How Passion *Really* Shows: Doing the Work of Learning

Everyone says they're passionate about learning... but can we actually prove it? If our 'learning efforts' stop at scrolling LinkedIn, that's akin to claiming culinary knowledge because we snack a lot.

I think it's almost a universal thing that if you've interviewed candidates for your organisation, you've come across people who say they love to learn. Or that they're passionate about their field, or the job they're interviewing for.

And in all fairness, it's legitimately one of the few good things you can assert to a prospective employer when you don't yet have much experience. It's become nearly a cliché for the very reason that it makes sense and is a basic demonstration of good fit and good attitude. But when 5 people are saying the same thing, how do we differentiate between them? Or how do you stand out amongst your peers when you're the one giving interviews?

Maybe I'm dating myself a little over here, but quite early into my work life, I stumbled across Joel Spolsky's writing. I was a dilettante to coding around then—I was still yet to get a handle on my problem of being madly interested in a million things and not knowing how to winnow down to a few areas to specialise in and learn deeply!

Now, don't be put off—I'm not suddenly switching topics to software development. This post is not even about technology. I remember the Spolsky article vividly because it had some candid advice that made a huge difference to me. So, back in 2006, Spolsky wrote this blog post on sorting resumes. It was a combo of kick-in-the-pants and encouraging-pat-on-the-back advice that I needed. I can truthfully say that it significantly shaped much of my thinking on continuing learning/professional development for years to come.

See, he talked about passion, and about finding evidence of that passion... And y'all know I'm all about that truth-finding! So I started challenging myself over the years to consistently have concrete demonstrations of my vague desires to learn or do stuff. I started doing 'pet projects'—actually creating things, trying things. And I made sure I studied, and didn't only flip through magazines or blogs online. (I also learned to be more discriminating about what sources I spent time on.)

Which brings me to the reason I'm writing this now. LinkedIn invited contributions to a post on staying up to date on ID. I thought it was an appalling thing to read. I realise these prompts for collaborative articles come from AI, but AI learns from what's out there—and I've actually heard this kind of thing when I've interviewed and asked people this very question... There is no mention of learning by studying! By reading serious, verified, formally curated bodies of knowledge. This honestly breaks my heart.

Practitioner knowledge is doubtless important, and in our field, it represents a more easily applicable form of guidance at times, because there is undeniably a significant disconnect between theory and practice. But that doesn't mean it's healthy or smart to abandon academic sources of knowledge altogether. If we need a quick recap, here’s why:

• Depth of Knowledge: Academic sources give us a comprehensive, nuanced understanding. You're not just skimming the surface of an idea; you're diving deep.
• Rigor and Validity: These sources go through rigorous peer review and are (largely) based on evidence. They're reliable, not just a random opinion on LinkedIn.
• Historical Context: Many concepts in our field build on decades (sometimes centuries) of thought and study. You can’t fully appreciate the present without knowing the past.
• Critical Thinking Development: Reading research sharpens analytical skills, teaching us to question, evaluate, and synthesize information.
• Future Readiness: Trends come and go, but grounding ourselves in theory prepares us to adapt and apply knowledge flexibly in any context.

Further, as much as we are all here participating, posting, and using LinkedIn, it's not as though we're blind to the drawbacks of such platforms, right? Another quick recap, this time on the perils:

• Surface-Level Information: Social media platforms favour quick, bite-sized insights rather than deep exploration of topics. You’ll pick up tips, but rarely will you gain in-depth knowledge.
• Echo Chambers: Algorithms push content similar to what you’ve already engaged with. That means we may not be exposed to the diversity of thought that formal sources offer or get an exaggerated sense of importance of an idea because it's played over and over.
• Quality Control Issues: Anyone can post. That’s both a strength and a weakness. Not all content is fact-checked or backed by solid research and not all experience shares may be representative, accurate or robustly processed.
• Distraction Factor: Let’s be real, we all know LinkedIn’s feed is built to keep us scrolling, not studying deeply! It’s easy to mistake scrolling for serious professional development.

So, if someone's claiming they're 'passionate' about learning, I for one would want to see more than 'reading LinkedIn posts' as evidence of that! If our development strategy is just collecting bite-sized pieces of advice from our feed, we’re choosing to stay in the shallow end of the pool. Deep learning requires effort, time, and sometimes diving into harder, more complex materials. It’s not always fun or immediately gratifying, but it’s real, and it shows commitment.

You can't say you're dedicated to growing professionally and then avoid the serious work of studying to develop your expertise. Whether we're building our career or hiring for our team, the strongest evidence of passion is the willingness to engage deeply and seriously with knowledge—not just scrolling through a feed.

#ContinuousLearning #ProfessionalDevelopment #InstructionalDesign #LifelongLearning #CareerGrowth #CriticalThinking