The Learning Circuits Blog: The New Hierarchy: First, learning to BE; second, learning to DO; and only then, learning to KNOW

Fresh off of my presentation yesterday on Web 2.0, I read this post by Clark Aldrich titled: The New Hierarchy: First, learning to BE; second, learning to DO; and only then, learning to KNOW. It's a fascinating post in which he posits that people:

1. first have to become aware of themselves, their strengths and weaknesses, and their surroundings, which is the realm of dabbling in Web 2.0 social networking.


2. This is followed by learning how to influence and change their surroundings.


3. Finally, we learn about our place in the larger space-time continuum.

But he saves the best for last with the following:

"I say again that what we teach is limited by what we can teach. The exciting thing about this new media order is that we have more power at our fingertips for development than ever before."

Great point.

Presentation debrief

So, I've finished my presentation on Web 2.0 and I'm not really satisfied with my delivery. Being a geek I think I got caught up in the technology. Here's my presentation should you wish to view it.

I think that the critical issue I missed was the effect of web 2.0 on learning provider. We need to think of learning not solely as web-based or instructor-based that last an hour or more. Learning will be in micro-elements offered in synchronous lectures, videos, podcasts, and job aids. It's a concept I'm still fleshing out, but my first thoughts were posted here.

Update: I realized this morning what I forgot in my presentation. I never presented the WIFM. I never explained that we need to understand these various tools as alternative means of delivering training. I have seen how customers are increasingly looking to leverage additional value from the training they contract to have developed. But most elearning or training materials are either long (one or more hours) or designed to encourage participation by limiting the amount of information provided in writing.

By building learning with smaller incremental elements such as podcasts, videos, micro elearning, etc. with can attain the point where learning can be both formal and informal. Learners can attend a formal training session and then can go back and review the material through podcasts and video, or contact dedicated SMEs , through email, IM, or phone who can resolve their questions. There can also be dedicated forums and wikis for people to look for answers to questions.

I had a vision...

So this morning as I was rehearsing in my head my presentation on Web 2.0 I had this vision of the future of corporate learning and how it becomes unbounded by prior training constructs. (pardon me if this is poorly written and I misuse the English language, I am trying to record this before I forget it.)

In the corporate learning environment of my vision. All employees, as soon as they join the company are given a "personal learning environment" similar to the personalized google home page or a netvibes page. This page becomes the locus of all their learning. This learning environment can present streaming video, podcasts, elearning, and job aids.

It will come prepopulated with welcoming video explaining how to use the page and providing them an overview of the company. The page itself will have a sidebar that can be alternately hidden and displayed which provides a link to the company's learning library. All video, audio, elearning, etc. can be found there. It also provides a portal to registering for "formal" training that is tracked by the company's LMS.

The LMS will function only as a registrant and as an assesor; all learning content will be housed on a separate server that can be accessed at any time without prior registration. The employee will be able to customize his or her PLE anyway they wish by dragging and dropping video, audio, whatever on to their page. Like Netvibes or Google, they can have multiple tabs on their PLE to divy up content.

Their manager will be responsible for populating a portion of the PLE by assigning mentors and or subject matter experts that the employee can pose questions to about their job responsibilities. The assignments will include email, telephone numbers, and IM addresses for these individuals.

The PLE will also be prepopulated with initial formal training sessions that the new employee must complete. These training sessions may be instructor-led or web-based. Instructor-led courses will involve streaming two-way video and/or audio with white-board sessions where employees can be broken up into teams to interact with one another. Instructor-led training will be short bursts with workgroups interacting with the material.

Individual web-based learning elements will be no longer than 15 minutes with a preferred length of 5 to 10 minutes. Each element will focus on one, narrowly defined topic. It will be augmented with independent podcasts, videocasts, scripts, and jobaids. The learner will be encouraged to either save these items in their PLE or merely "tag" them for future reference. Again, all of these items would be independent of the LMS, either residing in an LCMS or a network server. All of these elements could be accessed at any time without any additional registration.

Formal learning would be provided through a course map that would designate times for presentations, completions dates, and elements to be reviewed. If Sir Tim Berner-Lee's vision of a semantic web comes true. When the learner is registered for a formal training. The LMS would then add the training schedule to both the learner's calendar and his or her boss's. The learner would be reminded of due dates and upcoming learning events such as a videocast so that they could reserve time. The network would also automatically send out notices to emailers, phone callers and IMers. that the learner is unavailable at this time because of training commitments.

I will reserve my thoughts for Wikis and blogs for another posting.

Web 2.0 run amuck?

I've been doing research on Web 2.0 for a presentation I'm making to coworkers. I thought I had it all wrapped up, when, while eating lunch, I stumbled upon a blog referencing an uproar at Digg.

It seems someone or someones had linked to a website which posted the encryption key that would allow people to pirate HD-DVDs. Initially, Digg pulled the posts down after the owners of the encryption key notified them that Digg was infringing on their intellectual property rights. When the Digg team posted the announcement they were pulling the plug on those posts, the Digg users went ballistic.

As a result, Digg stopped blogging the posts with the following announcement:

Today was an insane day. And as the founder of Digg, I just wanted to post my thoughts…

In building and shaping the site I’ve always tried to stay as hands on as possible. We’ve always given site moderation (digging/burying) power to the community. Occasionally we step in to remove stories that violate our terms of use (eg. linking to pornography, illegal downloads, racial hate sites, etc.). So today was a difficult day for us. We had to decide whether to remove stories containing a single code based on a cease and desist declaration. We had to make a call, and in our desire to avoid a scenario where Digg would be interrupted or shut down, we decided to comply and remove the stories with the code.

But now, after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you’ve made it clear. You’d rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won’t delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be.

If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying.

This is an interesting morality tale and I will be curious to see how this resolves itself. This seems this will be an ongoing friction point between property rights and freedom of expression. I can empathize with both sides in this issue, but I tend to favor the freedom of expression.

I have an ongoing fear that if we allow intellectual property to trump all other concerns we will put a drastic halt on intellectual growth. There is a need for the cross pollinization of ideas and putting financial hurdles in the way will only hamper progress.

I don't think what is being done here is proper. There is nothing legally to be gained by breaking and publishing the encryption code, but if Digg is shut down because of this I think it creates a chilling effect for communication of all ideas.

Fun with Web 2.0

Okay, this has no real learning value other than I discovered one of the more ideosynchratic web 2.0 tool called ToonDo. It's a tool to create cartoons to share. Here is may example:

Web 2.0 ... The Machine is Us/ing Us

I was doing research on a presentation I am making to my peers regarding Web 2.0 when I came across this video. It's a great summation of how Web 2.0 enables all of us to be both learners and teachers.



The one red flag that struck me as I watched this was how corporate America would react to giving this kind of power to its employees. Think of it, the ability to circumvent the vertical flow of knowledge downward, which is what corporate training is all about, the dispensation of management-approved dogma.

I think initially there will be great resistance until it can be shown that unfettered cross-pollination of ideas can be profitable.

The Wild Vile Web

We, as a society, tend to delude ourselves into believing that we are civilized and with all our technology surrounding us we can build a better, brighter future. Then something ugly like this happens: Death threats against bloggers are NOT "protected speech" (why I cancelled my ETech presentations). This makes me sick on so many different levels.

At the most basic level I have always enjoyed reading Creating Passionate Users and have harvested some wonderful ideas from Kathy. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a controversial post on their weblog. Her friendly way of writing has made me feel at home at the site.

That some sicko...and let's call a spade a spade...it is a sicko would write such vile content reminds me that our "civilization" is no shining beacon on the hilltop. We are still very much the base animals that first climbed down from the trees and began using crude tools.

In the United States we always hear people whine about their "rights." The right to wear offensive tee-shirts; the right offend people with shock artwork; the right to scare people on an airplane without any fear of being challenged. What I don't hear is anyone talking about "responsibility." And let there be no doubt that for every right allotted us there is an equal responsibility to exercise that right with care not to abuse it.

I am glad to see that at least one of the owners of "meankids.org" has apologized. I'm sure that no blogger can control what other people post in their comments section. We really can't turn off the comments section because it is the way we communicate with one another. The sad thing about this is that individuals like Rev. Ed have always been out in our community. In the old days they would just mutter their insane ravings to themselves. Now they can post them online for all to see.

I wish Kathy well. I hope she can overcome her fears, she has a lot of knowledge to share with us. I already knew it was a spooky world out there, and for me, it just got a little spookier.

The future of informal learning?

Okay, some I've been playing a whole bunch of catch-up reading my learning/elearning blogs and during lunch today I read Donald Clark's Learning Circuit's post: Investing in Informal Learning. I have been struggling to get my hands around the concept of informal learning, but sometimes I think its like a greased pig: just as I think I have a handle on it, it slips away.

Anyway, what struck me as I was reading this was this paragraph:

Secondly, as Jay and others bring the auspice of informal learning to the attention of trainers, it seems to me that trainers will try to formalize even more informal learning. As this shift grows from formalizing the informal, will we see the percentage of investment in formal learning programs grow and the investment of informal learning shrink?

I suddenly had this nightmare vision of the training profession becoming a type of help desk with three levels of training support:

1. The newbie trainers staffing the telephone lines to respond to "just-in-time" questions from people learning informally.
2. Behind them are the more experienced trainers who, if the newbies can't resolve the caller's problem, take over the call.
3. Finally above the experienced trainers are the SMEs who are the final arbiter of the issue.

Prep work for elearning

Rick Nigol of Breakthrough eLearning has an interesting post about how to create successful elearning: Score an "A" in eLearning (X4). His suggestion that there should be more preparation in understanding the learners before undertaking an elearning initiative is sound.

He argues that not everyone is comfortable with using computers to learn; the more they use computers on a daily basis the more likely they will accept an elearning initiative.

Because few have experienced eLearning directly, it makes more sense to examine other ways that they are using [information and communication technologies] in their daily lives. This will provide an indication of their likelihood of adapting well to online learning.

I agree that this is a critical issue and I think a great deal of elearning initiatives are "green lighted" by management because they are concerned about the cost of having their learners away from the job site and in a classroom. There is a lost of productivity. The problem is not everyone learns the same way and learning on the Internet can be very distracting if the learner is not dedicated to learning. I think the fourth "A" -- Appropriateness -- is perhaps the most appropriate question to ask.

Better elearning through the basics

So I'm catching up my blog reading when I caught up with Clark Quinn's piece titled Seven Steps to Better E-learning and I found an article that did not open up any new vistas to me, but instead recalled items that I learned on my journey as an instructional designer and have ingrained in my thinking that I have forgotten some of them. His seven points are:

1. Meaningful skills - training should be about doing something new, not knowing new ideas
2. Keep things lean and light - we should not try and crowbar in as much text as possible on a screen, your learners' eyes will glaze over and no meaningful skills will be transferred.
3. Emotional engagement - don't start with the trite, when you are done you will be able to: blah, blah, blah As Clark states:

We know that learning is more effective when learners are emotionally committed. So in addition to addressing individual learning styles, we must address motivation. We should make learners see how new skills will help them actually do things, beyond whatever value others may place on these skills.

As an additional element of emotional maintenance, set expectations about what's to come. Let learners know how much time they'll be spending, and what their expectations should be about the overall experience. This helps learners maintain focus throughout the experience. If they know ahead of time there's a tough stretch ahead, for example, they're much more likely to persevere.

4. Connected Concepts - Clark gets a little long-haired here, but basically he says we should present the new skill in the context of a larger well understood concept using multiple means for the learner to comprehend and assimilate the skill sets.
   
5. Elaborated Examples - This point, in my mind, is very similar to the previous point. Clark reminds us that we should not present abstract, but should instead present real examples of the skill being used. These examples should include both good and bad examples since we all learn from our mistakes.
6. Pragmatic practice - Up until this point we have been talking to the learner and they have been passive in their involvement. Now we need to help them learn. Again Clark captures the challenge with this issue--the need to create practice activities that walk the fine line between being challenging, but not frustrating.
7. Refined Reflection - Clark proposes an individualized summary based on the learner's performance on the practice exercises. He acknowledges that the problem is that most elearning does not track learner progress at the practice level. He also notes the dark little secret we all carry in the back of our minds: most learning is forgotten within three days of the training session if it is not used. He argues that learners should have opportunities to practice so that the knowledge remains fresh.

I can't argue with any of these points and I think all instructional designers should take them to heart. As for me. I'm going to print his article out and keep it posted where I can grab it and refresh my mind about these obvious points again and again.

Dealing with Digital Natives

I subscribe to the Breakthrough Briefing web newsletter from a group called the elearn Campus. It's a great group that offers regular interesting webinars free-of-charge (always a good deal for a hard working instructional desinger). But my jaw had to drop when I read the article preceding their last webinar, Engage or Enrage.

What got me was this :

Marc Prensky, author of Digital Game-based Learning, delivered a keynote address at this summer's Desire2Learn Users Conference titled "Engage Me or Enrage Me." He talked about the great divide between digital natives (the kids who have grown up in the digital age) and the digital immigrants (folks like me who came of age well before the dawn of the digital world as we know it). Prensky's thesis is that many kids are thoroughly bored and uninterested in school because the nature of schooling has not changed much in hundreds of years. (my emphasis) The digital natives face the same old rote memory approach to learning that we did. However, in their lives outside the classroom they are using digital tools (e.g. WWW, wireless text messaging, electronic games, MP3s, PDAs, high end software) to be creators and active participants in activities, not just passive receptors and regurgitators of information. Hence, their rallying cry at school is "engage me or enrage me."

While a great number of today's kids may be truly web-engaged I think it is a gross overstatement to assume they all have to be catered to by engaging them with games. They claim Prensky argued that "...many very bright and creative kids have to turn off their brains and slow down when they go to school because they are not challenged in the ways they are, for example, playing electronic games."

I got news for Mr. Prensky I went to school in the 1960s and 70s when computers were still mainframes and I still got bored at the teaching styles. It's not a matter of digital natives being turned off by the teaching that occurs in school. It is all kids who get bored with what passes for education and it's one heck of an indictment of our teachers--even with their new teaching styles--it's still boring. But kids will always be bored because they do not want to be in school. The trouble is engagement too often becomes entertainment and no learning occurs.

Sometimes we have to do something that seems boring in order to learn. It's just the way of the world. And sometimes, in the corporate world, elearning has to be a page-turner.

Designing Informal

Clark Quinn has an interesting post for anyone who is interested in the role of blogs and wikis in instructional design about informal learning. The basis of his post notes that as learners gain experience in their trade they learn more from informal venues versus formalized training.

The key is to provide learners with centers of experience where they can research and find their information or ask questions of would-be mentors. The problem resides in where we do our jobs. If the learner is not located in the same room as the high-performer who can guide him/her. Then there is a problem and that is where instructional designers can come into play.

To quote Mr. Quinn:

The points being that we need a broader focus, and our instructional design has to be augmented with information design and information architecture. It’s about supporting performance, not just about courses.

As instructional designers we need to look beyond building a course. We need to promote the building of other support systems to assist the more experienced learner.

On the use of graphics

I meant to write about this earlier, but better late then never. The fine folks at Creating Passionate Users have an excellent post regarding the use of graphics in blogs, books, and presentations. While the piece focuses mainly on the use of graphics for blogs, I think it is equally useful for elearning, especially their ideas for generating graphics ideas. I recommend you read the whole article, but I thought I would list their suggestions for graphics brainstorming here:

1. Ask yourself, "What's the point I want to make?"
   
2. Distill the point to it's simplest, once-sentence form.
3. Narrow down the graphic types that apply to this point.
4. Pretend that for some reason you cannot use words to make your point.

They expand on each one of these points and then go on to discuss how to create them with tips on

Project-based Wikis

Wikis can appear to be daunting, especially if you are starting one from scratch. But for a project it might help to begin with your email. So say the folks at Wiki That!. They offer a 10-step process for creating a project-related wiki using email.

Think about it - Isn't your email the first place you'd go to find out what may have happened in an activity you have been part of? But what if you or
others weren't on the receiving end of some emails?

It seems to make a lot of sense to me.

Is ISD / ADDIE / HPT Relevant?

I can't speak for HPT, because, to be honest, I didn't recognize that one until I followed a link defining HPT from Harold Jache's post on the topic. As for ISD and ADDIE I think there will always be a role for those approaches, especially in the Web 2.0 (and what ever comes after it) world. But that role will change and those individuals and organizations that refuse to evolve will become extinct in the learning world.

The corporate/government world will always want a structured learning environment simply because

1. they cannot afford to have their workers following myriads of hyperlinks that could possibly lead them far afield from the core focus of the training they are seeking to instill. The human race is naturally curious and we can easily forget about time as we scan through the wealth of information available.
2. As general as a lot of topics may be--such as customer service skills or travel expense reporting--each business or agency will have its own unique spin on these topics and will want their workers following that spin.
   

My formal job title is Instructional Systems Designer but I tend to drop the "Systems" part because many of the courses I create are not process-oriented. They tend to be theoretical (reasons for grounding electrical systems) or softskills (customer service techniques) and there is no hard and fast steps that must be performed that can be trained. What can be presented is examples and scenarios where learners can play "what if" games.

I think that formal training activities will continue and should continue, but these events are going to more limited in scope than in the past and will be augmented by informal learning means outside the classroom. The role of the instructional designer will be to use the ADDIE model to determine what baseline structure can be built into the formal piece of the learning and what parts of the knowledge base are fluid and need to maintained delivered in an informal venue, be it a blog, a podcast, or talking points delivered by a project manager to his or her team.

The future may find that what we now call an instructional system designer is a person who does a little bit of instructional designing and a whole lot of consultative working advising his or her customers on appropriate means of content storage and delivery.

About Blended Learning

For some reason the concept of "blended learning" has risen to the surface again. Back in September Tony Karrer wrote about it in his post: Blended Learning Dead? - Huh? in which he linked to a post by David Wilson: Is "Blended" really dead? who argues that Europe is ahead of the U.S. in developing true blended learning iniatives. Which is to say, Europe is a few feet out from the starting line, while the U.S. is still tying its shoes. What is relevant from David's post is his understanding of blended learning.

Blended Learning should force us to focus on learning as a process rather than as a series of events. The value of blended learning should be in understanding and describing that process, and then understanding the interplay between and the added value through the components of the process, i.e. the whole design, not just the selection of specific media types. Process-based and integrated.

Tony contends that blended learning is not seriously discussed because it has, in essence become a no-brainer. Everyone either assumes they know what bleneded learning means are already practicing it.

One month later I come across a post/announcement by Rick Nigol at Breakthrough Elearning announcing a webinar to discuss blended learning solutions. In the lead-up to the announcement he talks about what he calls the perfect mix. His mix makes a lot of sense. The mix is decided by:

• The nature of your learning goals, and
  
• The nature of your learners.

This is where I think most corporate initiatives collapse. As David Wilson states, "[m]uch of this blending is not actually very blended. Lowest common
denominator thinking drives decisions to chop down classroom time and
substitute in e-learning content that is not really integrated with the
classroom content.

I think Rick Nigol sums it up best when he states "[g]etting the right mix in blended learning is a lot like cooking. You
want all the constituent ingredients complementing each other, rather
than over-powering each other, and fighting for attention."

I've registered for his webinar on Nov. 2 and I hope to get in because seating is limited. If I can't make the live conference I will look forward to reviewing the recorded webinar.

What Keeps me awake at night

Elliot Masie is running an interesting two-question survey for learning/training professionals on What keeps you up at night. I thought I would post my responses to his questions.

As a learning/training professional, WHAT KEEPS YOU UP AT NIGHT?

My answer: Making management aware of the changing field of elearning as it tilts towards more informal learning processes. As an employee of a firm that makes its money by being a elearning contractor I'm afraid that the opportunities that are on the horizon will be missed by a management team that is still operating in the LMS/linear creation mode.

I fear that management was burned by the EPSS trend in the 80s and 90s and will be reluctant to consider the new training support tools being made available by web 2.0 technologies.

Hopes & Dreams: What are your hopes and dreams for the field of learning/training? Be brave and honest!

My answer: I hope we can finally break from the one-time learning event approach to training and move to a more supportive role where training is available when it is needed without having to jump through LMS hoops of enrollment  or, before that, convincing a manager to spare some of his/her budget to pay for the training.

I look forward to seeing the summary of all of the responses he receives. I'm sure there will be many more that are more well thought-out then mine.

Online webinars

So I attended an online webinar today about best practices in webinars. I hoped for the best on this, but of course it was really an infomercial for a webinar provider. That did not disappoint me as much as the fact that the provider trumpeted as a benefit of their program is a feature that tracks attendees window usage.

The system can tell when the presentation window loses focus, i.e., the attendee has shifted to another window, such as his/her email application. Their claim is that this gives the presenter and, in extension, the training department, and idea of the attendees attentiveness to the webinar.

I'm not fully convinced that this is a solid metric because, as I posted in a question to them, which was never answered, some people may have dual monitors or large monitors in which they work and can have two or more applications running at the same time.

Since most webinars rely on PowerPoint presentations is there anything gained by staring blankly at a slide while the presenter speaks? We bill ourselves as a generation that can multitask. Surely I can listen to a presentation, sneak a peak at their current slide, and continue to compose an email or develop my own presentation.

The bottom line is that this attentiveness feature is a web version of measuring "butts in seats," but it is done in real time and changes constantly.

What Informal Learning Means To Me

So I'm reading this article published by the eLearning Guild by Brandon Carson, titled Crafting the Total Learner Experience: Preventing Data Corruption in Instructional Messaging (Guild membership required). In it, Brandon is talking about what he calls "The Total Learner's Experience." Brandon writes:

A successful Total Learner Experience should promote the cohesive integration of informational resources into the overall structure of a course delivery system. A course delivery system contains every component designed to facilitate a learning intervention, including the interface access point for the course, which could be a learning management system, corporate intranet, or a simple Web page.

He then proceeds to make common sense arguments for letting content access to trump structure. Designing so that the learner can find what he or she needs to know over what the instructional designer/subject matter expert/management thinks they need to know. Brandon makes some really solid points that I'm sure I will attempt to integrate in my work habits.

But what really struck me is that from what I have read is that the real rebellion against formal training versus what is called "informal training" is the slavish devotion to learning management systems. A learning management system is probably the apex of top-down training. It places toll booths inbetween the learner and the knowledge he or she needs to perform their duties. Informal learning proponents are saying "Tear down that wall." Make learning accessible.

Unfortunately, I don't think learning will ever be made that accessible in the corporate sector as long as corporations expect training departments to be profitable. Learning management systems allow training departments to collect the toll to allow the learner to proceed to obtain corporation-blessed knowledge. It's a totalitarian system that promotes a sort of blackmarket type of training which occurs around the water cooler, the coffee pot, and the smoking area.

Perhaps the future of corporate training requires that the business leaders promote the return of craft guilds and guild memberships. Allow the guilds to provide the training to their employees. Of course that would open a new can of worms for corporations because then they would have to fear the regrowth of unions. But that's another story.

Is it training or is it preaching?

I've been thinking about what is presented as corporate training recently and, maybe I'm being dense here, much of what is called training is more like corporate preaching. The programs we develop are infomercials for positions or points-of-view that are espoused by management. It is positional in that it states this is how we want you to do something when this situation arises.

This is not unlike Jesus preaching to the crowds in the Sermon on the Mount where he said:

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'

But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.

If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well.

He did not expect people to encounter these problems, but should they be encountered this is what they should do. Similarly much of what passes as corporate training is an attempt to anticipate problems and to provide guidance as employees embark or continue on their career paths.

Am I attributing religious meanings to corporate training. NO! What I am suggesting is that as Matthew recorded Jesus' sermons not only for others to read or hear read to them, but to also be referenced again and again as issues arise or simply when Jesus' words needed to be reheard for moral support.

Likewise much of corporate training needs to be more than a one-off event. It needs to be recorded and documented and made available for all employees to review. They need to be able to spread there understanding of these messages to others so that it can be discussed. To a certain degree the discussion element already takes place around water coolers, smoking areas, etc. But these are isolated locations. The word needs to be spread further and that is the beauty of the plethora of Web 2.0 tools.

Corporations need to embrace these tools. I think that with them learning within the workplace can only improve. That's all.