The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) recently released a report entitled American Youth: Transitions to Adulthood. Among the many results of this longitudinal report, the most interesting for the career and technical education (CTE) community is that young adults in America are increasingly extending education and delaying careers and family. This is not surprising given the economic climate of the nation—many students are unable to secure jobs with high school, GED, or two-year associates degrees, and too many students are unable to secure jobs with a bachelor’s degree from a four-year university. Thus, without anywhere else to turn, they pursue more education and subsequently obtain more student-loan debt.

My recent participation in the American Youth Policy Forum on Career Pathways to Employment was eye-opening. Dr. Anthony Carnevale made a great point based on his years of research on the workforce: “it’s not the level of education one attains, but the content of what you learn—the labor market is more textured today”. Of course, the content he refers to is technical. Science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) are the areas in which jobs are increasing. Thus, young adults in our country need not look for more education in all cases. Rather, they should strategically pursue some sort of technical education that places them in a position to start their careers sooner, rather than later.

The CTE community plays an enormous role in dissemination of this message, particularly in K-12 settings where many of these career-based decisions are often made. One reason young adults are pursuing more education, rather than the alternative strategic education, is that these individuals are misinformed. Sixty years ago more education certainly led to more jobs and more financial success. But that is not necessarily the case today. Yes, individuals with bachelor’s degrees on average earn more than others with less education, but this is now dependent on the field of specialized knowledge. If more students and their parents were aware of this while making key decisions in high school, this trend towards pursing more education and delaying careers could decline, ultimately strengthening the workforce and nation’s economy.

Report:

Aud, S., KewalRamani, A., and Frohlich, L. (2011). America’s Youth: Transitions to Adulthood (NCES 2012-026). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

The numbers are staggering: a $1.3 trillion deficit. A $15 trillion national debt. Nine percent unemployment. Regardless of your political persuasion, these figures represent an existential crisis for the nation. The congressional supercommittee is the political institution tasked with solving these problems.

One proposal they are likely to consider involves trimming the federal workforce. Reducing federal workers is a likely outcome for the supercommittee regardless of whether they meet their deadlines or not, as committee “success” is likely to consider reducing the size of the federal workforce and committee “failure” will lead to immediate cuts in defense personnel. Thus, it appears that either way, the congressional supercommittee’s work will put the federal workforce on the chopping block.

Of course, it’s not just the supercommittee at work here. The federal workforce is aging, and the combined effects of budget austerity, buyouts, and early retirements pose will pose a challenge in the future.

So, what will this mean for those workers who choose not to take the buyouts and early retirement? How will the federal workforce need to transform during a time of budget austerity?

If anything, the work done by federal employees is getting more complex, not less (think financial regulation, complex international threats, ongoing health reforms). But, as I’ve indicated, there will be fewer federal workers to oversee these initiatives. Thus, each federal worker will need to increase productivity across multiple job domains.

As paradoxical as it may seem, federal workers need an investment in their human capital as part of the coming age of austerity. In other words, federal workers will need an ongoing investment in training, development, and certification programs to allow them to continue to provide the quality of service the public demands.

In the age of cell phones, electronic messaging, and social networking we, as a society, have gotten excruciatingly accustomed to immediate gratification in all aspects of our life. We are fatter, angrier, and more impatient than ever.

We carry our smartphones around as if they were our children – constantly attending to them, answering their cries when they ring and feeding them when their batteries get low. We sleep with them, eat with them, work with them, and even take them to intimate settings, like a first date.

We can no longer sit through business meetings or lectures without looking at our blackberry or smartphone. We are “too important” to give someone our undivided attention for an hour or two. The thought that something might happen that we will miss or be the last to know eats at us while we sit quietly in a meeting. To prevent this possible negative outcome we half-heartedly attend to the lecture, meeting, or discussion happening in front of us, and instead have one ear and one eye focused on the “unknown” – our smartphone.

Which brings me to the concept of digital literacy. Digital literacy is, simply put, the ability to locate, organize, understand, evaluate, and create information using digital technology. It involves a working knowledge of current high-technology, and an understanding of how it can be used. However, what I described above and the digital skills that the U.S. population utilizes the majority of the time do not exemplify a digitally literate society.

A digitally literate society is not one that simply knows how to use computers and common software applications, but is one that knows how to leverage information technology to apply knowledge, share knowledge, and attain goals and objectives.
The U.S. has fallen behind other countries in tackling the digital skills development issue. However, other countries’ agenda for developing digital skills associated with digital literacy still uses the traditional view of digital literacy – basic knowledge and skills necessary to use computers and common software applications. The U.S. has an opportunity to catch up with these other countries and possibly surpass them by redefining the playing field of digital literacy. Why not take advantage of the broadly accepted definition of digital literacy and frame digital literacy as the digital skills that enable people to leverage information technology tools to efficiently and effectively carry out these cross-functional capabilities and skills.

As I write this during the very same week that Steve Jobs passed away, I am compelled to point out that technology has enriched our lives; we are smarter, faster, globally conscious, and constantly connected – the list goes on – because of technology. However, maybe we can redirect some of our energy used on “facebooking” to be the leaders in reframing digital literacy and redefining the digital skills that go with the new framework.

A day after President Obama’s unveiling of a plan to alleviate a staggering unemployment rate and a volatile economy, I’m forced to question what we can do from an educational standpoint to ensure that the groundwork we lay throughout one’s education is relevant and sustainable once one enters the workforce. The uncertainty shrouding the future of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act is a reflection of the instability of our current job market and how to address it. The 1.4 billion dollar Act, enacted in 2006, provides funding for secondary and post-secondary education systems to support Career and Technical Education. Career and Technical Centers and High Schools, across all 50 states, are threatened by major fluctuations within the economy along with an absence of a record of credibility. That’s not to say these programs are not credible and valuable, however when various fields experience great struggle, scapegoatism plagues a broken system. Secondary education career and technical programs bear the burden of being an end-all rather than a stepping-stone because of doubt-filled and pretense-ridden paradigms about the inadequacy of these institutions. The eradication of Perkins Act funding would send many programs spiraling to their premature death, thus resulting in further crumbling of many industry’s foundations. Suspending funding would be more of a shot in the foot than a shot in the dark on the way to creating jobs and a flourishing economy. Our society not only demands, but it also operates off of options and opportunities, and any lack thereof would ultimately lead to further deterioration of this economy.

In recent months, I’ve noticed a recurring topic of discussion. Whether the conversation was on test/assessment development, job descriptions, training development, competency modeling, workforce planning, or general human resource applications, they all seemed to parallel across a shared theme, job analysis.

Job analysis is a relatively straightforward procedure that’s common in i-o (industrial-organizational) psychology literature. Although the study of job analysis is one of i-o’s bread and butter concepts, it may not be as prominent to those working outside of i-o and/or business. However, because defining and measuring employee performance plays a major role in most organizations, whether it’s for administrative or developmental purposes, the topic of job analysis most likely has, or will influence, any individual working for an organization.

Generally, job analysis can be defined as a systematic collection process of all relevant information about a specific job. The collection of “relevant” job information during a job analysis procedure can change depending on its purpose and specific goals. The reason why job analysis can cut across so many different topics, as I mentioned earlier, is because the result of its information can help shape and generate various workforce operations, including job descriptions, job classification, compensation, performance appraisal/evaluation, training, strategic workforce planning, work flow efficiency, and legally sound human resource practices. These human resource operations and organizational tools that stem from results of a thorough job analysis are suggested to ensure measures that are reliable and valid. Further, a reliable and valid test confirms that the organizational tools are measuring what it claims to measure on a consistent basis.

Unfortunately, many organizations seem to shy away from conducting job analyses to validate organizational functions. As businesses undergo major changes (e.g., flatter organizational structures, cross functional employee needs, increase in team processes) it may be even more challenging now to create a solid job analysis process rooted with appropriate data collection methods and data sources. Aside from this matter, the procedure remains vital in order for organizations to properly design their strategic plans and human resource activities.

What types of barriers do organizations face today that prevent or discourage the practice of job analysis?

Is job analysis recognized as a valuable tool in your organization?

Having a thorough job analysis system in place with the collection of essential information should aid the bottom line. This in turn helps organizations define quality hires and guides the maintenance of a quality workforce. Yet, it triggers some additional issues. Organizations may find it difficult to see an immediate benefit of conducting a job analysis and even more challenging to show its relationship to the bottom line.

What types of evidence can be presented to illustrate a proper job analysis along with its maintenance holds value at the bottom line?

While traditional methods of job analysis may become less applicable to the currently changing workforce, it continues to serve through various purposes as a foundation which helps organizations retain their structure, and often times, their integrity. Whether the procedure is regarded as job analysis, work analysis, job profiling, or occupational analysis, evidence to support the organization’s processes will form a basis for tackling solutions for essentially any human resource problem.

Feel free to share your thoughts…

After, once again, correcting my son’s smart-alecky response, he told me that the class performs mind mapping quite often, as part of a brainstorming activity on new school subjects.  For example, George Washington might be the center topic and topics off of the main box could be; Revolutionary War, Presidency, Apple Tree, etc.  Feeding off of Revolutionary War might be General, The British, Potomac River, and so on.

Traditionally, mind maps are used for the following uses:

• problem solving
• outline/framework design
• anonymous collaboration
• marriage of words and visuals
• individual expression of creativity
• condensing material into a concise and memorable format
• team-building or synergy creating activity
• enhancing work morale

The leading authority on mind maps is Tony Buzan. You may want to read his book, Use Your Head (1989), for further details of how mind maps can be used in a variety of situations. Buzan suggests the following basic rules for creating mind maps.

1. Start in the center with an image of the topic, using at least 3 colors.
2. Use images, symbols, codes, and dimensions throughout your mind map.
3. Select key words and print using upper or lower case letters.
4. Each word/image is best alone and sitting on its own line.
5. The lines should be connected, starting from the central image. The central lines are thicker, organic and thinner as they radiate out from the center.
6. Make the lines the same length as the word/image they support.
7. Use multiple colors throughout the mind map, for visual stimulation and also to encode or group.
8. Develop your own personal style of mind mapping.
9. Use emphasis and show associations in your mind map.
10. Keep the mind map clear by using radial hierarchy, numerical order or outlines to embrace your branches.

Buzan claims that the mind map is a vastly superior note-taking method because it does not lead to a “semi-hypnotic trance” state induced by other note forms.  Buzan also argues that the mind map uses the full range of left and right human cortical skills, balances the brain, and taps into the alleged “99% of your unused mental potential.”

Once I understood the concept, I immediately started thinking about how these mind maps can be applied to adult learning.   Basically, mind mapping is defined as a diagram used to represent words, ideas, tasks, or other items linked to and arranged around a central key word or idea. Mind maps are used to generate, visualize, structure, and classify ideas, and as an aid to studying and organizing information, solving problems, making decisions, and writing.  At first blush, it seems that this approach is very similar to instructional system design methodologies both on the curriculum/course level and the overall learning program level.

Let’s bring this to a real-world example.  At the initiation of most training projects, I meet with stakeholders and subject matter experts to breakdown the sequencing of the course.  Traditionally, I do this with basic flowcharting techniques, using tools such as Visio and PowerPoint.  In my opinion, courses present more of a structured delivery of content and mind mapping does not add much value to this process.  The only area I see mind mapping as a sure method for developing content is building out scenarios for training purposes.  During simulation/scenario-based design, this would present clear branching information to the stakeholders.

However, when I look at curriculum design, I see great potential for mind mapping.  If we worked from a main learning goal and built out modules of content…to learning objectives…to lessons…to assessments…we might be onto something.  A brainstormed curriculum, in a mind mapped format, may give stakeholders a clear idea of how everything builds around their central learning goals.  In addition, mind maps could very well be a method to align a training curriculum to skill standards and/or competencies, which could validate a workforce certification program.

Finally, I thought about Web 2.0 and a learner-centric knowledge environment.  Mind mapping could provide students with an array of learning options that directly align to the greater learning goal.  During self-education, students can view and choose learning paths that meet their interests.  Communities can also participate in building out paths based on the initial framework.  Mind mapping may be a way to finally bring a common framework to the typically undefined Web 2.0 Communities of Practice.

I look forward to hearing feedback from the learning community on this topic…as long as there are not any 8 year-old boy smart-alecky responses.

There are constantly shifting social, economic and individual needs and people need a way to keep up with these shifts. It seems only logical that there be multiple clearly marked pathways to success for young people as they transition from adolescence into adulthood and essentially change their minds in our ever-changing world.  In conjunction with multiple pathways, national standards for educational/professional achievement, and societal support systems need to be put into place to grow youth in a way that produces educated and skilled adults with careers that serve them as individuals and serve the nation’s workforce.

One particular pathway that has been stigmatized over the last several years is Career Technology Education (CTE) training, which is also known as vocational, technical or apprenticeship training.  Because over the last few decades a social stigma has been attached to vocational programs, CTE training is often times dismissed by parents, and by Education Professionals and is replaced with the “college for all model”. Continued learning and workforce preparation for continued success and career growth is essential however, I would like to see a “credential for all” approach, not a “college for all” dream.  If there is a national standard and quality control for CTE programs that demonstrates consistency, rigor and quality across CTE training programs, along with guidance into careers linked to these training opportunities, and a society that accepts and encourages multiple pathways to career success, then either a “college for all” approach or an underprepared workforce don’t have to be the only options for the future of our nation’s youth.

When “we have still been unable to get more than 30 percent of young adults to earn a bachelor’s degree by their mid-20s”[1] we need to start looking at alternatives that will benefit the 2 out of 3 young people that are not college-bound.  There needs to be a promotion of student choice and increased opportunities to connect to the workforce before high school graduation to determine what jobs are best suited for those who are not seeking a 4-year degree program.  Tools need to be created and utilized to gauge students excellence in certain areas, and parents, educators, and future employers need to help build experiential/work-based learning opportunities that will help young people, college bound or not, determine what career pathways they would like to explore before they become completely disenchanted with the educational system and their future.  It appears that one of the primary factors for disengagement in high school is boredom and lack of connectivity to future goals. If a collaborative effort is made with our future leaders to provide a supported, concerted effort to improve education – workforce linkages, and delineated career pathways connected to personal interests and strengths, it is more likely that both secondary and post-secondary credentials will seem relevant and will make young people more enthusiastic about learning and attaining post-secondary credentials.

By: Allison Irby

1. The rapid de-institutionalization of the work and learning environment.
2. Individuals are becoming independent mobile economic unit.  Employers are no longer providing job security, healthcare, retirement benefits, or formal learning.
3. The rapid and selective access to knowledge through multiple delivery platforms.

There has been a shift in the structure of business-from massive corporations to flexible and adaptive business units, causing rapid de-institutionalization.  The Internet has given us the ability to communicate with almost anyone at anytime.  It is now easier and more cost effective in numerous cases to manage a virtual organization than a highly structured one.  In virtual organizations communities of like-minded people are opting to work together with limited processes to center their focus on the work that is necessary to get done, rather than dealing with challenging procedures and bureaucracy.

We are not only seeing de-institutionalization in the business environment, but as a result we are entering an economy where the individual is becoming the ultimate economic enterprise.

This can be referred to as “YOU INC” where every individual must become an active value creator that is highly mobile, self-directed, talented, and entrepreneurial.  Individuals will then have to perform all of the functions that businesses and institutions have always conducted in the past, such as:

• Developing capabilities and talents
• Positioning their product or service in the marketplace
• Branding and marketing
• Financial planning and management
• Strategy development and long range planning

From an economic perspective, it is practical for individuals to become an “enterprise of one.”  This has always been at the root of career success.  People with clear career goals and marketability are more likely to find success than those who opt to take a more passive route to their job.  Many, who have been laid off, in this economy, have had to re-evaluate themselves and their career through: defining their skill sets, career goals, developing a growth plan, and other critical matters.  When they identify all of the pieces of an enterprise, they can then re-define it through themselves (YOU INC.) similar to the factors listed above.

Value creation and talent will be based on economic and enterprise performance criteria, which may or may not directly lead to the creation of more U.S. jobs by existing companies and employers.  For example, the U.S. education system has been inserting entrepreneurial programs in both secondary and higher education programs, with the awareness that more and more people will need to create their job rather than hoping one will be created by some company or organization.

The remaining factor, in this changing environment, is the access to learning solutions.

Learning resources are dramatically growing with online, modular, and in other easily accessible forms; and there is no longer one acceptable way or place to learn.  Networks will continue to guide the learner in their pursuit of knowledge.  These capabilities will provide the individual the opportunity to grow their own talent on a continuing basis.

In this environment where the individual is the knowledge consumer, rather than the enterprise, authentication models will need to be introduced, standards need to be created and validated, while credentialing will need to become ubiquitous and flexible. Typically, employers with professional training and learning specialists are able to screen and acquire learning content presented by qualified providers. In this changing environment, individuals will have to do the sorting, evaluating, and selecting from a very broad range of choices. Methods for authenticating quality and relevancy of content may need to emerge along with indicators of capability such as credentials that are transparent in content and purpose for the market to understand and evaluate.

Do you agree with this scenario? Are you experiencing any changes that you could attribute to this scenario unfolding? If you agree with any portion of this scenario, what do you see as strategies for individuals to thrive?

When a certification body applies for ANSI accreditation and is denied, should that information be treated as public information?  This was a topic of discussion at an ANSI session at the ATP conference.

Currently, when an organization submits for ANSI accreditation, the materials submitted and deficiencies found (if any), are kept confidential. However, according to an ANSI reviewer, this could be changing in the U.S.   Some individuals believe that the public has a right to know the deficiencies of a certification body and that the results of accreditation visits should be public.   This argument is apparently growing stronger and increasing talk about implementing a mandate  for accountability and transparency.

The opposing argument, which came from a non-U.S. ANSI reviewer, emphasized how critical confidentiality is to ANSI’s success.  If the non-conformity confidentiality is breeched, certification bodies will no longer want to work with ANSI.  The critical aspect is not how many deficiencies a certification body has, but whether or not they are accredited.  If we trust the accrediting body, then we have faith that whatever deficiencies a certification body once had – are now gone.

What do you think?  Do you trust the accrediting bodies enough to defer to them, or would you like to see that list of deficiencies?

There was a common theme on Day 1 of the ASTD TechKnowledge 2010 Conference which revolved around the use of Web 2.0, as part of a learning program. ASTD President and CEO, Tony Bingham, kicked off the theme of the conference with a discussion about new social learning. New social learning involves the integration of Web 2.0 technologies within an infrastructure of knowledge management. As always ASTD does a good job in presenting research and case studies to back up their messages. Today was no different. The entire presentation will be available on the ASTD website soon, so I won’t cover the details; however, I want to talk about how we need to take a serious look at social learning and Web 2.0 to meet the evolving workforce. Today’s workforce now consists of four generations of personnel. Blended learning (Learning 1.0) techniques seemed like a good solution for the Boomers and the Generation X’rs; however, is that truly enough to meet the needs of the multi-tasking knowledge-thirsty Generation Y and the upcoming Net Gens? If you don’t think social learning is necessary to meet the needs of the upcoming workforce, you are way behind the reality curve. Check out this video that examines the power of social networking and how it has become a force in everything we do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oalBUgzKaLw

So, what the heck is Web 2.0 and how does this become Learning 2.0. Dr. Marc Rosenburg defined Web 2.0 as a growing set of tools and processes that allows anyone to easily create or access digital content and collaborate with others without special programming skills. What this does is allow people to control their own learning. In other words, they can dip into the online information super highway, get the particular knowledge they need, and get out. The Net Gen workforce will not tolerate sitting in a three day class for that one piece of information they need. Learning 2.0 will give them the resource they will need to succeed. When you examine the impact on what it means to implement social learning in your organization, you will quickly understand that it goes against the traditional methods of learning and really turns the industry on its head. In Dr. Rosenberg’s seminar today, he beautifully dissected the finer points of the Learning 2.0 revolution. Traditionally, learning has been focused around the instructor and what the instructor feels is important for the learner to know. What Learning 2.0 does is make the learner the centerpiece of the learning in a real-time world. Surrounding the learner are not only the Learning 1.0 (blended learning technologies), but also the Learning 2.0 tools available to support the learner. The quickly developed diagram below breaks down this new structure for learning.

Research has shown that an individual gains 98% of their knowledge in the workplace, while they work. Learning 2.0 allows the worker to continue learning in the workplace and provides them an overlay of tools to provide just-in-time learning support. What this does is transform the one-place one-time Learning Management approach towards an everyplace all-of-the-time Knowledge Management approach. Learning 2.0 builds communities of practice.

This is an extremely complex topic and I can go on and on (believe me), but I will save deeper discussions on individual topics for other days. However, before signing off there is one point that I do want to make, which was happily justified by Dr. Rosenberg in his seminar today. In the old Learning 1.0 days, it is easy to measure the success of a student by making them take a test after completing the training. But, how do we measure Learning 2.0 technologies. Well, in reality…you can’t. However, Dr. Rosenberg confirmed something that the good folks at GSX have been saying for years. Dr. Rosenberg stated that certification is the key to identify and measure the work the individual should be able to perform for their position. This is why the diagram above shows Performer in parenthesis. Learning 2.0 allows us to concentrate more on what the actual work is that an individual needs to perform and then bring in any method of learning support necessary to meet the need. Building functional skill standards through certification and assessment measures how well an individual understands the skills required to perform their work. In reality, senior leadership cares only if an individual can perform their job at a specific level and a certification approach meets this need. Learning 2.0 will allow learners to pull the knowledge and skills they need to meet the certification requirements and continue building their knowledge base as they move forward in their careers.

The Learning 2.0 revolution touches every piece of the learning industry we once knew. From the role of the Learning Management System to the role of the Instructional Designer, times are a changin’ my friends. More about these in a future post.

Looking forward to what tomorrow will bring.