I often get asked by people in our field (the learning-and-performance field) about how to select a graduate school and how to approach graduate school once in. Maybe because I spent so much time in graduate school (10 years), I think I can offer some ideas: Start reading the research now to find out whose research you admire, etc. The ideal is to find a professor you want to work with, although this is very difficult. Find a program that is well-respected and offers several professors who are top notch. Go to a school with an active colloquy or open research-discussion sessions. If you can, go to one of the best schools. It will help you later as you network your way to career postings you want. Expect a long and difficult haul. Expect wonderful rewards if you put in the effort. Avoid professors who are evil. Seriously, there are some who are just dysfunctional. Ask for student references and talk to real students who have gone through the program. Ask for the good the bad the ugly. Find a program with a very strong research methodology approach. If you graduate without knowing how to evaluate research, you won't do anybody any good. I've seen too many smart people who just shy away from the whole research enterprise because they've never been prepared for it. Get a reading list of the articles and books used in the required courses. Ask around to see if these are written by the top thinkers in the field. Do not confuse "top thinkers" with "most-popular thinkers." My own bias is to focus on the fundamentals of learning at the same time focusing on what is practical, but this is hard to find. Be prepared to have a very thick skin. Be open to ideas. Relish them, but stick to your guns if you know deep down that you've got an intriguing idea. Ask the professors what journals they publish in. Determine if these are top tier or lesser tier journals. Aim for the top tier. Beware of the programs labeled as "adult learning, curriculum studies" and the like. These often are weak in the foundations of human learning (but not always). If you go to a school focused on instructional technology, make sure you find one with good background in learning. If you want to build learning interventions when you get out of school, don't just focus on academics, build stuff while in graduate school that you can show to prospective employers later. Note that the best development shops are very skeptical of graduates of instructional-design programs because many come out of those programs with rigidly inflexible mental models of how to build learning. This unbearable hardness of being is often combined with an arrogance that leaves these graduates with little ability to learn. Bottom line: Find a school, and adopt an attitude, that is inquisitive, open, skeptical, and hungry for knowledge. Find a way to test your ideas and learning interventions using valid methods so you can get the feedback loops you need to continually improve what you're doing and thinking. Begin to take control of your learning now, before you get into school. In the doctoral program, it's 95% you. Realize that when you start reading in the field, it will feel like you are a complete idiot. This is normal as you learn the language of the thinkers and researchers. On the other hand, as you learn more and more, don't forget how the real world talks. Most of the time, but not always, PhD degrees are more research-oriented than EdD degrees, which is a good thing. Note that I write these recommendations because I believe we need many more people in our field who can bridge the gap between research and practice. If you're completely not cut out to do research, that's fine. Be practical. But get yourself enough research background so you can evaluate research claims when you see them. Beware of a fear of research. Fear usually comes from a lack of exposure. Expose yourself.

FREE Brown Bag Learning Webinoshes My Brown Bag Learning webinoshes are short, intimate webinars covering one essential topic in human learning and performance. I add questions, learning myths, and question-and-answer sessions (where you can ask me anything) to the mix to keep things interesting. These Brown Bag Learning experiences are provided using a "Subscription Learning" methodology, so that themes will be repeated over time for deeper, more impactful learning. Upcoming Schedule: Friday November 7th, Noon U.S. East Coast Time Can We Improve Our Smile Sheets? Link to Register: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/345686876     Friday November 21st, Noon U.S. East Coast Time Does Context Matter? Link to Register: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/796752726   New: Now Available through both the phone and VOIP so folks from around the world can attend.

This Friday the Chicagoland Learning Leaders are meeting in their annual conference. This is a fantastic group and I know that some of my smartest Chicago-area clients are going to be there in droves. Unfortunately, I can't make it, but I heard great things about this last year and if you're in the Chicago area this is not to be missed. Click here for more information. It's their 7th Annual Conference, so they must know what they're doing!!

As a person whose career focuses so much on learning, I can't help but notice when learning plays a part in the larger world, and especially in the life of my family, community, and country.My wife and I, and our daughter, live in the United States. Last night our country elected a new President, Barack Obama. Right after Republican-party candidate John McCain conceded the election in a very gracious speech, with Democratic-party candidate Barack Obama due to speak to the nation to acknowledge his victory, my wife and I decided to wake up our 5-year-old daughter (she's almost six--a few months really matter at her age).Both my wife and I have been strong Obama supporters in the general election. For weeks, our daughter has been asking about the election. "Who are you going to vote for?" "Is mommy going to vote for him too?" The questions are repeated and keep coming over time. You can feel her trying to learn how the world works, how we fit into the world. Last night at dinner she said, "I hope Iraq Obama wins." We're still working on getting her to say "Barack."As we put her to bed, we asked her whether we should wake her up to tell her who won. She said yes. A little after 11PM, I walked upstairs to her room. In her darkened room she was lying across the bed, her orange sheet covering her body, her bare feet sticking out past the side of the mattress. "Alena, Obama won. Do you want to come downstairs to see him speak?" She popped right up, which is unusual as she usually gets up in a slow series of sleepy disgruntlements. She zoomed downstairs and nudged her way inbetween her mommy and daddy.We had to wait for Obama to appear. As we gloried in the moment last night, with our daughter between us, my wife and I were happy parents, proud of our country. Our daughter got to hear the same pledge of allegiance that she says in her kindergarten classroom every morning. "Do you know what song that is Alena?" "No." "That's the national anthem. That's our country's song." During the wait for Obama, the announcers kept talking about the historic moment, how we were electing our first black President, how women and African Americans hadn't always had the right to vote. Tired, with her head laying on her mommy, then on daddy, then peeking over the sheets laying across us on the couch, she watched and listened and continued to shift back and forth."What color skin do you have to have to be President?", she asked. "Any color. You can have any color skin. In the past, a black person couldn't be President, but now they can." "What color skin did they have to have?" "They had to have white skin." "I have both colors (she has some of her mother's Colombian skin)." "Yes, you do, just like him." We point at the TV where Barack Obama is speaking. A moment of quiet reflection. "But a woman can't be President." "Oh yes, a woman can be President. You can be President if you want to." Another moment of quiet reflection, longer this time. Her quiet was surprising because usually when we tell her she can be anything she wants to be, she immediately interrupts and tells us she wants to be a veterinarian because she loves animals.Alena was riveted to the two Obama girls as they took the stage. When they didn't come out later when the Obamas and Bidens took the stage, she asked where the girls were. I'm going to bet that my daughter remembers this election. I remember President Kennedy getting shot and killed when I was a little younger than she is now. I remember my mom in tears and not being able to watch cartoons because adult shows preempted the cartoons on the TV. Alena did ask last night if there were any kid shows of the Obama speech. Alas, no..., perhaps a lost opportunity for learning.Even as a learning expert, it's hard for me to fully fathom how tiny moments have profound learning effects for kids. Some of it is surely emotional and social. Seeing all the faces with tears of joy around the country must have had an impact. Seeing how one's parents cry, beam, and do uncharacteristic things (waking the kids in the middle of the night) must have an effect. Hearing the announcers glow with special rhetoric must make a difference. Seeing all the different types of faces on the stage, brown, white, and in between. Youngsters like the Obama girls. Elders like Biden's fragile steely mom. Hearing Obama's eloquence, his example of the 106 year-old woman voter born before women could vote, must have made a difference. And new research on learning tells us that learning something just before sleeping helps cement that learning. So many factors at play.I can't help wondering what other wonderful teachable moments we have in store for us. How many teachable moments have already occurred. How this affects not only our children, but us; not only our country, but people around the world. How this has changed us forever.

Just getting back from DevLearn08 I've decided to jump into the Twitter thing. You can follow me @WillWorkLearn. Before I fully begin my Twitter experience, here's a thought experiment regarding Twitter. If I could talk to God (or some other all-knowing entity), would it be useful for me (if I'm interested in gaining knowledge) to give up a minute of that precious time to talk with the multitudes? No it would be foolish to give up a 100% chance of gaining true knowledge in a quickly-efficient way for a lesser chance at learning from the mulititudes. I'm assuming of course that neither God nor any other true-knowledge entity is following me on Twitter. What information-gathering entity has time for that? Of course, knowledge is not everything I might desire. I might want to feel part of a community. I might want to make friends. I might want to do an ethnographic study of The Tworld just for fun. If this all-knowing entity was a bore or decided to use its wisdom to politely keep some personal distance from me, I would be better off talking with the multitudes. But since this is a blog that focuses on Learning, not Relationships, let's get back to the knowledge-gathering question. Since it is unlikely that some all-knowing entity will have time for me, I will have to rely on entities that will provide me with less than 100% knowledge. If I find a 99%-true-knowledge entity, wouldn't I be better off talking with it, than talking with the multitudes? Yes, I would think so in most cases, though I suppose it depends on its knowledge gaps, and how fast I need the knowledge. So, where is the breakeven point where I'm equally likely to get true knowledge from a true-knowledge entity and from the multitudes? Is it an 80%-true knowledge entity, a 50% true-knowledge entity, or a 20%-true-knowledge entity?  Here's the point I think I'm making: If I have access to relatively good sources of information, how do I decide to forsake those sources for the multitudes, where information may be less valid or slower to access? In other words, would Twitters be better off reading a non-fiction book, an article, or a trusted website? I suppose we ought to divide our knowledge needs into categories. Deep knowledge, gained over significant amounts of time, requiring a subtle understanding of a topic area, its contingencies, its boundary conditions. Shallow knowledge, gained from one or a few experiences, not weaved tightly together with a network of knowledge. If we need deep knowledge, we ought to go to a true-knowledge entity (if we know of one). If we just need shallow knowledge, we may be just as succcessful going to the multitudes. I don't know, what do you think oh wise one? And then there is the matter of the time horizon. I may learn small things quick or build big understandings over time by interfacing with my multitudes. And then there is the matter of truthiness. What risk is there in getting information from the multitudes? Probably depends on the query. I don't know, what do you think oh wise one? WINK.

In a recent comment, Don Roddy asked why I just started using Twitter. Answer: I just thought I ought to know about it. I saw Michelle Lentz give a breakfast byte session at DevLearn. She gave some good examples of how it might be used for learning. I thought I ought to check it out.I admit I'm skeptical.My Twitter ID: WillWorkLearn, if you want to follow me.So here's my first observation. Twitter's one question is, "What are you doing?" Wouldn't a better question be, "What are you thinking?"I suppose it would be too complicated to have two options, a thinking-doing dichotomy. Or maybe thinking is doing. But the prompt connotes action, not thinking...And I think I'd rather know what other people are thinking. At least some other people. Maybe Twitter could enable us to elevate some people to the "What are you thinking?" level, while keeping most in "What are you doing?" level.Anyway, if you've been thinking you want to check Twitter out, come join me for the ride. It's free to use. Apparently they don't have a business model. I do think Twitter might be an excellent way to stay in touch with my family. I'm going to see if I can talk them into it. 

The incomparable Jane Hart has a list of Learning Professionals on Twitter.

Three great workshops in Washington, D.C. (United States) upcoming in a few weeks. Come join me, and/or Brent Schlenker, and/or Mark Oehlert.Brent and Mark: Web 2.0/Collaborative Learning Brent and Mark: Immersive Learning Simulations (aka Serious Games) Me (Will Thalheimer) Creating and Measuring Learning Transfer. Thanks to Mark Oehlert's e-Clippings, from which I copied the image and links.

Read this intriguing article in Slate.It talks about how some people can elicit an emotional response in others that enables optimism and moral inspiration.Quoted from the article:University of Virginia moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who coined the term elevation, writes, "Powerful moments of elevation sometimes seem to push a mental 'reset button,' wiping out feelings of cynicism and replacing them with feelings of hope, love, and optimism, and a sense of moral inspiration."I don't think most training situations would benefit from such elevation, but some might. There's little likelihood that someone learning how to use a spreadsheet could be elevated, for example.On the other hand, I can see particular opportunities for socially-responsible organizations or initiatives, especially those that are led by elevation-enabling leaders. Perhaps some soft-skill training may benefit, for example, where a management-training facilitator tells stories of others' efforts to help develop the people they work with.There can be downsides to elevation as well, not least of which is that those who don't feel the elevation think that those who do feel it are either ridiculous or brainwashed. And, elevation by itself doesn't generate changes in behavior. Haidt's research shows that elevation is good at provoking a desire to make a difference but not so good at motivating real action.Still, I think it's worth thinking about how to connect with our learners at a deeper level. It doesn't have to be super-deep, just a little bit deeper may help. Let's remember that we as learning professionals have a responsibility not just to inform, prepare, and provide practice. We can also increase the likelihood that our learners will actually utilize what we teach by enabling their "motivation to apply" what they've learned. Sure, we can utilize our learners' management to promote application, but we can play a role in enabling the learners to want to apply what they've learned. Elevation may be another tool we can use in our work.

The New York Times published an article today saying that college tuition may be out of reach for most Americans. This, of course, is stunning news. If true, it will rip a gaping hole in the very fabric of our society. It will also, make the job of work-learning professionals that much harder. More remedial training. More training that teaches meta-cognitive thinking skills. Dealing more with splinter groups and labor unrest, as we further divide into the haves and have-nots. Dealing more with globalization as professional and managerial jobs are shipped off-shore. Dealing more with workers with different language and cultural backgrounds as professionals are imported to relieve shortages. Making due with fewer and fewer highly-educated workers, as fewer are college educated and more become expatriates escaping the toxicity of a more-divided, more-rancorous, more-economically volatile environment. On the other hand, perhaps there will be a need for learning professionals who can be really creative in dealing with these issues. Perhaps China is educating them now...

The eLearning Guild is offering a $400 early-bird discount if you register for their March Annual Gathering by December 19th. Check it out.Note: I'll be presenting a workshop (with Roy Pollock) on Learning Measurement, and speaking several other times, so this conference is well worth your while. AND, by saving $400, you can easily afford our symposium. 

H.M. died on Tuesday. He was a severe amnesiac. At the age of 27 he underwent surgery to correct severe and debilitating seizures. When he awoke, he was unable to remember much of anything ever again--at least not anything in the declarative memory system. He lived life as the most famous experimental subject in the history of cognitive psychology and neuroscience. I remember reading about him when I was a graduate student in the late 1980's and 1990's. What researchers learned by studying him was that there was more than one memory system. This information led to a revolution in our understanding of human cognition and learning.After years being known only as H.M., to protect his identity, in death we learn that his name was Henry Gustav Molaison, and he lived his life in Connecticut, on the east coast of the United States.The New York Times tells his story better than I can. It is well worth the read.And NPR has a previous story, that you can hear. It is well worth the listen.And here's H.M.'s wikipedia entry.

U.S. Loses 533,000 Jobs in November, the New York Times reports.The largest one-month loss in over 30 years. The economy is now guaranteed to be in the longest recession since the Great Depression.Ouch. Ouch. Ouch.Prediction: The learning-and-performance industry is about to take a big big big hit. I'm thinking a complete disaster. I'm thinking maybe my MBA will come in handy. Master Burger Administrator. I actually worked full-time as a short-order cook for a year before going to college, so I'm ready. BIG GULP!Polish up your resumes folks. Cut way back on holiday spending. Put in extra time at the office so they won't think you're quite the dead wood you seem to be. Stop eating the expensive part of meals, like the entrees and desserts. Encourage your family to become anorexic. Burn all your George Bush paraphernalia. Even if you're one of the 19% of people who still think Bush is a good president, don't tell anyone. Tell Corporate that there was a mistake in your job title, it wasn't supposed to be "Instructional Designer" it was supposed to be "Productivity Designer"; it wasn't supposed to be Director of Learning and Emerging Technologies" it was supposed to be "Director of Much Better Performance"; your CLO title didn't mean "Chief Learning Officer," it meant "Cutter of Learning Overhead." Remember, in times like these, even if you can't have your dream job in being a "Learning Professional," being an earning professional is good.My hope is that in times like these, the best of us will survive/thrive, perhaps by doing the right stuff.

A few weeks ago, I commented on a discussion list that focuses on my daughter's school. Christine Rafal read my comment and wanted to post it on her blog. I said, "sure."

My home just got robo-called by my Health Insurance Company. They wanted to remind us to get our flu shots. This seems like a nice performance-support reminder to me. My insurance company pays for those flu shots too, which makes it nice (I'm in Massachusetts, where we have new required health-care standards, and it's not clear whether the state reimburses the insurance companies or not).Hmmm. I wonder whether they are testing the value of this. It would be so easy to evaluate the benefits of this.

DePaul's new Learning Executive Certificate Program seems like an intriguing way to LEARN formally and informally from the other program participants. (especially if you're in the Chicago area)Program Business GoalThis 20-week program is intended for active learning leaders to strengthen and expand their overall leadership capability, network, and contributions. Learning and Talent Management Executives from the Chicagoland area will guide participants through such activities as project-sharing, peer-reviews, and blended learning assignments with learning & business leaders. All participants will bring both business and learning experience so that they can contribute meaningful perspectives on action learning with meaningful business outcomes.  This certification program calls for a high level of collaboration prior, during and after the 20-week formal sessions. The primary tools to accomplish this interaction will be several web-based systems designed to maximize shared learning.  This program is in partnership with DePaul University and culminates in a DePaul Certificate of Achievement.Learn more:Prospectus (PDF)DePaul WebsiteLearning Leader Website (members get $1200 discount)

If you're about to dump your old computer, consider recycling it. Here's the link.Remember, there are a lot of nasty materials in our computers.

The 2008 Neon Elephant Award goes to Robert Brinkerhoff for developing the Success Case evaluation method and for advocating that learning professionals play a more ???courageous??? role in their organizations.Read complete story.

Nice radio show interview of Lawrence Lessig by Terry Gross on Fresh Air. About 37 minutes.Copyright laws strike me as having a fundamental effect on our democracy and economy, especially in the sense that (1) the free and accurate flow of information is necessary to enabling citizens to make informed decisions, and (2) as copyright laws help provide creators with a base livelihood that enables them to keep creating.Read the comments too, which provide some counter point to Lessigs' argument that free sharing has provided more benefits than harm.Also, note that the interview gets into some major forces in society and issues related to the learning field, which may be of interest to those of you in the learning field who like to ponder the intersections between economy, power, discourse, politics, and the citizenry.Lessig makes the case that copyright laws are primarily intended to provide incentives for creators to create new works. I find this argument intriguing, but too narrow. To me, creators ought to have some control over their work. I admit that nothing is created in a vacuum--that all creators draw upon others for ideas and inspiration--so we are all in this together. Still, even a compiler puts in time and effort. Shouldn't this effort be protected? Since Lessig is a principal behind the Creative Commons Copyright efforts, and since Creative Commons includes many flexible options that creators control, perhaps I am reading too much into the argument Lessig makes in the interview. On the other hand, Lessig's new book seem to promote the idea of remixing, so maybe I am right to worry just a little. For example, maybe remixing a song is fine, but taking concepts or ideas out of context can be ripe for a real mess, of the type a creator may not want to encourage.Lessig's interview by Terry Gross is worth a listen. Perhaps the new book, Remix, he is hawking is worth a read as well. The Amazon Link is available below:

Bob Herbert has a nice article today in the NYTimes on how we ought to celebrate many of our fellow citizens for going out of their way in doing their jobs. In it he mentions how teachers and auto workers have been vilified. Got me thinking about whether work-learning professionals are vilified. Probably too strong a word, but still, I think perhaps as a field we are under-appreciated, or at least labeled in such a way that is not flattering in the central-to-the-organizational-mission kind of appreciation that we might aspire to.

The learning-and-performance industry is deluged with instruments purported to help people (1) work better in teams, (2) manage more effectively, (3) hire the right people, (4) promote the best people, (5) etcetera. Unfortunately, many of these instruments have validity, reliability, and magnitude-of-effect issues, despite being well-received by respondents and by learning-and-performance professionals. For example, I will note problems with the MBTI Myers-Briggs below.Such instruments include multi-rater 360-degree instruments, job-skills tests, knowledge tests, and personality inventories. This blog post is related specifically to personality inventories.Personality instruments include the wildly-popular MBTI Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the DISC, plus all sorts of other tests indexed with colors, shapes, and other personality dimensions.The thinking is that people's personalities influence their actions and their actions determine their workplace effectiveness. This makes sense intuitively, but in practice it has not always been easy to show that personality affects behavior. Early excitement about this possibility in the mid 1900's (i.e., 1930 to 1960) gave way to skepticism, only rebounding into favor in the 1990's as new research found evidence that personality tests could be used in relationship to job performance. For a good historic overview see John and Srivastava (1999, link in reference section below). Recent research has generally found that personality inventories are related to job performance, though the relationships may be modest and not always consistent. Barrick and Mount (1991) did a meta-analysis looking at many aspects of job performance and found personality to be a factor. Zhao and Seibert (2006) found that the Five-Factor Personality types were related to entrepreneurial skills. Clarke and Robertson (2005) found that personality was related to workplace and non-workplace accidents. Barrick, Mount, and Judge (2001) examined 15 different meta-analyses and concluded that personality and performance were linked.But this research needs to be understood with some perspective. As Hurtz and Donovan (2000) and others have pointed out, the relationship between the five-factor personality inventories and job performance can be somewhat limited. In other words, just because a person scores a certain way doesn't necessarily mean that they will act a certain way; while there is a slight tendency in the predicted direction, it often is only a slight tendency. Hurtz and Donovan worry further that when other indicators are used (e.g., previous job experience, interviews, etc.), personality measures may provide very little additional information. Moreover, they cite the worry that respondents can fake their responses on personality inventories (see also, Birkeland, Manson, Kisamore, Brannick, & Smith, 2006). It is particularly important to note that personality research is now almost all tied to the "Big-Five" or "Five-Factor" personality taxonomy. This taxonomy measures personality along five distinct scales, including Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability. The ???Big-Five??? or ???Five-Factor??? Personality taxonomy has been validated in many scientific studies (Digman, 1990; Hogan, Hogan, & Roberts, 1996) and is the most widely-regarded of the many personality models, especially as it relates to workplace behaviors. For example, Barrick, Mount, and Judge in 2001 looked at 15 meta-analyses that investigated the relationship between the five personality factors and job performance. Other personality taxonomies have not fared as well. For example, the MBTI (Myers-Briggs) has been widely discredited by researchers. It is considered neither reliable nor valid. For example, see Pittenger's (2005) caution about using the MBTI. The DISC has not been studied enough to be scientifically validated.Years ago, I used the MBTI in leadership training to make the point that people are different and may bring different skills and needs to the table. While using such a diagnostic seemed helpful in making that point, today I would use other ways to get that message across or use instruments that are scientifically validated. To Learn More about Five-Factor Model of Personalityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_five_personality_traitshttp://www.centacs.com/quickstart.htmhttp://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/http://www.uoregon.edu/~sanjay/bigfive.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism_Extraversion_Openness_Personality_InventoryTo Purchase/Use Instruments based on the Five-Factor ModelMost Trusted Instrument is the NEO: http://www3.parinc.com/products/product.aspx?Productid=NEO-PI-R, http://www.sigmaassessmentsystems.com/assessments/neopir.aspShorter Version of the NEO: http://www3.parinc.com/products/product.aspx?Productid=NEO_FFI, http://www.sigmaassessmentsystems.com/assessments/neoffi.aspThe BFI Instrument: http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~johnlab/bfi.htmPublic Domain Instrument (the IPAP): http://ipip.ori.org/, but be sure to read their article before using it: http://ipip.ori.org/Goldberg_etal_2006_IPIP_JRP.pdfResearch CitationsBarrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next?. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9-30.Birkeland, S. A., Manson, T. M., Kisamore, J. L., Brannick, M. T., & Smith, M. A. (2006). A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Job Applicant Faking on Personality Measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 317-335.Clarke, S., & Robertson, I. T. (2005). A meta???-???analytic review of the Big Five personality factors and accident involvement in occupational and non???-???occupational settings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(3), 355-376.Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440. Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment decisions: Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51, 469-477. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S.  (1999). The Big Five Trait Taxonomy:  History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives.  In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality:  Theory and Research (2nd ed., pp. 102-138), New York:  Guilford Press. Available at: http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~johnlab/pdfs/john&srivastava,1999.pdf or http://www.uoregon.edu/~sanjay/pubs/bigfive.pdf.Pittenger, D. J. (2005). Cautionary Comments Regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57, 210-221.Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 259-271.Some Interesting Articles on Personality and the Workplace (and their abstracts)Personality and Team Performance: A Meta???-???Analysis.By Peeters, Miranda A. G.; Van Tuijl, Harrie F. J. M.; Rutte, Christel G.; Reymen, Isabelle M. M. J.European Journal of Personality. Vol 20(5), Aug 2006, 377-396.Using a meta-analytical procedure, the relationship between team composition in terms of the Big-Five personality traits (trait elevation and variability) and team performance were researched. The number of teams upon which analyses were performed ranged from 106 to 527. For the total sample, significant effects were found for elevation in agreeableness (p = 0.24) and conscientiousness (p = 0.20), and for variability in agreeableness (p = -0.12) and conscientiousness (p = -0.24). Moderation by type of team was tested for professional teams versus student teams. Moderation results for agreeableness and conscientiousness were in line with the total sample results. However, student and professional teams differed in effects for emotional stability and openness to experience. Based on these results, suggestions for future team composition research are presented.An examination of the role of personality in work accidents using meta???-???analysis.By Clarke, Sharon; Roberston, IvanApplied Psychology: An International Review. Vol 57(1), Jan 2008, 94-108.Personality has been studied as a predictor variable in a range of occupational settings. The study reported is based on a systematic search and meta-analysis of the literature, using the "Big Five" personality framework. The results indicated that there was substantial variability in the effect of personality on workplace accidents, with evidence of situational moderators operating in most cases. However, one aspect of personality, low agreeableness, was found to be a valid and generalisable predictor of involvement in work accidents. The implications of the findings for future research are discussed. Although meta-analysis can be used to provide definite estimates of effect sizes, the limitations of such an approach are also considered.Personality and Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta???-???Analysis.By Bono, Joyce E.; Judge, Timothy A.Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol 89(5), Oct 2004, 901-910.This study was a meta-analysis of the relationship between personality and ratings of transformational and transactional leadership behaviors. Using the 5-factor model of personality as an organizing framework, the authors accumulated 384 correlations from 26 independent studies. Personality traits were related to 3 dimensions of transformational leadership--idealized influence-inspirational motivation (charisma), intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration--and 3 dimensions of transactional leadership--contingent reward, management by exception-active, and passive leadership. Extraversion was the strongest and most consistent correlate of transformational leadership. Although results provided some support for the dispositional basis of transformational leadership--especially with respect to the charisma dimension--generally, weak associations suggested the importance of future research to focus on both narrower personality traits and nondispositional determinants of transformational and transactional leadership.The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta???-???analytical review.By Zhao, Hao; Seibert, Scott E.Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol 91(2), Mar 2006, 259-271.In this study, the authors used meta-analytical techniques to examine the relationship between personality and entrepreneurial status. Personality variables used in previous studies were categorized according to the five-factor model of personality. Results indicate significant differences between entrepreneurs and managers on 4 personality dimensions such that entrepreneurs scored higher on Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience and lower on Neuroticism and Agreeableness. No difference was found for Extraversion. Effect sizes for each personality dimension were small, although the multivariate relationship for the full set of personality variables was moderate (R = .37). Considerable heterogeneity existed for all of the personality variables except Agreeableness, suggesting that future research should explore possible moderators of the personality-entrepreneurial status relationship.Predicting job performance using FFM and non???-???FFM personality measures.By Salgado, Jes??s F.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Vol 76(3), Sep 2003, 323-346.This study compares the criterion validity of the Big Five personality dimensions when assessed using Five-Factor Model (FFM)-based inventories and non-FFM-based inventories. A large database consisting of American as well as European validity studies was meta-analysed. The results showed that for conscientiousness and emotional stability, the FFM-based inventories had greater criterion validity than the non FFM-based inventories. Conscientiousness showed an operational validity of .28 (N=19,460, 90% CV=.07) for FFM-based inventories and .18 (N=5,874, 90% CV=-.04) for non-FFM inventories. Emotional stability showed an operational validity of .16 (N=10,786, 90% CV=.04) versus .05 (N=4,54I, 90% CV=-.05) for FFM and non-FFM-based inventories, respectively. No relevant differences emerged for extraversion, openness, and agreeableness. From a practical point of view, these findings suggest that practitioners should use inventories based on the FFM in order to make personnel selection decisions.A Meta???-???Analytic Investigation of Job Applicant Faking on Personality Measures.By Birkeland, Scott A.; Manson, Todd M.; Kisamore, Jennifer L.; Brannick, Michael T.; Smith, Mark A.International Journal of Selection and Assessment. Vol 14(4), Dec 2006, 317-335.This study investigates the extent to which job applicants fake their responses on personality tests. Thirty-three studies that compared job applicant and non-applicant personality scale scores were meta-analyzed. Across all job types, applicants scored significantly higher than non-applicants on extraversion (d = .11), emotional stability (d = .44), conscientiousness (d = .45), and openness (d = .13). For certain jobs (e.g., sales), however, the rank ordering of mean differences changed substantially suggesting that job applicants distort responses on personality dimensions that are viewed as particularly job relevant. Smaller mean differences were found in this study than those reported by Viswesvaran and Ones (Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(2), 197-210), who compared scores for induced 'fake-good' vs. honest response conditions. Also, direct Big Five measures produced substantially larger differences than did indirect Big Five measures.A meta???-???analytic review of the Big Five personality factors and accident involvement in occupational and non???-???occupational settings.By Clarke, Sharon; Robertson, Ivan T.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Vol 78(3), Sep 2005, 355-376.Although a number of studies have examined individual personality traits and their influence on accident involvement, consistent evidence of a predictive relationship is lacking due to contradictory findings. The current study reports a meta-analysis of the relationship between accident involvement and the Big Five personality dimensions (extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness). Low conscientiousness and low agreeableness were found to be valid and generalizable predictors of accident involvement, with corrected mean validities of .27 and .26, respectively. The context of the accident acts as a moderator in the personality-accident relationship, with different personality dimensions associated with occupational and non-occupational accidents. Extraversion was found to be a valid and generalizable predictor of traffic accidents, but not occupational accidents. Avenues for further research are highlighted and discussed. Big Five personality predictors of post???-???secondary academic performance.By O'Connor, Melissa C.; Paunonen, Sampo V.Personality and Individual Differences. Vol 43(5), Oct 2007, 971-990.We reviewed the recent empirical literature on the relations between the Big Five personality dimensions and post-secondary academic achievement, and found some consistent results. A meta-analysis showed Conscientiousness, in particular, to be most strongly and consistently associated with academic success. In addition, Openness to Experience was sometimes positively associated with scholastic achievement, whereas Extraversion was sometimes negatively related to the same criterion, although the empirical evidence regarding these latter two dimensions was somewhat mixed. Importantly, the literature indicates that the narrow personality traits or facets presumed to underlie the broad Big Five personality factors are generally stronger predictors of academic performance than are the Big Five personality factors themselves. Furthermore, personality predictors can account for variance in academic performance beyond that accounted for by measures of cognitive ability. A template for future research on this topic is proposed, which aims to improve the prediction of scholastic achievement by overcoming identifiable and easily correctable limitations of past studies. Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings.By Costa Jr., Paul; Terracciano, Antonio; McCrae, Robert R.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol 81(2), Aug 2001, 322-331.Secondary analyses of Revised NEO Personality inventory data from 26 cultures (N =23,031) suggest that gender differences are small relative to individual variation within genders; differences are replicated across cultures for both college-age and adult samples, and differences are broadly consistent with gender stereotypes: Women reported themselves to be higher in Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Warmth, and Openness to Feelings, whereas men were higher in Assertiveness and Openness to Ideas. Contrary to predictions from evolutionary theory, the magnitude of gender differences varied across cultures. Contrary to predictions from the social role model, gender differences were most pronounced in European and American cultures in which traditional sex roles are minimized. Possible explanations for this surprising finding are discussed, including the attribution of masculine and feminine behaviors to roles rather than traits in traditional cultures.Five???-???factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta???-???analysis.By Judge, Timothy A.; Heller, Daniel; Mount, Michael K.Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol 87(3), Jun 2002, 530-541.This study reports results of a meta-analysis linking traits from the 5-factor model of personality to overall job satisfaction. Using the model as an organizing framework, 334 correlations from 163 independent samples were classified according to the model. The estimated true score correlations with job satisfaction were -.29 for Neuroticism, .25 for Extraversion, .02 for Openness to Experience, .17 for Agreeableness, and .26 for Conscientiousness. Results further indicated that only the relations of Neuroticism and Extraversion with job satisfaction generalized across studies. As a set, the Big Five traits had a multiple correlation of .41 with job satisfaction, indicating support for the validity of the dispositional source of job satisfaction when traits are organized according to the 5-factor model.Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta???-???analytic review.By Judge, Timothy A.; Ilies, RemusJournal of Applied Psychology. Vol 87(4), Aug 2002, 797-807.This article provides a meta-analysis of the relationship between the 5-factor model of personality and 3 central theories of performance motivation (goal-setting, expectancy, and self-efficacy motivation). The quantitative review includes 150 correlations from 65 studies. Traits were organized according to the 5-factor model of personality. Results indicated that Neuroticism (average validity=-.31) and Conscientiousness (average validity=.24) were the strongest and most consistent correlates of performance motivation across the 3 theoretical perspectives. Results further indicated that the validity of 3 of the Big Five traits--Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness--generalized across studies. As a set, the Big 5 traits had an average multiple correlation of .49 with the motivational criteria, suggesting that the Big 5 traits are an important source of performance motivation.Temperament and personality in dogs (Canis familiaris): A review and evaluation of past research.By Jones, Amanda C.; Gosling, Samuel D.Applied Animal Behaviour Science. Vol 95(1-2), Nov 2005, 1-53.Spurred by theoretical and applied goals, the study of dog temperament has begun to garner considerable research attention. The researchers studying temperament in dogs come from varied backgrounds, bringing with them diverse perspectives, and publishing in a broad range of journals. This paper reviews and evaluates the disparate work on canine temperament. We begin by summarizing general trends in research on canine temperament. To identify specific patterns, we propose several frameworks for organizing the literature based on the methods of assessment, the breeds examined, the purpose of the studies, the age at which the dogs were tested, the breeding and rearing environment, and the sexual status of the dogs. Next, an expert-sorting study shows that the enormous number of temperament traits examined can be usefully classified into seven broad dimensions. Meta-analyses of the findings pertaining to inter-rater agreement, test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and convergent validity generally support the reliability and validity of canine temperament tests but more studies are needed to support these preliminary findings. Studies examining discriminant validity are needed, as preliminary findings on discriminant validity are mixed. We close by drawing 18 conclusions about the field, identifying the major theoretical and empirical questions that remain to be addressed.Will's Note: I included this last one because it amused me that searching for "personality" one might find a research review on dog personality---and to keep all this research stuff in perspective.

Last June, I blogged about the Learning Landscape Model, a visual model that shows how learning becomes performance and creates results. It's based on years of research and I have found it very helpful in (1) clarifying my own thoughts, in (2) helping other learning-and-performance professionals fully understand their roles/goals, and in (3) explaining training-and-development to business (non-learning) stakeholders.I have now created an annotated slide deck to introduce the Learning Landscape Model. It also includes insights and new opportunities for how we can measure learning.Check it out, and let me know what you think.

 Below I offer my Top 10 List for 2008, reprising my best work from the previous year.  Honorable Mentions Before I get to the Top 10, there are some honorable mentions. -- Brown-Bag Learning Events. These are short webinars that I started running once or twice a month or so on various topics. I started these up this year as an experiment and they seem to be going really well. Come join me sometime! -- Graduate School Advice. I offered my advice on how to choose a graduate school and how to approach graduate school once you get in. http://www.willatworklearning.com/2008/10/thinking-of-goi.html. -- Neon Elephant Award to Robert Brinkerhoff. Several years ago I started a once-a-year award to honor folks who are creating really beneficial innovations in our field. http://www.willatworklearning.com/2008/12/neon-elephant-award-for-2008-given-to-robert-brinkerhoff.html  My Top 10 10. Advice on the use of Personality Instruments. The training-and-development field relies too often on instruments (like the Myers-Briggs) that are not reliable or valid. I decided to put together a quick review of the research and suggest better alternatives. http://www.willatworklearning.com/2008/12/personality-instruments-and-workplace-performance.html  9. On-the-job Learning. Too often, we in the learning-and-performance field forget that (1) learning happens on the job, (2) we can leverage and guide some of that learning, and (3) formal learning interventions can be specifically designed to support on-the-job learning. In this blog post, I shared results of a work-learning audit I conducted with a major retailer. http://www.willatworklearning.com/2008/04/what-work-learn.html  8. All Media Forced to be Sold for Cheap. Those of us in the learning-and-performance field need to stay attuned to the larger world and the technology-spaces we live in. This blog post noted how people's expectations are changing about how much they are willing to pay for information. This has profound implications for our field. http://www.willatworklearning.com/2008/06/all-media-force.html  7. Commenting on Learning 2.0. Learning 2.0—the practice of letting users generate and share information, knowledge, and personal asides—is here to stay. We learning professionals need to figure out how to make the best of it. I feel a special responsibility as a learning expert to bring insight to the tsunami. My best exploration on this issue involved designing two Learning 2.0 systems. I can't share those designs here, but they provided a great learning experience for me to draw on in thinking about Learning 2.0. I offered insights on how to evaluate learning 2.0 in an article for the eLearning Guild. http://www.work-learning.com/Catalog/Documents/EvaluatingLearning20_FinalVersion.pdf. I've also begun to explore Twitter, which I'm finding intriguing but probably only useful for specific applications. I'm not done investigating, but the signal to noise ratio and the distraction problem may just be too hard to overcome. http://www.willatworklearning.com/2008/11/my-twitter-genesis-talking-with-god-versus-the-multitudes.html.  6. New Measurement Job Aid and Smile-Sheet Design. In 2007, I wrote a research-to-practice report critiquing learning measurement practices because they often fail to understand learning fundamentals. I continue to follow-up on that work in an effort to move the field forward. For example, I've been teaching workshops on learning transfer and partnering with Roy Pollock of the Fort Hill Company in teaching workshops on measuring learning through the eLearning Guild. Within this month, Roy and I will be releasing a job aid on how to incorporate measurement into the learning-design process. In June, I released a job aid on measurement best practices. The latest version of the job aid is available at the following link: http://www.work-learning.com/Catalog/DocumentDownloadPages/DL_MeasBestPractices.htm. Also, this year, I began improving my own smile sheet practices, including using a better immediate smile sheet and a delayed smile sheet as well. http://www.willatworklearning.com/2008/07/smile-sheets-th.html  5. Situation-Based Learning Design. I have continued to refine my research-based conception, Situation-Based Learning Design, a learning-design conception that provides a potent alternative to our traditional topic-based instructional design. Although I don't have a full write-up about this yet, I've been using this conception in my consulting and workshops—and learning professionals have found this conception extremely compelling. The following blog post hints at this a bit. http://www.willatworklearning.com/2008/10/changing-our-le.html. The following link provides a job aid to introduce people on how situation-based learning design might work differently. http://www.work-learning.com/Catalog/DocumentDownloadPages/DL_SBLD_StarterKit.htm. I would recommend that organizations utilize this after taking a workshop. I'm not sure how well it will work without some background information.  4. Learning-to-Performance Responsibility Chart. For over 10 years I've been compiling research from the world's preeminent refereed journals on learning, memory, and instruction. One of my lessons learned is that we need simple models (one's that are research-based) that resonate with our stakeholders. I've also seen how the business side of our organizations don't always understand how learning works or how they can help to support training and application. Given this need, I developed the Learning-to-Performance Responsibility Chart. Latest version is available here: http://www.work-learning.com/Catalog/DocumentDownloadPages/DL_LP_ResponsibilityChart.htm. The rationale behind this was discussed at this link: http://www.willatworklearning.com/2008/08/a-better-learni.html.  3. Learning Landscape Model. I've been evolving this model for almost ten years. This year, I expanded it and have begun relating it to learning measurement. The Learning Landscape Model is a visual model that shows how learning becomes performance and creates results. It's based on years of research and I have found it very helpful in (1) clarifying my own thoughts, in (2) helping other learning-and-performance professionals fully understand their roles/goals, and in (3) explaining training-and-development to business (non-learning) stakeholders. The following blog post offers two links, an annotated slide deck describing the model and the blog post that describes some of the thinking/research behind the model. http://www.willatworklearning.com/2008/12/learning-landscape-model-annotated.html.  2. Feedback Report. I spent a long, long, long time compiling research from refereed journals on how to give learners feedback. This is a breakthrough report for a number of reasons. The research is messy and needs some enlightenment from the practice side, which I like to think I have provided. I offer suggestions to researchers on what they might be missing. The report is divided into two parts, one focusing on practice, one on research. Finally, I decided to give away the research report for free as an experiment, instead of selling it. Click the following link to get your own copy. http://www.willatworklearning.com/2008/05/free-research-r.html  1. Making All Documents FREE!! Since about 2001, I've been selling my research-to-practice reports online. At the time, I figured that I was making an exhaustive effort in compiling the research and making it practical for learning professionals and that I ought to get some return on that effort. Moreover, I didn't get a salary the way academic researchers do, and I needed to make a living just like everyone else. Well, that model never worked that well (I did the work, but the compensation was meager). I also sometimes felt a nagging pang of discomfort charging money for information—even with the value-add that I was providing. But the worst part by far was that this crucial information just wasn't getting to that many people—where it needs to go so that it can make a difference in the lives of real learners and organizations. So, starting a few months ago, I started giving it all away. My hope is that the research—and the valuable insights provided in its distillation—will get a much wider audience and have a greater impact on the field. I'm still updating some documents, so stay tuned for further free research-to-practice reports in the next couple of months. By the way, the experiment seems to be having an impact. I've gotten numerous requests to distribute documents in business organizations and academic institutions. Also, even in this terrible economy, organizations are requesting that I consult, lead workshops, or speak at their events. If your organization could benefit from my work, let me know. And feel free to distribute my documents as far and wide as you like. www.work-learning.com/catalog. THANKS TO ALL FOR YOUR INTEREST AND SUPPORT !!!!!!        

Yikes. Today Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate, worried in his NY Times column about the United States sinking into another Great Depression. Here are some other recent articles/blog posts suggesting coming economic ruin. http://seekingalpha.com/article/113198-this-great-depression-is-just-getting-started http://www.prisonplanet.com/renowned-economist-mikhail-khazin-us-will-soon-face-second-great-depression.html Until recently the message from economists in the media was that it was unlikely that we would fall into another great depression. http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12852043 Here are some interesting articles on the Great Depression, historically. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression From Hale Stewart: Part 1: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/12/31/73320/435/904/678462 Part 2: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hale-stewart/the-great-depression-pt-i_b_154730.html Part 3: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hale-stewart/the-great-depression-pt-i_b_155181.html