People Hacks for Technical Leads

https://medium.com/@bellmar/people-hacks-for-technical-leads-6eef1576d046

by mbellotti • 8 years ago

172 31 8 years ago

mtmickush• 8 years ago

Are learning styles for various individuals still a thing? I thought that was a well debunked claim a while ago

wcdolphin• 8 years ago

I’ve wrongly assumed it to be real for a long time. Thanks for mentioning this! I just skimmed https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5366351/

As it stands, I believe evidence suggests that people may report to prefer a style, but it has no measurable impact on their learning.

eximius• 8 years ago

Which continually surprises me and I wonder what content they test the learning on.

Is it on primary education topics or advanced topics?

I certainly can't imagine learning mathematics or coding from a lecture without seeing the symbols. How else would I keep it all in my head[1]?

I don't know what the other 'learning styles' are so I can't really comment on them.

[1] - Surely some with physical impairments, i.e., the blind are capable of doing this as there are blind programmers who make amazing things. But that belies a lifetime of practice of not relying on one's sight.

fratlas• 8 years ago

If an individual prefers a style of learning - wouldn't that enable them to enjoy learning for longer periods of time and deeper? Maybe not more efficiently but overall definitely has an impact.

mistrial92• 8 years ago

for the full breadth and depth of learning, is debunked, end of sentence ? learning includes a lot of things.. behavior in groups, another massive topic .. this seems dismissive in a startling way

robax• 8 years ago

I agree with a lot of this, disagree with "multichannel" bit. The idea of "learning styles" is dead in the field of psychology and the advice isn't actionable in the context of a presentation or meeting anyway (how does your average powerpoint aid these supposed "kinesthetic" learners?").

I'd never heard of back-briefing but see that as something my company could benefit from, however. So thanks for that!

mistrial92• 8 years ago

it may not be fashionable in the field of psychology currently to acknowledge "learning styles" but.. "is dead" seems to say "we can prove this does not exist" .. the strongest possible statement about it, in the field of psychology... psychology is accepted as a science, I guess, but really.. the mind is a massive thing.. which mind ? the one that responds when you drop a weight on your foot ? the one that responds after talking to a dear friend ? really.. this is so closed minded..

anoncoward111• 8 years ago

I agree with you so much. I am the type of person that doesn't learn easily from a book. I need to put my hands on something and write it out and listen to it. Reading it is nearly meaningless to me.

sdenton4• 8 years ago

Well, a study kicked off the area of inquiry, and after years of work, the base studies failed to replicate.

Once you throw away rigor, you're no longer a scientist.

beyonddream• 8 years ago

“The idea of "learning styles" is dead in the field of psychology” - can you point some reference or research supporting this claim ?

alxlaz3• 8 years ago

See e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5366351/ , which cites several of the papers that put the last few nails in the coffin. It also inventories the somewhat depressing situation we're currently in.

Learning styles are an oversimplified theory that many serious psychologists had suspected to be bollocks for more than twenty years, if not more. However, it's simple enough that it was easy to adopt by large companies and resource- (and knowledge-)constrained HR departments, which is why it's still given a lot of attention in these circles.

In 2009, the APS conducted a fairly comprehensive (by psychology standards, at least...) of the existing literature ( http://steinhardtapps.es.its.nyu.edu/create/courses/2174/rea... ) and unsurprisingly found that all except one of the very few studies on the subject that actually had a proper methodology had negative findings. Its conclusion was that there was no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning styles assessments into general educational practice.

In short: it is not, and never was, a viable scientific theory, and no serious scientist is treating it as such anymore.

bick_nyers• 8 years ago

I don't have any research to support this claim (unless you consider anecdotal, n=1 as evidence), but I believe that "learning styles" exist, just that they are relatively dynamic and more specific than just "kinesthetic".

If you take learning in and of itself, it requires connecting new ideas to pre-existing ideas. If you present something to an individual that is distant to their current understandings, then of course it will be difficult to understand. You need to learn how to walk before you learn how to run. If you take that concept and sum it over their entire learning background, you get two effects:

1. People that get an early lead/intuition in specific fields/topics/skills tend to keep building on similar fields/topics/skills. Kids that are good at math/comouters early on are more likely to pursue STEM in University. The skill is compounding in this way.

2. Specialization in a field/topic/skill (let's use a Math Bachelor's for example) requires that individual to learn/solve problems broadly inside of a narrow domain. Those narrow domains (math) have inherent skills that need to be built (logic, pigeonholing, building on top of root ideas, abstraction, etc.), as well as some supplementary skills that are often developed but not necessarily critical (visualization, fact checking, re-organization, etc.). These skills can be thought of as "learning styles". If you know a Math Major that is strong at visualizing geometry, then describing a mechanical reaction to them would be easier if you simplify the structure to it's simplest level (they don't need to hear about all the fillets you have to smooth sharp edges), and describe the reaction. In that methodology, you can skip all of the engineering terminology you may otherwise use and nail down the representation that they need to think about the problem.

In that way I believe that "learning styles" exist, it just requires case-by-case understanding. This likely plays a role in the numerous benefits reaped through smaller class sizes.

wolfspider• 8 years ago

I'm glad there are articles like this and people out there trying to figure out what it really takes to build a great dev team. Still, after all this time trying to find the equation for getting into that magical state I call "the groove" is insanely difficult. It could be compared to a band that put out a really great first album but needs that same energy for another one. I've spent a lot of time around professional musicians and their struggles mirror development ironically. Once I saw 1/2 of a band audition two studio musicians and hit a groove then mint two contracts for a tour in about the span of 30 minutes. That was magical and that was rare- dev teams sort of operate the same way and sometimes when no one is looking that groove happens.

mzanchi• 8 years ago

One comment regarding the "embedding". This is similar to the Toyota concept of the gemba, or being where the value is produced. For automobiles, that's the factory floor. For software shops, that's with the developers, testers and BAs.

You want to be able to understand the work flow of your staff in order to catch opportunities for continuous improvement, and the best way to do this is to observe the work being done, but in a respectful way, that is, respecting the staff space and making them comfortable that you are not there to observe them, but the work.

I really don't understand why a manager would want to have an office in the 21st century.

Scarblac• 8 years ago

As a dev I would really appreciate an office though, but those jobs don't exist anymore.

edmundhuber• 8 years ago

No one has mentioned groups chats from the article. It's kind of scary to think there's a manager out there that is mindfully siloing conversations instead of letting smart people figure it out.

ChuckMcM• 8 years ago

Back briefing, very important point. It is one I still slip up on when I'm busy and there are a lot of moving pieces in play.

MacroChip• 8 years ago

Great article. Threading in a chat tool is an absolute necessity for me. Regarding embedding, I like to wave and smile without talking to makers while they are working. I say hello and maybe chat with managers. Waving and smiling is friendly without interrupting a maker. It still gives them an opportunity to start conversation.

People Hacks for Technical Leads

Related Stories