Just haven't had the chance to collect my thoughts upon returning to the mass chaos that is my employment. To put it simply, I left with a very empty plate and, within a week of returning, currently have approximately 20 courses being developed (or redeveloped, as it were) between myself and my 'other self'. Sound like fun? Didn't think so...
Kvetching aside, though, the next entry I scribe (and I assure you it's coming soon) will be centered around one single, solitary question my Program Director asked me, unsolicitedly, upon my return: "So, this Twitter thing...should we know about that?"
The 2.0 revolution has begun...details to follow...
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
Future entries...
eLearning Guild's annual gathering was a blast! Taking a break from the blog, but some upcoming entries will include:
- Overall thoughts of AG09
- Verbal Economy - My linguistic concept expanded and explained
- Healthcare Instructional Technologies - Why so different?
Talk to you all soon!
- Overall thoughts of AG09
- Verbal Economy - My linguistic concept expanded and explained
- Healthcare Instructional Technologies - Why so different?
Talk to you all soon!
Session 1002: Letting Go of the Words - Writing eLearning Content That Works (Ginny Redish, Chris Willis)
Ginny Redish is a founder of Redish & Associates, Inc and an author. Chris Willis is CEO of Media 1.
The theme of this presentation will be "Content as Conversation". Introducing the concept of eLearning as conversation and writing eLearning content as conversation will be topics covered.
Information gets from the designer/developer to the learner in the old model by means of 'one-way transmission'...from PC to student. Faulty because one way does not allow for active questioning...they get what they get. Instead, an improved model involves an innate understanding between the designer/developer and learner. An important concept to remember is that learning is not pouring information into the learner's head, but rather a conversation (involving concepts like Active Learning, Hands On, Brains On, and Active Engagement). (Side note - I really like the concept of 'brains on' learning...what a great term...)
Write Conversationally...
Think of what you are writing as part of a conversation, rather than cold hard fact (isn't this what I was doing before the powers that be told me to trim back the verbiage?). The presenter recommends developing and using personas in eLearning (yes, Topher, you might have been right...the human face makes the instruction process much more conversational and, as such, much more comfortable for a learner...makes them feel understood).
We can learn useful principles from linguistic research on conversation...
HP (Paul) Grice holds four maxims of conversation. They are assumptions about conversations and contain expectations we all have as speakers and listeners in a face-to-face conversation:
Maxim 1 - The Maxim of Quality (Truth) - Do not say what you believe to be fault, Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence
Maxim 2 - The Maxim of Quantity (Information) - Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchange, Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
Maxim 3 - The Maxim of Relation (Relevance) - You can talk about stuff, or you can talk to people...
Maxim 4 - The Maxim of Manner (Clarity) - Avoid obscurity of expression, Avoid ambiguity, Be brief, Be orderly
Writing eLearning content as conversation...
Applying Grice's maxims, here are some guidelines to writing eLearning as conversation:
- Don't hog the conversation
- Take turns by including useful headings
- Start with the context - on pages, in paragraphs, in sentences
- Write the conversation - active voice, personal pronouns
- Respect the learner's time - short sentences, strong verbs
- Be clear - use simple words, explain technical terms
- Think in scenarios
Steve Krug's book, titled "Don't Make Me Think", was referenced as a goldmine and the presenter mentioned that, based on this book, she should write on called "Don't Make Me Read" (again, based on Grice's maxims).
Activity involving the fumigation of yams (not as scary as it sounds) illustrates that information usually comes to us from SMEs with specifics up front and general topic info at the end. The problem of creating coursework laid out like that is that once a learner starts to read, you have a couple of seconds to catch them. If they see "Methyl Bromide" up front, they won't read on and realize it's what they need to read about "fumigation of imported yams". Give the topic first...sound advice.
When people get instruction without context, do they wait for the rest of the instruction or do they jump to act? Great question...even on the sentence level, we should be putting the context FIRST rather than anywhere else (Ex: Give the context before the required action).
Active versus passive voice was covered (I'm in heaven)...while passive is more conversational, active is more direct and the subject/verb agreement indicates a more direct correlation between the action and who should do the action. Fine line to tread...Ginny also brought up using writing to "you" (the learner) and how it personalizes the material to the learner without getitng too bulky. (Note - This is a practice I'd like to start implementing more and more in our own product, despite provider opposition).
Steps, not paragraphs...awesome. Anytime you have a list where you are repeating 80-90% of the information, with only 10-20% differentiating, use a table rather than paragraphs or lists. Awesome again. Tables work because of their "If/Then" setup.
Summary/Conclusion
eLearning is a converastion in which you should be accurate, brief, relevant, and clear. The most important thing we can remember in all of this, while we may keep in mind these adjectives it should be, is that it is a CONVERSATION, not a dictation or lecture.
I could not be happier that this was my last session that I attended...not because I'm glad the conference is over, but because this was BY FAR my favorite session. It took my English teacher disposition, paired it with eLearning practices and...wow...just wow. I learned a bit about why and when to use lists, headings, and tables, but I also was able to relate (hardcore) to Ginny as a linguist and as a 'wordy' overall. (The fact that she dropped my term (Verbal Economy) a couple of times after I brought it up couldn't have made me more proud).
Again, landslide victory - this session was the perfect ending to a perfect week...great, great, GREAT presentation Ginny...thank you so much!
The theme of this presentation will be "Content as Conversation". Introducing the concept of eLearning as conversation and writing eLearning content as conversation will be topics covered.
Information gets from the designer/developer to the learner in the old model by means of 'one-way transmission'...from PC to student. Faulty because one way does not allow for active questioning...they get what they get. Instead, an improved model involves an innate understanding between the designer/developer and learner. An important concept to remember is that learning is not pouring information into the learner's head, but rather a conversation (involving concepts like Active Learning, Hands On, Brains On, and Active Engagement). (Side note - I really like the concept of 'brains on' learning...what a great term...)
Write Conversationally...
Think of what you are writing as part of a conversation, rather than cold hard fact (isn't this what I was doing before the powers that be told me to trim back the verbiage?). The presenter recommends developing and using personas in eLearning (yes, Topher, you might have been right...the human face makes the instruction process much more conversational and, as such, much more comfortable for a learner...makes them feel understood).
We can learn useful principles from linguistic research on conversation...
HP (Paul) Grice holds four maxims of conversation. They are assumptions about conversations and contain expectations we all have as speakers and listeners in a face-to-face conversation:
Maxim 1 - The Maxim of Quality (Truth) - Do not say what you believe to be fault, Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence
Maxim 2 - The Maxim of Quantity (Information) - Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchange, Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
Maxim 3 - The Maxim of Relation (Relevance) - You can talk about stuff, or you can talk to people...
Maxim 4 - The Maxim of Manner (Clarity) - Avoid obscurity of expression, Avoid ambiguity, Be brief, Be orderly
Writing eLearning content as conversation...
Applying Grice's maxims, here are some guidelines to writing eLearning as conversation:
- Don't hog the conversation
- Take turns by including useful headings
- Start with the context - on pages, in paragraphs, in sentences
- Write the conversation - active voice, personal pronouns
- Respect the learner's time - short sentences, strong verbs
- Be clear - use simple words, explain technical terms
- Think in scenarios
Steve Krug's book, titled "Don't Make Me Think", was referenced as a goldmine and the presenter mentioned that, based on this book, she should write on called "Don't Make Me Read" (again, based on Grice's maxims).
Activity involving the fumigation of yams (not as scary as it sounds) illustrates that information usually comes to us from SMEs with specifics up front and general topic info at the end. The problem of creating coursework laid out like that is that once a learner starts to read, you have a couple of seconds to catch them. If they see "Methyl Bromide" up front, they won't read on and realize it's what they need to read about "fumigation of imported yams". Give the topic first...sound advice.
When people get instruction without context, do they wait for the rest of the instruction or do they jump to act? Great question...even on the sentence level, we should be putting the context FIRST rather than anywhere else (Ex: Give the context before the required action).
Active versus passive voice was covered (I'm in heaven)...while passive is more conversational, active is more direct and the subject/verb agreement indicates a more direct correlation between the action and who should do the action. Fine line to tread...Ginny also brought up using writing to "you" (the learner) and how it personalizes the material to the learner without getitng too bulky. (Note - This is a practice I'd like to start implementing more and more in our own product, despite provider opposition).
Steps, not paragraphs...awesome. Anytime you have a list where you are repeating 80-90% of the information, with only 10-20% differentiating, use a table rather than paragraphs or lists. Awesome again. Tables work because of their "If/Then" setup.
Summary/Conclusion
eLearning is a converastion in which you should be accurate, brief, relevant, and clear. The most important thing we can remember in all of this, while we may keep in mind these adjectives it should be, is that it is a CONVERSATION, not a dictation or lecture.
I could not be happier that this was my last session that I attended...not because I'm glad the conference is over, but because this was BY FAR my favorite session. It took my English teacher disposition, paired it with eLearning practices and...wow...just wow. I learned a bit about why and when to use lists, headings, and tables, but I also was able to relate (hardcore) to Ginny as a linguist and as a 'wordy' overall. (The fact that she dropped my term (Verbal Economy) a couple of times after I brought it up couldn't have made me more proud).
Again, landslide victory - this session was the perfect ending to a perfect week...great, great, GREAT presentation Ginny...thank you so much!
Session 901 - Beyond the Blend: Optimizing the Use of your Learning Technologies (Bryan Chapman)
Bryan Chapman is owner/founder of Chapman Alliance and a research partner with eLearning Guild. He is also associated with the Brandon Hall Awards and the Training in Action Awards program.
Presenter puts The Family Feud game format out there because there's no one right answer...good concept. Did an activity, using the Family Feud format, citing the top 7 reasons why people don't use simulation based learning, especially from a rapid development standpoint: Cost, Too Much Time, Steep Learning Curve, Hard to Integrate, Why should I? (user resistance), Not in PowerPoint, and Lack of Creativity.
Mr Chapman wrote Chapter 22 in the ASTD HandBook, title of the chapter being Learning Technology Primer. The diagram he referenced had the LMS front and center, with "Off the shelf" pre-built courses, Virtual Classroom Synchro. Learning, Authoring Tools, Self-Paced/Service Online Learning, Learning Content Management, and Informal Learning (Knowledge on Demand).
Bryan covered his company's rapid prototyping model: (1) Initiate (Learning Strategy Design, etc.), with the following in a cycle: (2) Implement (Learning Infrastructure Implementation, Courseware development, Evaluation, Rapid Development), (3) Innovate (Informal Learning Strategy, Single-Source/Multimode Delivery), (4) Inventory, (5) Improve (the edit process), and (6) Impress (basically, show off your polished product).
How long does take to create learning? (A study by Mr Chapman)
An hour of classroom learning - 36 hours
An hour of eLearning - 221 hours (comparison to classroom is a ratio of 36:1)
An hour of PowerPoint based online learning - 33 hours (Low range ~ 12hrs, High ~60hrs)
An hour of simulation based learning - 750 hours (WHAT?!?! This is crazy!! Speaker referenced soft skills as opposed to hard skills, but still...)
How do you clock rapid development?
IBM's Learning Model was reviewed. IBM found that 60% of their training was more 'fact-based' learning (Word docs, White papers, Student Guides, Product Knowledge, etc.). They came to the conclusion that they shouldn't be training this 60%, these facts, in the classroom (agreed!). This 60% of computer based, then, was covered before they graduated to higher level concepts (Role Play, Practice, Self-Assessment, etc.), with these higher level concepts accounting for 20%. This all culminates in a 20% Instructor Led Culminating Experience.
(Bryan brought up a good point that to develop 100% of training with captivate is tedious...hmm...what could we do with some of that 60% that isn't necessarily screenshot based...just thinking out loud about my situation...)
So how much time should all this take? Look back to the number of hours, referenced above, and apply to the following:
- Fact Based, developed with Rapid Authoring Tools
- Rapid Simulation Development
- Classroom Development Model
Why Gagne is wrong...and why Remember/Do is right
Instead of 7, 9, or a hundred thousand different theoretical concepts, the ID model that simplifies it all the way down is "Remember, Do". Looking at Bloom's Taxonomy, every one of the six stages can be classified into either one (basically, three and three). Don't optimize on what technology you pick, but on satisfying the objectives within your organization.
The Power of Content Management
Yum!, a chain restaurant management company, has 900,000 empoloyees worldwide, 34,000 restaurants, and open 3 new restaurants a day (with 30-35 average employees per site). There is a need for customized, regionalized need for training at each location (see: KFC in China). Their prior methods of content management involved a set of binders containing ~300 Word docs. They employed manual page customization by location, by inserting or removing pages based on corporate edict.
Now, everything is done through XML, with a customized needs menu that creates the appropriate, regional and need specific training documentation that they need at each site.
The Power of Informal Learning
Jay Cross defines it as "that which is not directed by an organization or somebody in a control position". Agree/Disagree? Food for thought, as he's running short on time...but, if you agree, why and if you disagree, why not?
Summary/Conclusion
Bryan touched on a lot of things that I either knew or knew a part of already, but just having the dialogue helps to snap a routine-driven brain out of its standard cycle. Main takeaway here is Are we teaching fact level knowledge (the 60%) in the classroom or via simulation? If so, why are we still doing that and what can we do to get away from it, free up the resources doing it, and reassign the resources otherwise? Definitely gave my brain a good scratch...great job, Bryan!
Presenter puts The Family Feud game format out there because there's no one right answer...good concept. Did an activity, using the Family Feud format, citing the top 7 reasons why people don't use simulation based learning, especially from a rapid development standpoint: Cost, Too Much Time, Steep Learning Curve, Hard to Integrate, Why should I? (user resistance), Not in PowerPoint, and Lack of Creativity.
Mr Chapman wrote Chapter 22 in the ASTD HandBook, title of the chapter being Learning Technology Primer. The diagram he referenced had the LMS front and center, with "Off the shelf" pre-built courses, Virtual Classroom Synchro. Learning, Authoring Tools, Self-Paced/Service Online Learning, Learning Content Management, and Informal Learning (Knowledge on Demand).
Bryan covered his company's rapid prototyping model: (1) Initiate (Learning Strategy Design, etc.), with the following in a cycle: (2) Implement (Learning Infrastructure Implementation, Courseware development, Evaluation, Rapid Development), (3) Innovate (Informal Learning Strategy, Single-Source/Multimode Delivery), (4) Inventory, (5) Improve (the edit process), and (6) Impress (basically, show off your polished product).
How long does take to create learning? (A study by Mr Chapman)
An hour of classroom learning - 36 hours
An hour of eLearning - 221 hours (comparison to classroom is a ratio of 36:1)
An hour of PowerPoint based online learning - 33 hours (Low range ~ 12hrs, High ~60hrs)
An hour of simulation based learning - 750 hours (WHAT?!?! This is crazy!! Speaker referenced soft skills as opposed to hard skills, but still...)
How do you clock rapid development?
IBM's Learning Model was reviewed. IBM found that 60% of their training was more 'fact-based' learning (Word docs, White papers, Student Guides, Product Knowledge, etc.). They came to the conclusion that they shouldn't be training this 60%, these facts, in the classroom (agreed!). This 60% of computer based, then, was covered before they graduated to higher level concepts (Role Play, Practice, Self-Assessment, etc.), with these higher level concepts accounting for 20%. This all culminates in a 20% Instructor Led Culminating Experience.
(Bryan brought up a good point that to develop 100% of training with captivate is tedious...hmm...what could we do with some of that 60% that isn't necessarily screenshot based...just thinking out loud about my situation...)
So how much time should all this take? Look back to the number of hours, referenced above, and apply to the following:
- Fact Based, developed with Rapid Authoring Tools
- Rapid Simulation Development
- Classroom Development Model
Why Gagne is wrong...and why Remember/Do is right
Instead of 7, 9, or a hundred thousand different theoretical concepts, the ID model that simplifies it all the way down is "Remember, Do". Looking at Bloom's Taxonomy, every one of the six stages can be classified into either one (basically, three and three). Don't optimize on what technology you pick, but on satisfying the objectives within your organization.
The Power of Content Management
Yum!, a chain restaurant management company, has 900,000 empoloyees worldwide, 34,000 restaurants, and open 3 new restaurants a day (with 30-35 average employees per site). There is a need for customized, regionalized need for training at each location (see: KFC in China). Their prior methods of content management involved a set of binders containing ~300 Word docs. They employed manual page customization by location, by inserting or removing pages based on corporate edict.
Now, everything is done through XML, with a customized needs menu that creates the appropriate, regional and need specific training documentation that they need at each site.
The Power of Informal Learning
Jay Cross defines it as "that which is not directed by an organization or somebody in a control position". Agree/Disagree? Food for thought, as he's running short on time...but, if you agree, why and if you disagree, why not?
Summary/Conclusion
Bryan touched on a lot of things that I either knew or knew a part of already, but just having the dialogue helps to snap a routine-driven brain out of its standard cycle. Main takeaway here is Are we teaching fact level knowledge (the 60%) in the classroom or via simulation? If so, why are we still doing that and what can we do to get away from it, free up the resources doing it, and reassign the resources otherwise? Definitely gave my brain a good scratch...great job, Bryan!
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Session 711 - Case Study: Team-based Development of Simulation-Based Application Training (Alana Meeker & Michele Stouffer)
Alana Meeker and Michele Stouffer represent Ford Motor Company, both Instructional Designers.
The fable of Re-Learning eLearning - How process and priduct changed to meet the needs of a specific project
Quick overview of the case study - Training on Finance Software to be delivered to a golbal audience of new and existing users. Five finance modules, plus an overview to be developed. Application training ONLY was demanded...as they put it, "no fluff".
One thing I noticed straight away when looking at their content was that it was very simple in its design and appearance - clean, nearly clinical. They use on-screen 'coaches', as they put it, that is a human face giving instruction, rather than a cold, hard text caption alone. Peoplesoft is used to develop their course shell, and Captivate is used to develop their simulation.
(Note - I will try to remain as objective as possible here, but, well...if you know me, you know what I do, and you know what I do it with (Captivate))
After developing the courses, they submitted their material to their 'masters' and they determined that anything aside from the actual application simulation was what they considered to be 'fluff'. Right away, I hold issue with this because you have to set up simulations...give the background, if you will. To launch someone straight away into a simulation is like jumping into an ice cold pool or hot bath...
Two issues were identified: Limited time and resources and Knowledge Transfer (SME to ISD, then ISD to developer). Here again, it seems like a major overstaff for what I'm looking at. Why couldn't the SME work directly with an ISD/Developer, especially considering the course was being developed in Captivate? Presenters identified aggressive timelines as an issue, but at this point I really don't see that...
Three problems identified that needed to be addressed before this conversion could be addressed. First, was a redesign of the course 'shell'. They were able to launch six courses from one page. (I'm still not quite on their page as to why this was such a herculean task?)
Secondly, they had to adapt their process to meet an aggressive timeline, and their solution was to adapt their current process to meet an aggressive timeline, which involves storyboarding and a simulation script. (Looking at the process, why so many steps?? I realize I'm very close to the content, but still...13 steps?) A great question came up - What is the difference between a storyboard and this separate "simulation script"? The presenter explained that they're different...but why?
Lastly, they had to design a new template for the revised process and a new shell, overall. Over four years, I've revised our process several times...When we develop, how we develop, how we get the SME involved, and so on. And, again, I fully recognize that there are separate difficulties associated with working alongside an external client. But this is not a huge task...deisgn your new process, submit it for approval, and implement.
So, as I understand it...January to June 15th, 10 staff members, 6 courses with 30-35 slides, on average, each. Maybe healthcare is just simpler content...but I don't know...
Summary/Conclusion
I realize I'm very close to this material, so I'm certainly much more opinionated than I normally would be, viewing a presentation, say, that I'm not ingrainedly familiar with. And, again, I understand that not only are our clients in house, but they're in house IT, so it's easy for them to work it in PowerPoint, then submit to us. That said, I just don't follow how any of this is rapid. From my standpoint, it all appeared pretty routine, if not lax in some of the timelines and/or staffing scenarios mentioned.
The fable of Re-Learning eLearning - How process and priduct changed to meet the needs of a specific project
Quick overview of the case study - Training on Finance Software to be delivered to a golbal audience of new and existing users. Five finance modules, plus an overview to be developed. Application training ONLY was demanded...as they put it, "no fluff".
One thing I noticed straight away when looking at their content was that it was very simple in its design and appearance - clean, nearly clinical. They use on-screen 'coaches', as they put it, that is a human face giving instruction, rather than a cold, hard text caption alone. Peoplesoft is used to develop their course shell, and Captivate is used to develop their simulation.
(Note - I will try to remain as objective as possible here, but, well...if you know me, you know what I do, and you know what I do it with (Captivate))
After developing the courses, they submitted their material to their 'masters' and they determined that anything aside from the actual application simulation was what they considered to be 'fluff'. Right away, I hold issue with this because you have to set up simulations...give the background, if you will. To launch someone straight away into a simulation is like jumping into an ice cold pool or hot bath...
Two issues were identified: Limited time and resources and Knowledge Transfer (SME to ISD, then ISD to developer). Here again, it seems like a major overstaff for what I'm looking at. Why couldn't the SME work directly with an ISD/Developer, especially considering the course was being developed in Captivate? Presenters identified aggressive timelines as an issue, but at this point I really don't see that...
Three problems identified that needed to be addressed before this conversion could be addressed. First, was a redesign of the course 'shell'. They were able to launch six courses from one page. (I'm still not quite on their page as to why this was such a herculean task?)
Secondly, they had to adapt their process to meet an aggressive timeline, and their solution was to adapt their current process to meet an aggressive timeline, which involves storyboarding and a simulation script. (Looking at the process, why so many steps?? I realize I'm very close to the content, but still...13 steps?) A great question came up - What is the difference between a storyboard and this separate "simulation script"? The presenter explained that they're different...but why?
Lastly, they had to design a new template for the revised process and a new shell, overall. Over four years, I've revised our process several times...When we develop, how we develop, how we get the SME involved, and so on. And, again, I fully recognize that there are separate difficulties associated with working alongside an external client. But this is not a huge task...deisgn your new process, submit it for approval, and implement.
So, as I understand it...January to June 15th, 10 staff members, 6 courses with 30-35 slides, on average, each. Maybe healthcare is just simpler content...but I don't know...
Summary/Conclusion
I realize I'm very close to this material, so I'm certainly much more opinionated than I normally would be, viewing a presentation, say, that I'm not ingrainedly familiar with. And, again, I understand that not only are our clients in house, but they're in house IT, so it's easy for them to work it in PowerPoint, then submit to us. That said, I just don't follow how any of this is rapid. From my standpoint, it all appeared pretty routine, if not lax in some of the timelines and/or staffing scenarios mentioned.
Session 610 - Leveraging Technology with Human Expertise for Rewarding Results (Skip Marshall)
Skip Marshall is the Director of eLearning for Intelladon.
What is Learning?
More than just the transfer of knowledge from point A to point B, it's about transferring the knowledge AND augmenting learner behavior. Doesn't matter if they've learned it, it matters if they do it.
The organization's definition of Learning includes Employee/Operation manuals, ILT, OJT, Safety Sheets, FAQs. A learner's take on it, however, involves things such as Podcasts, TV Networks, Online Curriculum Maps, Virtual Learning, Informal Learning, Internal Social Networking and Collaboration Platforms.
Discussion came up as to what groups/industries use/allow 2.0 social technologies. Academia proved the majority that was on Facebook, whereas some corporate folks were as well. The topic came up as to why it is/isn't allowed. Was determined that there should be a separation between personal and professional social networking...
Where do businesses provide learning?
- Content Management Systems
- Learning Management Systems
- Learning Content Management Systems
- Shared Drives
Where do learners seek it?
- Learning on Demand
- Wikis (Confluence, Wikipedia)
- Blogs
- Social Networks
Interesting thing to note - The U.S. Navy is using Wiki technology...just found that interesting and would love to hear more about how it's used...
Learning as a Means
The question posed - Why would any executive allow for multiple LMS-es? Decentralization occurs and, previously, there were 'fat' budgets. Now, though, it's a different story...there's a call across most industries to consolidate back to one platform, for both budgetary and organizational concerns.
Skip's solution? One platform for all your needs through Sharepoint: Individual, Team, Division, Enterprise, Extranet, and Internet...it does it all! QLogic case study illustrated the way in which it can be used to be COMPLIANT (<-- big word in healthcare!).
Another solution presented centered around Cornerstone Talent Management System. Three core features: (1) Engages employees through a highly graphical approach, (2) MyTeam feature pulls in the concepts of Goals, Tasks, and Training and allows management that ability to track short-term assignments, and (3) Integrates Learning, Compliance, Performance, Compensation, and Succession.
Summary/Conclusion
There's no one solution that works for everyone...this really sums up the entire session. For as ideal as we can be, no one solution will work across the board. But the bottom line is that these technologies are out there and, for learners to take us seriously and become experts, we have to begin to come over to their side of expectations, rather than sitting/hiding behind organizational expectation. Great presentation, Skip!
What is Learning?
More than just the transfer of knowledge from point A to point B, it's about transferring the knowledge AND augmenting learner behavior. Doesn't matter if they've learned it, it matters if they do it.
The organization's definition of Learning includes Employee/Operation manuals, ILT, OJT, Safety Sheets, FAQs. A learner's take on it, however, involves things such as Podcasts, TV Networks, Online Curriculum Maps, Virtual Learning, Informal Learning, Internal Social Networking and Collaboration Platforms.
Discussion came up as to what groups/industries use/allow 2.0 social technologies. Academia proved the majority that was on Facebook, whereas some corporate folks were as well. The topic came up as to why it is/isn't allowed. Was determined that there should be a separation between personal and professional social networking...
Where do businesses provide learning?
- Content Management Systems
- Learning Management Systems
- Learning Content Management Systems
- Shared Drives
Where do learners seek it?
- Learning on Demand
- Wikis (Confluence, Wikipedia)
- Blogs
- Social Networks
Interesting thing to note - The U.S. Navy is using Wiki technology...just found that interesting and would love to hear more about how it's used...
Learning as a Means
The question posed - Why would any executive allow for multiple LMS-es? Decentralization occurs and, previously, there were 'fat' budgets. Now, though, it's a different story...there's a call across most industries to consolidate back to one platform, for both budgetary and organizational concerns.
Skip's solution? One platform for all your needs through Sharepoint: Individual, Team, Division, Enterprise, Extranet, and Internet...it does it all! QLogic case study illustrated the way in which it can be used to be COMPLIANT (<-- big word in healthcare!).
Another solution presented centered around Cornerstone Talent Management System. Three core features: (1) Engages employees through a highly graphical approach, (2) MyTeam feature pulls in the concepts of Goals, Tasks, and Training and allows management that ability to track short-term assignments, and (3) Integrates Learning, Compliance, Performance, Compensation, and Succession.
Summary/Conclusion
There's no one solution that works for everyone...this really sums up the entire session. For as ideal as we can be, no one solution will work across the board. But the bottom line is that these technologies are out there and, for learners to take us seriously and become experts, we have to begin to come over to their side of expectations, rather than sitting/hiding behind organizational expectation. Great presentation, Skip!
Session 504 - The Evolution of All Things 2.0 (Brent Schlenker)
Had to take a break here...my hands are starting to lock up on me, I've been blogging so much. Brief overview of this can be summed up thusly:
Learning in Web 2.0 should be 5able:
- Searchable
- Linkable
- Editable
- Taggable
- Feedable
And the greatest quote, lending credibility to 2.0: WE are smarter than ME.
(Example: Journey found their new lead singer, Arnel Pineda, on YouTube)
Learning in Web 2.0 should be 5able:
- Searchable
- Linkable
- Editable
- Taggable
- Feedable
And the greatest quote, lending credibility to 2.0: WE are smarter than ME.
(Example: Journey found their new lead singer, Arnel Pineda, on YouTube)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
