Jay Cross helps people work and live smarter. Jay is the Johnny Appleseed of informal learning. He wrote the book on it. He was the first person to use the term eLearning on the web. He has challenged conventional wisdom about how adults learn since designing the first business degree program offered by the University of Phoenix.
Everyone should be so lucky as to find a medical doctor as good as mine. I have every confidence in his advice. He calls me after hours to report a test result that’s out of line. He makes house calls. He’s personable and funny. He’s a master at playing the tabla. So when Michael moved from one medical group to another, I followed him without hesitation.
My electronic medical record did not follow me to his new practice. His former practice “owned” the record of my lab results, prescription particulars, and office visits. Besides, my information was trapped in a proprietary, non-transferable format. So my medical record got flushed down the toilet when I hopped from one practice to another.
A waste? Sure. It’s as bad a situation as with corporate learning records.
If you’ve worked in a company with more than a thousand employees, your company’s Learning Management System (LMS) has probably assembled a dossier on what courses you’ve completed and perhaps a score on how well you did.
Here’s the rub: when you change employers, it’s unlikely the record complied by the LMS is going to accompany you. Like my electronic medical record, your LMS entries are probably “owned” by your former employer and in a proprietary format to boot.
Wouldn’t it be better for all concerned if you owned the record of what you’d learned and could take it with you?
After all, people now entering the workforce are likely to have at least seven or eight different jobs in the course of their working lives. Why on earth should they be forced to copy and re-copy the record of what they’ve been vetted for learning?
Medical records and learning portfolios should be ours to take with us.
While we’re at it, let’s transform LMS-style records of training into portfolios of our learning, work samples, capabilities, and endorsements that can help firms hire us when we’re a good fit with their needs and share our expertise once we’re hired.
Anybody interested in working on this?
Dan Pontefract had a great post on TrainingWreck about the inadequacy of the Kirkpatrick model in a world where learning is increasingly collaborative and networked. Dan takes the logic further than I did last week in my post on how to assess learning initiatives. In brief, the Kirkpatrick levels are good for events, not processes. Increasingly, learning is migrating from events (think “workshop”) to processes (think “social learning”). Kirkpatrick is about push, not pull, learning. (link to Dan’s post )
I’ve been lobbying hard for injecting learning into an enterprise ecology, something I call a “workscape.” A workscape is not a thing; you can’t see or touch it. It results when work and learning are fused together. You learn the job by doing the job. We already know many ways to make networks more effective. That’s our new responsibility, baking ideal practices for learning into the system. For example, take one aspect of a purposeful enterprise network, profiling.
Profiles are good for learning and for business operations. Profiles enable members of the community to search for answers to questions, to expertise, and to the wisdom of experience. Of course, profiles also help out when you can’t find Sally’s phone number or who we have stationed in the Falkland Islands. You can’t isolate the effect profiles had on learning because the learning is intertwined with the business.
Fifteen years ago, “the OECD education ministers agreed to develop strategies for ‘lifelong learning for all’.” They still don’t have it right.
Who are these guys? OECD? According to Wikipedia,
The OECD originated in 1948 as the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC), led by Robert Marjolin of France, to help administer the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe after World War II. Later, its membership was extended to non-European states. In 1961, it was reformed into the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development by the Convention on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Most OECD members are high-income economies with a high Human Development Index (HDI) and are regarded as developed countries (Chile being the only OECD member which is also a member in the organisation of developing countries, the Group of 77).
The OECD’s headquarters are at the Château de la Muette in Paris, France.
The latest report says:
Informal learning is never organised, has no set objective in terms of learning outcomes and is never intentional from the learner’s standpoint. Often it is referred to as learning by experience or just as experience.
Mid-way between the first two, non-formal learning is the concept on which there is the least consensus, which is not to say that there is consensus on the other two, simply that the wide variety of approaches in this case makes consensus even more difficult. Nevertheless, for the majority of authors, it seems clear that non-formal learning is rather organised and can have learning objectives.
[Emphasis is mine.]
This talk of absolute like always and never is bi-polar thinking at work. Either/or thinking obscures the nuances. Most learning is not “mid-way between” formal and informal. Rather, it’s a little of this and a lot of that along many dimensions.
Because learning is ubiquitous, OECD decided to overlook how to make informal learning better in favor of surveying what yardsticks are available to measure it. The “relevant documents” are an effective sedative. They get no further than “who gives credit for what” in various countries.
I’m glad these aren’t my tax dollars at work, but I hate to see opportunities to make progress squandered, and that’s my reading of the OECD’s work on “non-formal learning.”
Published June 2010
When you talk to businesspeople, you must speak as they do. Executives only care about training as it relates to execution. Their interest is in moving the corporation forward. You should share that interest. That is what they pay you for.
A sponsor is the person who pays those bills. Sponsors are responsible for championing the case for change (i.e., the vision), visibly representing the change (i.e., walking the talk), and providing reassurance and confidence (i.e., the implementation plan).
Someone once interrupted me during a webinar when I was talking about how trainers need to be aware of corporate objectives and rate their contributions by their impact on the business. “Wouldn’t that require us to understand how the business worked?” he asked. Yes, of course. How could you do your job right without knowing how the corporation worked? Several others jumped in, essentially saying that organizational success and helping to meet strategic objectives was “not my job.”
The days when corporations were larded with layer upon layer of management whose job was to translate strategic imperatives from above into job descriptions and projects down below are long gone. Now all of us are supposed to sing from the same hymnal without the intermediaries.
There’s no cookie-cutter formula for applying metrics, but there is an underlying process.
Measure results throughout your program, not just before and after. Keep your sponsor informed. Frequency is sometimes more important than quantity. Monitoring things early on may enable you to make mid-course corrections.
The Responsibilities You Share
Peter Drucker, hailed as the father of management, is a business guru’s guru. Drucker singled out eight characteristics of effective executives:
The Metrics Cycle
There’s no cookie-cutter formula for applying metrics, but there is an underlying process.
Generally, you’ll follow these five steps to identify, agree upon, assess and use metrics. This is not rocket science. It’s the same process you already use to accomplish a lot of things in life.
Let’s briefly consider each step.
1. State the desired outcome. Results do not exist inside the training department. In fact, results do not exist within the business. Results come from outside the business. Imagine a no-nonsense businessperson, such as Jack Welch, GE’s former boss. If you can explain yourself to Jack, you’ve mastered this step.
2. Agree on how to measure. The only valid metrics for corporate learning are business metrics. Examples are increased sales, shorter time to market, fewer rejects and lower costs. How do you decide what measures to apply? You don’t. That’s the responsibility of your business sponsor, the person who signs the checks. Together you agree on what’s to be done and how you’ll measure success or failure. Once you’ve settled on the project and its metrics, get it in writing.
3. Execute projects. The projects could be training, an incentive bonus plan or more advertising. Training programs are often part of a larger scheme, and it’s fruitless to try to isolate them. In fact, savvy training directors look for major corporate initiatives they can hitch a ride on.
4. Assess the results. You must evaluate the impact of your efforts with the measures you set up back in the second step. In other words, you are not allowed to mimic Charlie Brown, who would shoot an arrow and then paint the target around it. Why stick with the measures you came up with before? Because that’s how you maintain credibility with your sponsor. You can bring up unforeseen outcomes or anecdotal evidence, so long as you follow up on those original methods first.
5. Begin anew. The only thing worse than learning from experience is not learning from experience. Your post-mortem on the completed project should include a section titled “What to do better next time.”<
Jay Cross is a champion of informal learning, web 2.0, and systems thinking. He has challenged conventional wisdom about how adults learn since designing the first business degree program offered by the University of Phoenix.
Jay’s new un-book Working Smarter (available in on-demand paperback or PDF download) examines how to boost an organization’s collective brainpower. You’ll find an excerpt of his book below that might strike a chord with you in the ongoing conversation that we’re having here at HRExaminer.com on the effective and perceived value of HR.
Cross mashes up his considerable experience in training, business consulting and web 2.0 thinking to put forth a straight forward book designed for managers who want a natural way to improve performance – without the typical management consulting crapola. When Cross does delve into charts, models and mind maps you can rest assured he does so with an aim to clarify, not to earn his business book writing chops. While I’m not done with the book yet I will say what stands out to me so far; Cross does a nice job of balancing the theoretical with the practical – and that’s really useful to us as people who want fresh ideas we can use to improve our team’s results.
I hope you try the book – I’m finding it a worthwhile investment of time. Don’t forget that you can buy the online copy, save some money, kill one less tree and convert the PDF into an online book reader for your iPhone, Android phone and many others.
- Julian Seery Gude, HRExaminer Collaborator and Editorial Advisory Board Member.
Article continues here.
I think of un-books as more of a subscription that a purchase. A major update is in the works. More than half will be new material. It’s a collaborative effort. Publication is a month or more in the future. The price has not been set as yet. I suggest you buy both, but if you’re only buying one, I suggest you wait a while.
One of the things I like best about Twitter is the collegial, friendly fire-ish banter among L & D professionals. One of the most active of these professionals is the prolific Jay Cross. Jay, with his colleagues in the Internet Time Alliance, has recently produced the 2010 version of his “unbook,” Working Smarter: Informal Learning in the Cloud.
Among the topics often up for grabs lately are ideas around informal learning and the networked learning landscape of the 21st century. Those in the quantitative data/metrics/benchmarking camp argue against the legitimacy of the notion of “informal” learning. As often as not, they claim workplace learning is too important to be left up to happenstance, and requires planning and careful, thorough, design. Cross is clear, though, that he is drawing the “kill the courses, shut down the training department” line with a dramatically heavy hand, admitting that he uses it as much for shock value as anything else, while trying to put forth the idea of workplace learning as different from the traditional view of training course. He also asserts that “informal” does not, as it so often seems to be interpreted, mean “haphazard” or “random.”. Cross acknowledges the time and place of traditional training approaches, particularly for novices (although he questions the decision to put so many resources there rather than with supporting better producers). But seasoned workers, he rightly notes, will not flock to workshops and traditional classes, as they have work to do. Making it easier for them to get to information, to find one another, to learn through collaboration and by accessing meaningful self-service performance support, will strengthen the organization and “help sharp people become sharper.”
As I said on Twitter one night, “I am 93.2% suspicious of statistics about concepts of abstractions like ‘learning’.” While the data we have all seen – along the lines of “80% of workplace learning occurs outside the classroom” – may be appealing, and so quotable, we know we can’t actually measure anything like “learning” in these terms. But we do know that people learn at work all the time, every day, more from one another (even if that “other” is a person who has uploaded a video tutorial, or updated a Wikipedia page) than from anything that happens in a classroom. We know that peer groups and communities exist to share knowledge and support performance, even if they’re bootlegged and kept under management’s radar. We’ve all experienced a need-to-know moment, made better or worse by how quickly we could put our hands on the right information or find the right person to ask. Doubt me? For the rest of the week, as you go about enacting your work, ask how much of what you are doing came from anything resembling a traditional classroom or e-Learning course. Cross leads the reader on a tour of informal, networked learning and performance support, and helps move the conversation from 50,000 feet to 50. This “unbook” is a compilation of his own ideas as well as interjections from his colleagues in the Internet Time Alliance (Harold Jarche, Jane Hart, Charles Jennings, Clark Quinn, and Jon Husband), with chime-ins from many others. There are checklists, tools, and images, charts and provocative questions. And there are honest remarks about the state of learners, many of whom need to stop waiting for directions and start becoming self-directed. For me, the most value in the text comes not from the parsing out of the finer points of informal and formal approaches, but the articulation of the difference between training and learning. Food for thought, from Cross: “If you were to create the organization’s learning and development function from scratch, what would it look like? Are you still doing huge, expensive training-based software rollouts, or shifting the effort into on-point performance support? Have you taken charge of your organization’s learning function, or just training?”
A word about the book itself – it claims it is not one. It’s an unbook, updated every year or so, and published by “Jay Cross and friends,” his colleagues in the Internet Time Alliance Group. Updates appear on Jay’s Internet Time blog http://www.internettime.com so, if they strike your fancy, purchase a bound or e-copy update from Jay’s site, from Lulu, or from Amazon. Where traditional books exist as editions updated every few years, often out of date before they even make it to bookshelves, this unbook is always in Beta. Be aware: While Working Smarter is organized into chapters, it is not the formal, tightly edited, unified work that some readers will expect from a traditional book. I found the organization refreshing, and the get-to-the-point-already style very effective. You can also find Jay on Twitter @jaycross, where he’s a frequent participant in the weekly Thursday night #lrnchat sessions that I help moderate. Join us! 8:30 to 10 PM ET. Jay Cross and Friends. (2010) Working Smarter: Informal Learning in the Cloud. Internet Time Alliance: LULU. $20 paper; $16 e-version, available from Lulu http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/working-smarter-|-january-2010/8259651 or from Internet Time at http://internettime.pbworks.com/FrontPage.
Learning Light has now launched the new look and feel e-learning centre. Check it out for news, views, jobs, reports, research papers and supplier directory. The e-Learning Centre is a free information resource for learning and development professionals and e-learning developers
The Centre’s Articles and Papers section contains these ten articles I wrote when Internet Time Group was affiliated with Learning Light:
To “earn a seat at the table” where the business managers sit, you must:
This applies to any corporation, in both the public and private sectors. It is vital to understand how a business person makes decisions – and in particular the weight they give (or not) to numbers and facts when doing so. It is equally vital to understand that different officers of your corporation will approach decisions about learning in very different ways depending on their circumstances.
Business is about making sound decisions. Every business decision is a trade-off. (If there’s no trade-off, it’s a no-brainer.) An important corollary: There is no free lunch. List the pro’s of doing something and the con’s of doing something else. Be aware of what you’re trading off when making a decision. Every trade-off is a risk. That doesn’t mean you should shy away from risk. Quite the contrary, for no risk means no reward. A decision-maker who disregards risk is a fool, a pauper, or both.
Fortune favors the bold. An astute businessperson seeks the most lucrative balance of risk and reward. Every business decision is made with less than perfect information, and every decision entails taking a risk. Most investment decisions trade off risk and reward.
Every business decision is made with less than perfect information, and every decision entails taking a risk. Most investment decisions trade off risk and reward. The way to make sound decisions is to judge when you have enough information to move ahead and when the level of risk is acceptable. He who hesitates is lost. Saying “We don’t have enough information” is not an acceptable excuse. If the timing is not right, it would be better to say, “The downside is losing $500,000, and we can’t identify the range of probability around that occurring any finer than 25% to 75%.”
When you talk about the bottom line, you damn well better know what it is. I don’t mean to insult your intelligence, so permit me to explain that I didn’t understand the difference between profit and revenue until I took a correspondence course in accounting five years after graduating from college. If you are not fully fluent with terms like revenue, earnings, cost, cash flow, margin, and value, take a look at here and get a friend to explain the workings of the basic business model.
THE ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS
Everything is relative, including evidence and “hard numbers.” An executive, a manager, a training director, and a worker each have different but valid ways of evaluating the effectiveness of learning.
People see what they focus on; they don’t see what’s really there. An alcoholic sees the liquor stores other people breeze by. A foodie always remembers whether or not she has eaten at a particular restaurant. A top executive sees long-term trends; a factory labourer sees the clock. (Training directors see learners; everyone else sees workers or employees.)
Let’s walk in the shoes of different people and see what they notice.
The knowledge worker’s objective is to learn what it takes to do the best she can. The learned worker enjoys the fulfillment of a job well done, the rewards that go with high performance, and the accumulation of marketable skills. Today’s workers are out for themselves. Not selfishly but realistically. Free agents. They recognize that their careers will last many times longer than their employer. Our market driven world drives people to increase their personal marketability. Incoming workers are more demanding than previous generations. They have no patience for irrelevant exercises, be they useless curriculum or teaching what they already know. Their watchwords are “Don’t waste my time” and “Less is more.”
A great industrial worker might be half again as productive as his middle-of-the road peer. A great knowledge worker can be several hundred times as productive as his peer. These people need the room to excel. They want their organizations to give them the dots but they want to connect the dots for themselves. Workers want learning that is ‘pull’, i.e. they find and use what they feel they need, instead of ‘push’, i.e. someone else decides the subject matter for them.
The incoming generation of knowledge workers demand opportunities to learn through their work; otherwise, they will pick up and go elsewhere.
In the industrial age, the worker was told she was not paid to think. In the knowledge era, workers are paid to think. And they need to keep current with a buzz of things racing by.Workers expect to learn things in small chunks. Learning has shifted from something outside of work to something embedded in work. Stand-up instruction is giving way to peer learning.
The training director’s objective is to help his sponsors achieve their goals. Sponsors? Usually this is the people with the authority and wherewithal to sign the checks. Training cannot rate itself; it doesn’t own the yardstick.
Business managers set objectives; training directors help achieve them. ‘Proof’ that training is working is when sponsors believe it is.
Pity the training director. There’s more and more to learn. The old training they’re accustomed to doesn’t work well any more. They must interpret business needs into learning opportunities. And even as knowledge workers take responsibility for their own learning, the training director is likely to be held accountable when learners’ performance is underwhelming.
Typical assessment measures – the four or five levels – are at best pieces of a much larger puzzle. “Level Four” will always be out of reach because the instruments of measurement belong to another level in the organization.
The shift from training (we tell you what to learn) to learning (you decide what to learn) increases the scope of the director’s job from classes, workshops, and tests to the broad array of networks, communities, meta-learning, and learning culture.
You live your life as if everything is a miracle or nothing’s a miracle; for the training director, the sky’s the limit or the job is untenable. Today’s training director must gain control by giving control.
• Supporting the informal learning process
• Creating useful, peer-rated FAQs and knowledge bases
• Supplementing self-directed learning with mentors and experts
• Using smart tech to make it easier for workers to collaborate and network
• Encouraging cross-functional gatherings
• Helping workers learn how to improve their learning skills
• Explicitly teaching workers how to learn
• Enlisting learning coaches to encourage reflection
• Calculating life-time value of a learning “customer”
• Explaining the know-who, know-how framework
• Creating a supportive organizational culture
• Setting up a budget for informal learning (There’s no free lunch.)
• Positioning learning as a growth experience
• Conduct a learning culture audit
• Adding learning and teaching goals to job descriptions
• Encouraging learning relationships
• Supporting participation in professional communities of practice
Getting things done is the role of managers. Meeting this quarter’s numbers is the number one priority. “Long-term” means one year. Great execution merits a great bonus and more rapid promotion. Execution is judged by relative success in meeting planned objectives.
Common measures are gain in market share, increased revenue, customer satisfaction, and other business metrics. The manager does not necessarily care what it takes to hit the numbers. If people could gain new skills by popping smart pills instead of training, pharmaceuticals would push training aside. Sometimes the numbers are even manufactured.
A couple of hundred years ago, the factory system kicked off the industrial revolution. The need for coordinated action led to working hours, the urban workforce, specialization of jobs, the quest for efficiency, and the separation of management and workers. In the west, the educational system adopted German methods of schooling soldiers to convert feisty farmers and hunters into obedient factory workers.
Great ideas have a life cycle. They grow from obscurity among enthusiasts and fanatics to nearly universal acceptance and eventually to decline, as the world passes them by. Business managers cling to ROI and conventional training because they are known entities, not because they are right. These conceptual blinders retard the pace of progress.
We recently toured a corporate headquarters where staying late at work was prized by managers. Time on the job was thought to be correlated with output when the job is tending an assembly line. In knowledge work, overwork leads to stress and a reduction in cognitive acumen. It’s better to have a team that leaves on time to exercise than one that is chained to its desks.
Top management is led by what creates value for stakeholders. This generally involves innovation, staying power, adherence to corporate values, and sufficient organizational flexibility to keep ahead of the speed of change. Shareholder confidence along these dimensions fuels market capitalization.When investors judge that the firm can innovate, improve, and grow, the value of its shares increases, as does the take-home pay of the executive.
All learning, informal or formal and anything inbetween, should be evaluated with the same metric: whether people who participate in it are doing the job.
Executives realize that competing successfully in business requires teams of inspired employees – mentally equipped to make sound decisions on the fly; able to execute good ideas in a snap; and proactive when it comes to taking initiatives and bringing innovation.
Being on the front line dealing with customers, these employees don’t have time to run every idea up the management flagpole. Leaders want to field a team that’s in the game and ahead of the crowd. They want to pile on innovation that meshes smoothly with what people already know. They want organizations that make bold moves and respond to change as if by instinct. The overall goal: an environment where people learn faster and better than the competition.
Getting there takes more than a lavish investment in training. Time is frequently more important than money.” “We are moving from a world in which the big eat the small to a world in which the fast eat the slow,” says Klaus Schwab, director of the World Economic Forum.
Let’s look at how senior decisions are really made. The staff has shopped various projects around, gathered the figures, done due diligence on suppliers, run the numbers, assessed the impact of changes in the marketplace, and prepared terse summaries for each scenario. Six business cases for new investments, bound with a clear sheet up front, rest in a pile on the coffee table at the executive vice president’s weekend cabin. (This is going on simultaneously at the CEO’s place by the lake, the COO’s condo, and a few other spots.)
A couple of projects are no-brainers; these are so integral to the organization’s mission, giving a go-ahead is a mere formality.
Projects that enter new territory, eLearning for example, warrant more detailed consideration. If you were to eavesdrop on the executive’s internal thought processes, you’d hear something like this:
[Inner dialog] “Good Heavens, this effort is going to cost us $8 million and change. But our people are our hope for the future. The analysis shows that we’re already spending nearly that much on training. I wonder what Mikey thinks. The ROI is better than building another fab plant but some of the underlying numbers are soft. Of course there’s no guarantee that the fab plant wouldn’t be another white elephant when it comes on stream in three years. The breeze is picking up outside. I bet it rains tonight. Without eLearning, we’ll never become an eBusiness. Some of our systems are pretty creaky right now and would benefit from streamlining.We need to shrink cycle times throughout our organization. This eLearning infrastructure would give Charlie a platform for broadcasting and reinforcing his message about transforming our organization. The Net Discounted Cash Flow is $2 million better than if we took this on ourselves. And the real problem there is that our IT staff would be swamped. And this would wait in line behind the other missioncritical projects they’re working on. Keeping up with eLearning is not a core activity for us; we should outsource as much of it as we can. I wonder what Charlie thinks. The ballgame comes on in about ten minutes. Where do I come out on this one? I’m optimistic about the potential. It feels right. I’ll back it at the Executive Committee Meeting on Monday. I better call the wife to let her know I arrived safely. I could use a slug of single malt about now….”
Don’t believe it? Most senior executives have more faith in gut feel than numbers. The numbers are input. The decision is broader than that.
Five years ago, an Information Week survey revealed that “more companies are justifying their ventures not in terms of ROI but in terms of strategic goals… Creating or maintaining a competitive edge was cited most often as the reason for deploying a business application.”
Decision making at work is as much about what the heart says (based on experience and values) as the head (dictated by the numbers). To give yourself a chance to lead on learning in your organization you need to understand and appeal to both – at all levels.
Karl Kapp and Tony O’Driscoll have written a definitive book on virtual worlds, Learning in 3D: Adding a New Dimension in Enterprise Learning and Collaboration.
Many people think of virtual worlds as the realm of characters in bizarre costumes and companies out to waste their PR budgets. Karl and Tony see a phase change in how people learn.
Learning is social, and I think this has something to do with the power of watching your avatar experience something as opposed to simply imagining it in your mind.
I heartily recommend the book but I suggest jumping around as you read. The first section sets the stage by setting out the fundamentals: the webvolution, the immersive internet, the ineffectiveness of the classroom, and “the brave new training world.” If you read this blog, you already know this stuff. They move on to architecture and archetypes. Everyone will want to read the nine cases which demonstrate a variety of learning environments. If you take part in Thursday evenings’ #lrnchat on Twitter, you can skip the sections on traditional design; you have already witnessed the ADDIE wars. The implementation advice is priceless, as are the essays by four revolutionaries.
Tony and Karl have convinced me that 3D learning is on the way. I hate to be a stick in the mud but I don’t yet think it’s ready for prime time. It’s going to be a while before most corporate citizens will be comfortable with this. Many workers’ minds are too calcified to handle the concept of avatars and alternative realities. Give it five years, and people will be saying “Why didn’t we do this sooner?”
I don’t expect 3D learning environments to thrive in Second Life. Second Life is a pioneer and is the gorilla in the 3D space right now. However, SL can’t shed its DNA, and corporations aren’t going to train workers while the twisted sisters next door solicit customers.
Conservative organizations and schools are more likely to adopt environments developed specifically for business and academic applications. Examples are the knowledge worker environments developed by Proton Media and the interactive simulations coming out of Toolwire.
ProtonMedia: a professional environment, no funny hats
Inside Learning Technologies is an important magazine in the U.K. (Isn’t it odd that while the net spans the globe, learning magazines remain confined to their home countries?)
Donald excerpted and edited sections of my book-in-progress, What Would Andrew Do?, to create both articles.