Instructional Currentz with Alex Salas

Video #003 in This New Series

I asked Alex if he would chat with me about his L&D academy: eLearning Launch.

This video is 33:15 minutes in length.

Links to Alex and eLearning Launch:

The eLearning Launch YouTube Channel:

Follow Alex:

Twitter: @StyleLearn

See the collection of Instructional Currentz videos here:


Wednesday HPT Video Matinee

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

In 2017 I started using Skype to enable me to broaden my reach beyond F2F recordings. Then in 2020 I started using Zoom.

Again, I have posted each of these videos on YouTube. They, unfortunately, are on multiple YouTube sites. Please use this link to the Index – here.

Guy’s HPT Video Series

The HPT Video Series … formerly known as the HPT Practitioner and HPT Legacy Video Series … was started by Guy W. Wallace in 2008 as a means of sharing the diversity of HPT Practitioners, and the diversity of HPT Practices in the workplace and in academia.

The full set of videos – over 125 – may be found and linked to – here.

HPT – Human Performance Technology – is the application of science – the “technology” part – for Performance Improvement.

As the late Don Tosti noted, “All performance is a human endeavor.”

Whether your label for HPT is that, or Performance Improvement, or Human Performance Improvement, it is all about Evidence Based Practices for Performance Improvement at the Individual level, the Team level, the Process level, the Department level, the Functional level, the Enterprise level, and at the level of Society/World.

HPT Practitioners might operate at any of these levels, as this Video Series clearly demonstrates.

Although ISPI – the International Society for Performance Improvement is the professional home of many HPT Practitioners – the concepts, models, methods, tools and techniques are not limited to any one professional affinity group or professional label.

ISPI just happens to be where I learned about HPT – and has been my professional home since 1979.

This Series Has Evolved Since 2008

These videos were first posted on Google Video, then they were moved to Blink, and now they may all be found on YouTube. And my name for them has changed as well…

HPT Practitioner Video Podcasts and HPT Legacy Video Podcasts

– Practitioner Series – short 2-10 minutes, following a script. Intended to show the diversity of HPT and HPT Practitioners. (2008-2018)

– Legacy Series – longer 15-40+ minutes, also scripted, with added stories of other NSPI/ ISPI’ers from the earlier days of the Society or others who were of great influence. Intended to capture the stories of the people who influenced us. (2008-2018)

– HPT Video Series (2019+) – is a continuation of the first two types of videos in this series, but with less focus on capturing NSPI/ISPI members – and expanding out to any and all who use Evidence Based Practices in Performance Improvement regardless of any affiliation with ISPI or not.

# # #

It’s All About Adding Value vs Subtracting Value

IMO. However you and your clients measure Value Added (as well as Value Subtracted).

At the Worker, Workflow, Workplace and World (Societal) levels.

For if you don’t add value, and you subtract value, and you’ll eventually drive your unit, function, Enterprise bankrupt.

That’s why many L&D function are driven to look at ROI, or ROE, or RONA, etc., as they wish to get on THAT side of the Balance Sheet.

“What’s a Balance Sheet?” some may ask.

THAT’S an issue IMO too. Not understanding how Score Is Kept. THAT’S an issue to be remedied ASAP IMO.

L&D Is a Cost Center

Even Cost Centers vs Profit Centers are there to ADD VALUE. Otherwise they’d be cut and cut quickly. Gone.

T&D/ L&D/ LXD units are usually Cost Centers – and if they do not add enough value – that shows up elsewhere in a Profit Center – they should be cut – and their Product & Service Offerings – should be outsourced. Or the Cost Center will be rebuilt and repurposed to meet the Value Add Criteria.

L&D is not put into place because it feels good (too often). It’s not on the payroll and balance sheet because it’s simply expected, or honorable, or because leaders JUST LOVE LEARNING.

It’s not on the Organization Chart because it’s a necessary evil.

It’s there to Add Value in improving the performance of the other units and processes of the Enterprise – be they part of Cost Centers that roll-up eventually to some Profit Center.

The Critical Importance of Results

Let me Point you to something the late Geary A. Rummler wrote in 1969 … a 6 page PDF … and that I presented in a 2011 Blog Post – here.

And this from Rummler – that was in a handout I got in 1981…


Go For Performance – Short Video Series – 072

T&D: My Instructional Development Model or framework, used for planning and managing the ISD effort always starts with Phase 1- Project Planning & Kick-Off; 2- Analysis; 3- Design; 4- Development; 5- Pilot Testing; and finally, 6- Revision & Release. Go for Performance Impact!

# # #

Monday’s Short Videos on pb-ISD and PIBI

pb-ISD refers to performance-based Instruction – and – PIBI refers to Performance Improvement Beyond Instruction.

Some Short Videos

Stop Costly Turnover…

Managerial Work Break Down Structure…



Subscribe if you like…


The Death of Expertise

Yesterday I borrowed the image on the right in this next graphic and posted it on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

On both Twitter and especially LinkedIn it got quite a reaction. Some of those reactions from yesterday – and then getting a good night’s sleep – followed by reading more of the reactions this morning before the sun came up – have spurred me to write this post.

Although my friend Alex Salas did comment: Stop supporting learning styles and we can talk 🤓 – and he’s right. NOT EVERY TEACHER has mastered the art and “science” of teaching – falling prey to Learning Styles nonsense – often because their College of Education taught them such nonsense – such as my alma mater – the University of Kansas where I got my Radio-TV-Film degree back in 1979 – where both their School of Education and their School of Medicine teaches that LS nonsense.

So – some universities haven’t mastered the science part either. Their Expertise can be challenged – by those who have looked into THE SCIENCE.

Back to what’s still going on over on Twitter and LinkedIn…

The Old “N of 1” Factor

Some of the reactions were fueled by an “N of 1 Experience” – which I learned back in 1979 or 1980 was something to be quite wary about. For myself and others and our own experiences.

Although a quick look at Wikipedia seems to suggest this – an N of One – is a viable way to experiment – until you read the second half of this sentence: “Many consider this framework to be a proof of concept or hypothesis generating process to inform subsequent, larger clinical trials.”

Sure. It worked once – but will it work again, with different subjects and under varying conditions? Only more testing/trials will tell. More Ns.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect

From Wikipedia – so be wary…

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a hypothetical cognitive bias stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.

As described by social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the bias results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, “the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others”.[1] It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from people’s inability to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their level of competence.

The Book: The Death of Expertise

See the 2017 book at Amazon – here.

A 64-minute video of the author, Tom Nichols…

Me, Myself & I

I tend to look to experts for guidance – but try, if I can – to do some Critical Thinking about what I hear from them before I fully embrace what I’ve learned and apply it to my life – personally and professionally.

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information.

More… from The Foundation for Critical Thinking

Why Critical Thinking?

The Problem
Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated.

A Definition
Critical thinking is that mode of thinking – about any subject, content, or problem – in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and
imposing intellectual standards upon them.

The Result
A well cultivated critical thinker:

  • raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;
  • gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;
  • thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
  • communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.

Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.  

(Taken from Richard Paul and Linda Elder, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools, Foundation for Critical Thinking Press, 2008)

And Now This Post About Teachers Has Led to More Defenders of Learning Styles

Although serious researchers who have done and/or reviewed many research studies – culling out those of questionable merit – dismiss Designing for Learning Styles and Learning Styles Preferences – as Richard E. Clark, EdD has told me on one of the 4 videos we’ve recorded – that some studies have found that people’s stated preferences are not what they actually prefer.

In the short video series that Mirjam Neelen and I did for the L&D Conference last year – where we interviewed 9 Giants from the ISD/ID/LXD/T&D/L&D world – almost everyone listed Learning Styles as a “Myth most damaging to the profession.” See those 9 videos – here.

Yet – some resist.

Ah well.

Modern life. That’s what Tom Nichols says.

I’d like to see a revival – a bringing back from the dead or near-death – of Expertise. And a valuing of Experts.

True Experts. Not Self-Proclaimed Experts. And of course, that takes a little work to determine Who is Who. Who is an Expert and Who is a Fraud.

But – it should be worthwhile, no?

That’s been the driver for me and my series of Videos Series: HPT Videos – Instructional Currentz – Measured Results in L&D – A Chat with Authors – 3 Questions for 9 Giants (done with Mirjam Neelen) – Adventures in Performance-Based Training & Development – and many of the other one-off videos I’ve done and shared – here on YouTube – is to share the experience and sometimes expertise of my subjects.