and can be a valuable, low-cost addition to the learning classroom.  A learning objective that states "name the 9 learning events" is about recall and a game like Jeopardy could be a valid learning game.  However, an objective that states "explain the 9 learning events" might use a Jeopardy-like game to recall the events and build enthusiasm via this classroom gamification technique. 

Comments invited.  Please share your opinions.    

Is Anyone Ever Over-Qualified?

I grew up with parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles all saying various form of, “the wise person knows what they don’t know,” and “the more you know about your field, the more you realize how much there still is to learn.” Powerful messages for continuous learning!

Imagine my surprise when someone said, “You realize, you’re over-qualified for this work.” Freakin’ freaky. How can anyone be over-qualified? There’s always more to learn.

As a learning professional, I have, at times, taught the same course content over and over and over. There were times that I taught a course so many times in a row that I lost track of whether or not I’d covered key points with my current class. Even then, every class I taught also taught me something. Each was class brought new insights on learning, on how my learners dealt with the content in relationship to their work, on how effective I was as an instructor. Each class brought challenges in physical spaces, timing, class dynamics, unique individual and group needs. With each class, I learned more and more.

After 12 years of heavy classroom training, I moved into a phase of heavy instructional design and learning project management. Every project is different. Every situation has different needs assessment processes, different sponsors, different teams, different tools and methods, different designs, different development timelines and products, different iterative testing procedures… and different results. Can one ever learn everything there is to know about design and development? About learning project management? I certainly haven’t gotten to that point. There’s so much more to learn and experience.

In the late 1970s, I started working with learning technologies. In almost thirty years, I have yet to be bored by the field. As our tools “learn” better and faster, instructional designers, developers and course facilitators must re-evaluate our own knowledge and experience about what works – why and how. As science better understands the brain and the way that both humans and electronics learn, there are new horizons for professional development.

So, I continue to struggle with the concept of being over-qualified. People who are passionate about their field continue to learn from it and from each other – always. They never see themselves as “over-qualified” but as “highly-qualified” and continuing to learn.

In the end, it may be that there are two perspectives – the individual (who is always learning) and the organization. Organizations are all about matching individual resources to a perceived need. As organizations develop new functions, their leaders define needs that they are capable of perceiving and describing. Human Resources restructures that definition as position description with minimum requirements – not maximum or even ideal… minimum. This could lead to an applicant for a position having skills that so far exceed the desired minimum they are perceived as over-qualified… which in turns leads to issues like that of Case of Sal in previous blogs.

Are you over-qualified? If not today, you soon will be. Advancing skills and knowledge change our match to the minimum requirements of posted positions… and, perhaps, to our leaders’ ability to envision new work for our ever increasing skills.

However, we all continue to grow where we're planted. So, even if you too are over-qualified for your work, show your true colors by continuing to learn and grow -- even it means learning about what it means to be "over-qualified" for the available work.

The Performance PI