Expertise Through Practice

Reimagining the 🏛️ Classroom: Imagine a classroom where students drive the lesson, and the teacher offers constructive feedback at regular intervals, prompting learners to think beyond the textbook through deep, open-ended questions and organizing tasks that connect mathematical concepts to everyday life. Sounds fantastic, right? But do we observe this in every classroom? If yes, we’re approaching our 🦄 unicorn moment, a rare but ideal educational experience. If not, the question becomes: How do we cultivate such classrooms? It all begins with teacher training and the instructional model adopted by the institution. Let’s explore three popular models of teacher training: 1. 🧑🏫 Craft Model (Wallace, 1991) In this model, the trainee teacher works closely with an expert, learning by emulating their teaching techniques. Pitfall: The trainee is primarily exposed to the strategies of a single expert, which may limit innovation and adaptability. 2. 📚 Applied Science Model Trainees acquire scientific knowledge and pedagogical theories, then apply them in the classroom. Pitfall: A disconnect often exists between theorists and practitioners, creating barriers in translating theory into effective practice. 3. 🤔 Reflective Model Trainees integrate theoretical knowledge with prior experience, apply it in practice, and reflect on their teaching. This reflection informs future planning and instructional decisions. Strength: Though non-linear, this model encourages problem-solving and continuous growth. 🏅 The Ideal Approach: A Thoughtful Blend Personally, a hybrid model offers the most effective results. Trainee teachers: -Study pedagogical theories, -Observe expert practitioners, -Design and implement their own teaching strategies, -Receive mentorship and constructive feedback from experienced educators. This approach fosters autonomy, creativity, and continuous improvement, ultimately driving classrooms where students are active participants in their learning journey. #teacher #educator #teachertraining, #trainingmodel #  

Why do some training programs drive real behavior change while others fade from memory immediately? 🤔 In my new LinkedIn Learning course "Learning Foundations: Theory to Practice," I tackle this fundamental question. The answer often lies in how well our learning designs align with how people actually learn. When we ignore the science, we get: ·     Information overload that overwhelms working memory ·     Content that fails to connect with prior knowledge ·     Practice activities disconnected from real-world application ·     Reinforcement that doesn't sustain behavior change Learning theory isn't just academic—it's the foundation for creating learning experiences that work WITH rather than AGAINST our natural learning processes. As one example from the course: Cognitive load theory shows us that breaking complex information into manageable chunks and providing clear mental frameworks dramatically improves retention and application. This isn't just theoretical—it translates directly to better learning outcomes. What learning challenges are you facing where theory might offer practical solutions? https://lnkd.in/gSr-yhkQ #LearningDesign #WorkplaceLearning #InstructionalDesign #LinkedInLearning

Governance in Theory vs Governance in Practice Too often, we mistake reports for results. Governance in theory is elegant. It lives in strategies, frameworks, and reports. Theory matters—it sets direction, provides legitimacy, and anchors accountability. But theory alone is not enough. As anyone who has worked in government or international organizations knows, the production of reports should never become an end in itself. Governance in practice is different. It’s messy, adaptive, and relational. It lives in the daily behaviours of people—how they deliver, listen, negotiate, adjust, and follow through. If theory provides the map, practice is the act of walking the terrain. And as every policymaker learns, the terrain always looks different up close. That’s why I find WHO’s Six Governance Behaviours so valuable. Originally designed to help governments steward the private sector in health systems, they have much broader application today. They focus on six practices that bring governance to life: 1. Deliver strategy 2. Build understanding 3. Enable stakeholders 4. Foster relations – e.g. the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, where trust-based ties among health workers, WHO officers, and NGOs sustained collaboration across borders 5. Align structures 6. Nurture trust The distinction matters. Theory codifies intent. Practice delivers it. Theory maps systems. Practice animates them. In my latest Substack, I explore how the Six Behaviours bridge governance in theory and governance in practice—and why this shift matters now more than ever. https://lnkd.in/eVttA7k8 Views my own

How can we turn an idea into a publishable theory article? My answer: start with practice, not theory. Here are some recommendations I apply. Theory articles go by many names: conceptual, viewpoint, position articles. Overlapping terms, but journals tend to define them in a very similar way. At Technological Forecasting and Social Change, we call them Perspective articles. In the sense used here, these papers have no conventional methods-and-results section. Their primary contribution comes from theorization not empirical work. The risk here is starting from a theory gap and ending with an argument whose practical need is unclear. A new theoretical perspective is not helpful if readers cannot see whyit is needed and what existing accounts miss. You can find some useful recommendations in “The Nuts and Bolts of Writing a Theory Paper" by Sherry Thatcher and Greg Fisher (Academy of Management Review). I will refine and expand these recommendations. What follows is my synthesis, which makes practical necessity the explicit starting point. My view is that starting with practice changes the emphasis. A managerial challenge, recurring anomaly, institutional tension, observed pattern. Practice tells us what theory must explain and helps determine which literatures are relevant. 1. Start with practice, not theory This is about necessity. Define the challenge. Then explain why current theories cannot adequately explain it or inform how it might be addressed. 2. Select the foundational literatures This is about scope. Identify the critical literature and specific ideas framing your theorizing. 3. Specify the theoretical apparatus. Examine current explanations and identify precisely where the existing academic debate and theorising do not seem to work. The aim is to create a clear opening for what your perspective will change. 4. Present the theoretical argument and the change. This is the contribution. Show what changes under your formulation. Adding, replacing, or reconceptualizing a construct or mechanism? Proposing new relationships or specifying how they should function? Etc. It is important to also explain why your change produces a clearer and more useful or accurate account. 5. Ground the argument in some evidence. You need credibility. A theory article lacks a conventional empirical part, but it should not be evidence-free. Published findings, documented cases, descriptive patterns, practitioner accounts. These sources can help establish the practical problem and challenge assumptions. And also to illustrate the argument. Material for illustration and grounding, not validation. 6. Specify new research directions. A good theory article open to new research directions. Translate each theoretical claim into questions for future empirical work. Explain what researchers should test. The research agenda should follow directly from the argument rather than becoming a generic list of topics.

How can we successfully transform scientific research results into Government policy? This book chapter presents innovative processes that have been developed in University College Cork and used to bridge the interface between the research ecosystem and policy-making ecosystem. Available here https://lnkd.in/evFNv9Hu. While the insights can apply across many areas of policy, the specific example here focuses on how energy systems modelling has been used to inform energy and climate mitigation policies in Ireland. From our experience over a 15 year period, motivation is critically important in order to overcome the challenges and to take on the extra effort to move beyond the traditional research process towards any or all of: actively informing, influencing, underpinning and co-producing policy. Engagement is not about communicating research findings, but critically also about listening to the policy practitioners needs, and developing a clear understanding of the policy making process, which is significantly different from the research process. Building trust with policy practitioners can take a lot of time and effort, but is hugely important. This includes developing personal relations respecting their role, their position, and when conversations are confidential in nature (especially when this not explicitly stated). Based on this experience, coupled with the examples provided, our approach can be summarised in a seven step plan that other research teams may find useful, in particular those who wish to bridge between the research and policy eco-systems: 1. Undertake scientifically robust research, submit it for peer review, publish it in scientific journals and make methods and results openly and publicly available. 2. Frame research questions that respond to specific policy needs, and then submit the results and insights to policy practitioners to inform policy 3. Translate research results into policy insights—including through the use of ‘policy briefs’ 4. Improve communications of research findings through the development of infographics 5. Engage actively with policy practitioners and policy makers—this is critical to move beyond informing and towards influencing policy, mindful of the different roles and responsibilities of each. 6. Co-produce policy—challenging but can be very successful. 7. Build absorptive capacity in the policy system—the focus here is on equipping the policy makers to understand the strengths and limitations of the approaches used, and improved interpretation of the scenario results generated. Thanks to co-authors Paul Deane and Fionn Rogan, and to MaREI, Science Foundation Ireland, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Ireland, Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI), Minister Eamon Ryan, International Energy Agency (IEA), IEA-ETSAP | Energy Technology Systems Analysis Program

𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘁 𝗮 𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁: "This makes sense… but how do I actually use it?" That’s a tricky challenge. Frameworks look neat on paper. But applying them? That’s another story. 𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀: Think of these frameworks like lenses in an optometrist’s office. When getting new glasses, they don’t give you one lens and call it a day. Instead, they stack different lenses — tweaking & adjusting — until the world comes into focus. Systems change is the same. Each framework is a lens with an unique focus. For example: - Large transitions (Two loops) - Process facilitation (Theory U) - Network Strategy (SCALE 3D Tool) - Equity (Wheel of Privilege & Power) - Inner work (Inner Development Goals) Those are great on their own. But the real power? Stacking them for deeper sensemaking. Here are three steps to move from theory to action: 1️⃣ 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹-𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲, 𝗲.𝗴. - A bottleneck - A shift in strategy - A complex systemic issue Choose something high priority. 2️⃣ 𝗟𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀 & 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲-𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲. Pick 2–3 frameworks Then ask: -> What do these lenses reveal? Discuss patterns, tensions, and blind spots. To move beyond head-centered thinking, invite other ways of knowing into the process. You can engage through e.g.: - Embodiment - Creativity & Play - Tuning into emotions - Systemic constellations - Deep imagination exercises This will make the sense-making less stale. 3️⃣ 𝗧𝘂𝗿𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. Move to real-world application. Based on the sensemaking, explore: - What needs to change? - What experiments can we run? - What shifts in strategy emerge? In this way, you can move beyond frameworks... ...into real transformation. Want to see the 𝟭𝟬 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀 for system change I know? 𝗦𝘄𝗶𝗽𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗹 ➡️ 💬𝗟𝗲𝘁'𝘀 𝗧𝗮𝗹𝗸! - Which frameworks would you want to add? - How could you stack them to create better strategies? 👍𝗟𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁? Share it with your network. 👉 𝗪𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗿? Join the Systemic Shift Newsletter in my bio.

🛠️ HOP Isn’t a Thing You Do. It’s a Way You Do Things There’s a growing interest in Human and Organizational Performance (HOP) and rightly so. But the question I hear often is: How do you actually implement it? It’s tempting to think of HOP as a toolkit or checklist. But real-world implementation isn’t about rolling out new practices. It’s about embedding new thinking. And what actually makes that work in safety-critical organisations? Here’s what stands out: 👂 1. Learn before you launch Understand the principles, not just the catchphrases. The Five Principles are just the start. HOP is a mindset, not a menu. 🧭 2. Listen to the work Insights don’t come from dashboards. They come from people doing the job. Watch, ask and learn. Their reality is the system. 🛡️ 3. Build system capacity The goal isn’t to prevent every mistake. It’s to reduce the chance that a mistake leads to harm. Can your system absorb failure? 🤝 4. Collaborate constantly HOP isn't a solo project. It depends on trust, curiosity, and connection across teams. You don’t implement it on people; you build it with them. 🔄 5. Improve over time You don’t “complete” HOP. You evolve, reflect and adjust. HOP is more practice than programme. But let’s be honest about what it takes: 🧠 HOP isn't plug-and-play What works in one plant might flop in another. There’s no universal rollout strategy, only adaptation to context. 🧰 It’s more than a toolbox but not a belief system The best implementations strike a balance: Enough structure to act. Enough flexibility to fit. 👥 HOP champions are translators, not just trainers They don’t just teach principles. They interpret them. They bridge the gap between theory and messy reality, between Work as Imagined and Work as Done. 🎯 Implementation is rarely linear; it’s opportunistic What gets traction isn’t always a master plan. It’s often: ✔️ A curious leader ✔️ A clear problem ✔️ A moment of readiness ✔️ And someone who knows how to connect the dots HOP sticks when it’s lived, not just launched. It only works when it becomes part of how we see, listen, and design for people. ✅ Start with relationships, not templates ✅ Focus on adaptation, not adoption ✅ And give your people time to make it theirs Because when it works, HOP isn’t something you do. It’s how you work, how you learn and how you lead. Want to transform your safety programme from predictable to powerful? Let's add some Safety Curiously sparks and make safety engaging, memorable and impactful. Let's connect and make it happen! 📩 Enjoy this? ♻️ Repost to help others in your network, and follow Urbain Bruyere for more.

We would see far more successful outcomes in L&D if we simply treated workplace training the same way we treat training for literally everything else in life: sports, playing music, painting, cooking, etc. Think about it: We don’t expect someone to nail a drum solo without hours of practice. Yet we can't master frontline customer service or safety protocols without it either. Something’s wrong with this picture. At #ATD25 last month, I was fascinated to see multiple providers incorporating music into their learning approaches—African drums for team development, rhythm exercises for synchronization, even "striking the right chord" in leadership development. As someone who's spent years behind a drum kit, the parallels hit me immediately. Every musician knows the formula: Learn the basics → Practice relentlessly → Perform But in workplace learning, we skip the middle step entirely. We go straight from "learn the thing" to "do the thing" and wonder why performance suffers. Our frontline research confirmed this gap. The biggest complaint from workers? "I have no opportunity to practice these skills you've given me." The cost of frontline practice time feels expensive, but the payoff far outweighs the investment. Give people a safe, low-consequence environment to test their skills before they're in front of customers or handling critical tasks. Stop treating practice like a luxury. Start treating it like what it is—the essential bridge between learning and performance.

Communicating your results to practice (or getting outside of your typical academic process). While serving as a mentor in a workshop, a Ph.D. student asked one of the best questions I've heard in a while. Rather than asking, "How do I publish in a top journal?" They asked, "What is the best way to communicate my results to practice?" The question caused me to pause. I offered a bit of a glib answer. But, it left me thinking "What strategies can an early career researcher employ to share their work with practice?" As loathe as I am to suggest posting about your work, I encourage early career scholars to learn how to talk about their work online. Here is how I would go about it doing it. First. Engage offline. Attend meetings of practitioners and listen. Attend workshops. Meet-ups. and more. Make friends. Learn the issues they are concerned with. Learn the language they use. Second. Share. Share your work with practice. Take some time to share what you study with your new practitioner friends informally or formally. If you luck out, you can give a short presentation of your work to an applied audience. Third. Evaluate. Ask practice for feedback on a) your problem, b) your question, and c) your findings. See Roseman and Vessey's work on applicability checks for guidance (https://lnkd.in/dh9WtMdm) or one of the 563 papers that cite them for Fourth. Learn. If your contacts in practice find value in what you've done, consider taking your work online in more than a humble brag. Join the conversation on LinkedIn, Reddit, or other places in practice and learn the themes and language used in relevant conversations. Fifth. Establish. Establish an account. Post to it periodically relevant information. Comment from that account. Establish credibility. Focus on your topic of choice. Do not pollute the channel with too many off-topic posts. Sixth. Engage online. Weave your work into the conversation. Weave more than I published a paper into the conversation. Focus on either a) short bites of what you've done or b) crafting a longer blog post or newsletter on the topic. Seventh. Persist. If you want to be part of a space, you must be more than an occasional tourist. Post on the topic consistently. Post about your work. Post about other people's work - positive, negative, and neutral. Become an educated, judicious content creator. Most of all, it will take time if you choose to go down this path and do more than rely on your university to promote your work. It can take months and years to reach a broad audience. But. If you post content in the language of your audience, you will find the connection to practice that you seek! Best of luck!

I spent most of this week recording lessons on instructional strategy for the ID Project Lab, and it reminded me how often this topic gets oversimplified. When I was first learning instructional design, I thought strategy meant picking activities. Like, "we'll do a scenario here, a drag-and-drop there, maybe a video intro." But what actually changed my thinking was realizing that strategy is about sequencing the learner's experience. You're designing a path: understand something, practice it in a safe environment, then apply it in context. The order matters. The scaffolding matters. The decision about when to remove support matters. And underneath all of that are learning science frameworks that most of us learned in school but rarely think about day to day. Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism. These might just feel like vocabulary words for a graduate exam, but they show up in real design choices constantly. When you build a knowledge check with immediate corrective feedback, that's behaviorism at work. When you chunk content and use visuals to reduce cognitive load, that's cognitivism. When you drop a learner into an open-ended scenario where they have to construct meaning from experience, that's constructivism. The skill isn't knowing those terms. It's recognizing which approach fits the performance goal you're designing for, and being able to explain why. That's what I tried to capture in one of my biggest lessons this week. Not theory for theory's sake, but the concrete translation between "what does research say about how people learn" and "what do I actually build." Recording it also reminded me how much I genuinely love teaching this stuff. There's something satisfying about taking a concept that feels abstract to a lot of people and turning it into something practical. I'm curious, for those of you actively designing right now: how often do you consciously think about learning theory when making strategy decisions? Or has it become more intuitive over time? I'd love to hear how that shows up in your process. #LinkedInWithDevlin #InstructionalDesign #LearningScience #eLearning #LearningAndDevelopment