Monday, December 1

Learn about Learning - 2008

We are going to continue a tradition in the Big Question ...

The Big Question for December is:

What did you learn about learning in 2008?


If you are a blogger, I would highly recommend taking this as an opportunity to go back through your blog posts over the year and looking for any "aha moments" or highlight the posts that you think were the best/most interesting.

You might want to look back at some discussions going on during the last two yearly recaps:

January's Topic:

Predictions for learning in 2009

How to Respond:

Option 1 - Simply put your thoughts in a comment below.

Option 2 -

Step 1 - Post in your blog (please link to this post).
Step 2 - Put a comment in this blog with an HTML ready link that I can simply copy and paste (an HTML anchor tag). I will only copy and past, thus, I would also recommend you include your NAME immediately before your link. So, it should look like:

Tony Karrer - e-Learning 2.0

or you could also include your blog name with something like:

Tony Karrer - e-Learning 2.0 : eLearningTechnology

Posts so far (and read comments as well):
Posted by Tony Karrer at 7:00 AM 37 comments

Sunday, November 2

Network Feedback

This month's question comes out of part of the dialog that occur during the recent Work Literacy course. While discussing social networking for personal learning, the question came up around being able to reach out and get help from people or find expertise in the form of a person / conversation.

Thus, for November we are exploring:


Network Feedback


In Getting Help, I discussed some aspects of the central question being raised. I've got a question about a work task and would like to get feedback from someone (a person, hopefully with some level of experience and expertise on the topic). Or paraphrasing Colin in Blogging to ask for Help:
If you need input from people, where's the best place to ask?
My larger claim is that this is one of the most important, fundamental shifts in New Work
and new work skills that include being able to:
However, the question overly simplifies the problem. Different situations will require different answers. There's no "best place". And the landscape is shifting all the time. And while I discussed a couple examples this recently in LinkedIn for Finding Expertise and Searching for Expertise - LinkedIn Answers, my belief is that it is really hard right now to know enough about enough places to make good choices about:
  • Where to go in what cases?
  • What works and doesn't work?
  • How do you effectively work within a given context?
  • What do you need to have done to effectively get help ahead of time?
  • Are there places you can go if you are relatively new and needing to ask questions?
In addition to your thoughts on the above, it would be really great if people who answer this could provide specific examples.
  • What was the question you were facing?
  • What did you consider using?
  • What were the steps you took? How did things evolve?
  • What was the outcome?
  • What could you have done differently? Better?
I'm also certain there are lots of resources out there that could help someone learn about this. I'd appreciate pointers to any of those.

How to Respond:

Option 1 - Simply put your thoughts in a comment below. This may be a good question to leave a comment.

Option 2 -

Step 1 - Post in your blog (please link to this post).
Step 2 - Put a comment in this blog with an HTML ready link that I can simply copy and paste (an HTML anchor tag). I will only copy and past, thus, I would also recommend you include your NAME immediately before your link. So, it should look like:

Tony Karrer - e-Learning 2.0

or you could also include your blog name with something like:

Tony Karrer - e-Learning 2.0 : eLearningTechnology

Posts so far (and read comments as well):
Posted by Tony Karrer at 8:49 AM 12 comments

Wednesday, October 1

First eLearning

This month's question comes from a series of questions I've received recently on my blog all asking some form of, "I'm interested in eLearning. What should I do first?"

Thus, for October we are exploring:


First e-Learning


An example is shown in my post - First Authoring Tool.
I am an educator in Arizona about to graduate with my Masters in Instructional Design. I wish to apply my experience designing courses for online learning; however I've searched and don't know where to begin to actually learn how to use the LMS and course design software available. I came across your blog and thought you might be able to offer some suggestions.

I have great computer skills but am not experienced in creating web courses. I've seen all sorts of elearning software- Dreamweaver, Lectora, Captivate, Flash etc etc mentioned in job ads, but don't really know which ones to choose in order to get a well rounded working knowledge of how to build a course. Do you have any suggestions where to start? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Now, several people took the opportunity to politely bash their masters program for not giving them this experience as part of their education. Let's avoid this here. Instead, let's focus on the real point of the question.

So, what advice would you give to someone new to the field. Where do you start?
  • Particular tools you should explore?
  • Resources you should read? Videos/screencasts you should watch?
  • What would your To Learn List look like?

How to Respond:

Option 1 - Simply put your thoughts in a comment below. This may be hard given the complexity of the topic.

Option 2 -

Step 1 - Post in your blog (please link to this post).
Step 2 - Put a comment in this blog with an HTML ready link that I can simply copy and paste (an HTML anchor tag). I will only copy and past, thus, I would also recommend you include your NAME immediately before your link. So, it should look like:

Tony Karrer - e-Learning 2.0

or you could also include your blog name with something like:

Tony Karrer - e-Learning 2.0 : eLearningTechnology

Posts so far (and read comments as well):
Posted by Tony Karrer at 8:00 AM 18 comments

Tuesday, September 2

To-Learn Lists

This month's question comes out of something that Catherine Lombardozzi wrote pointed me to:

Jim Collins, in an essay in Learning Journeys, wrote, “A true learning person also has a “to-learn” list, and the items on that list carry at least as much weight in how one organizes his or her time as the to-do list.”

Thus, for September we are exploring:


To-Learn Lists


I personally, do not have a formal to-learn list. Instead, my exploration via work, blogging, speaking, I seem to find ample learning opportunities. But it does seem like a very good idea to be a bit more directed. So, more specifically, I'd like to hear:
  • If you have a to-learn list and are willing to share, and willing to share how you work with that list, that would likely be helpful information.
  • As Knowledge Workers, work and learning are the same, so how does a to-learn list really differ from a to-do list? How are they different than undirected learning through work, blogging, conferences, etc.?
  • Are to-learn lists really important to have? Are they as important as what Jim Collins tells us?
  • Should they be captured? Is so how?
  • How does a to-learn list impact something like a Learning Management System (LMS) in a Workplace or Educational setting?
  • What skills, practices, behaviors do modern knowledge workers need around to-learn lists?
This has been discussed a bit out there, but I'm not that familiar with good sources on this topic, so feel free to provide links to sources. I look forward to seeing responses.

How to Respond:

Option 1 - Simply put your thoughts in a comment below. This may be hard given the complexity of the topic.

Option 2 -

Step 1 - Post in your blog (please link to this post).
Step 2 - Put a comment in this blog with an HTML ready link that I can simply copy and paste (an HTML anchor tag). I will only copy and past, thus, I would also recommend you include your NAME immediately before your link. So, it should look like:

Tony Karrer - Safety Training Design

or you could also include your blog name with something like:

Tony Karrer - Safety Training Design : eLearning Technology

Posts so far (and read comments as well):
Posted by Tony Karrer at 6:52 AM 21 comments

Wednesday, August 6

No August Big Question

Just a quick FYI that due to my vacation, I will not be holding a Big Question in August. See you back in Sept.
Posted by Tony Karrer at 5:09 AM 1 comments

Tuesday, July 1

Lead the Charge?

I'm trying something a little different this month. I'm taking a bit more of a position in the question (maybe you could even call it a rant). I'm hoping this will spark some discussion ...

Karl Fisch - wrote the Edublog post of the year in 2007 with Is It Okay To Be A Technologically Illiterate Teacher? - a wonderful post that concluded with:
In the first few years of the 21st century, you can still be successful if you’re technologically illiterate, but it’s getting harder (and those that are literate have many more opportunities available to them). And by the end of the next decade, I think there will be very little chance of success for those that are technology illiterate.

In order to teach it, we have to do it. How can we teach this to kids, how can we model it, if we aren’t literate ourselves? You need to experience this, you need to explore right along with your students. You need to experience the tools they’ll be using in the 21st century, developing your own networks in parallel with your students. You need to demonstrate continual learning, lifelong learning – for your students, or you will continue to teach your students how to be successful in an age that no longer exists.
Back in March - we asked about the Scope of Learning Responsibility and received a lot of response. Most (if not all) respondents felt that we have fairly broad responsibilities that go beyond formal learning opportunities.

So, if we have responsibility for informal learning, social learning, eLearning 2.0, long tail learning, etc. then ...
Don't we have to conclude that learning professionals must be literate in these things?

If so, then what should learning professionals do to become literate?
I personally see this as much bigger. Work Literacy is trying to figure out how knowledge workers can be helped to improve their skills to take advantage of things like social media and new forms of informal learning. This leads me to ...
Should workplace learning professionals be leading the charge around these new work literacies?

Shouldn't they be starting with themselves and helping to develop it throughout the organizations?

And then shouldn't the learning organization become a driver for the organization?

And like in the world of libraries don't we need to market ourselves in this capacity?
To me, these are substantial issues facing all learning organizations and workplace learning professionals. It is THE big question today. It represents a shift in responsibility. A revolution in workplace learning. We can't be training organizations. We must become learning organizations. As learning professionals, we must lead the charge by being in front.

How to Respond:

Option 1 - Simply put your thoughts in a comment

Option 2 -

Step 1 - Post in your blog (please link to this post).
Step 2 - Put a comment in this blog with an HTML ready link that I can simply copy and paste (an HTML anchor tag). I will only copy and past, thus, I would also recommend you include your NAME immediately before your link. So, it should look like:

Tony Karrer - Safety Training Design

or you could also include your blog name with something like:

Tony Karrer - Safety Training Design : eLearning Technology

Posts So Far:
Posted by Tony Karrer at 7:00 AM 38 comments

Saturday, May 31

Second Life Training

This month's question came from a reader the June 2008 Big Question is:


Second Life Training?


More specifically:
  • In what situations, do you believe it makes sense to develop a learning experience that will be delivered within Second Life?
  • If you were to develop a training island in Second Life, what kind of environment and artifacts would you consider essential for teaching?
  • Just as there are considerable differences in blended learning and virtual classroom training, what are some of the major differences (surprises) in training within virtual worlds?
This has been discussed a bit out there, but I'm not that familiar with good sources on this topic, so feel free to provide links to sources. I look forward to seeing responses.

How to Respond:

Option 1 - Simply put your thoughts in a comment below. This may be hard given the complexity of the topic.

Option 2 -

Step 1 - Post in your blog (please link to this post).
Step 2 - Put a comment in this blog with an HTML ready link that I can simply copy and paste (an HTML anchor tag). I will only copy and past, thus, I would also recommend you include your NAME immediately before your link. So, it should look like:

Tony Karrer - Safety Training Design

or you could also include your blog name with something like:

Tony Karrer - Safety Training Design : eLearning Technology

Posts so far (and read comments as well):
Posted by Tony Karrer at 5:16 PM 22 comments

Thursday, May 1

Learning Design Differences for Digital Natives?

Karl Kapp helped me with the May 2008 Big Question which is:

Learning design differences for Digital Natives?


In other words:
  • Do you believe that we have to design, develop and deliver instruction differently for the so-called Digital Natives?
  • Are there differences in learning expectations and styles or can we just design good instruction and know that it meets all generational needs?
  • If you have an audience that includes natives and immigrants, how can you effectively design instruction without breaking the bank?
This has been discussed a bit out there, but I'm not really sure where I stand on it. So, some background reading:
How to Respond:

Option 1 - Simply put your thoughts in a comment below. This may be hard given the complexity of the topic.

Option 2 -

Step 1 - Post in your blog (please link to this post).
Step 2 - Put a comment in this blog with an HTML ready link that I can simply copy and paste (an HTML anchor tag). I will only copy and past, thus, I would also recommend you include your NAME immediately before your link. So, it should look like:

Tony Karrer - LMS

or you could also include your blog name with something like:

Tony Karrer - LMS : eLearning Technology

Posts so far:
Posted by Tony Karrer at 12:01 AM 28 comments

Wednesday, April 30

Big Questions

This is the new home of the master list of Big Questions:
2007

2006

Posted by Tony Karrer at 4:48 PM 0 comments

Tuesday, April 1

Do Better

Virginia Yonkers inspired the April 2008 Big Question which is:

What would you like to do better as a Learning Professional?


Simple question, but I'd expect some interesting answers.

How to Respond:

Option 1 - Simply put your thoughts in a comment. This may be more attractive this month since the answer might be relatively short.

Option 2 -

Step 1 - Post in your blog (please link to this post).
Step 2 - Put a comment in this blog with an HTML ready link that I can simply copy and paste (an HTML anchor tag). I will only copy and past, thus, I would also recommend you include your NAME immediately before your link. So, it should look like:

Tony Karrer - Safety Training Design

or you could also include your blog name with something like:

Tony Karrer - Safety Training Design : eLearning Technology

Please note that I will not be moderating roughly from April 5-12 this month. Thus, it may take a while to copy the posts up.

Posts So Far:
Also see the comment below for additional thoughts.
Posted by Tony Karrer at 7:01 AM 33 comments

Monday, March 3

Scope of Learning Responsibility

Karl Kapp helped me with the March 2008 Big Question which is:


What is the Scope of our Responsibility as Learning Professionals?


This question comes from several recent experiences. One was a Chief Learning Officer panel discussion where it seemed that supporting informal learning or communities of practice was not something they were considering. There was also discussion on my blog around the fact that in corporations there is a limit to what we can do as a training organization (see Corporate Learning Long Tail and Attention Crisis and Long Tail Learning - Size and Shape). All of this makes me wonder:

  • Do educational institutions and corporate learning & development departments have responsibility for supporting Long Tail Learning? Do they have responsibility for learning beyond what can be delivered through instruction? If so, what is their responsibility? Where is the edge of responsibility?
  • Similarly, does the instructor have a responsibility to help students make sense of or deal with content he or she did not teach the students? In other words, if a student finds information on the Internet or some other place, how much time and attention should the instructor allow for the discussion of such content? Should it be discussed at all if it is non-conventional or generally thought of as not credible or contradicts the instructor? Who determines credible research? Is all non-referred research questionable?
Karl and I feel this is an important question for all of us to think about and as a community to begin to address.

How to Respond:

Option 1 - Simply put your thoughts in a comment

Option 2 -

Step 1 - Post in your blog (please link to this post).
Step 2 - Put a comment in this blog with an HTML ready link that I can simply copy and paste (an HTML anchor tag). I will only copy and past, thus, I would also recommend you include your NAME immediately before your link. So, it should look like:

Tony Karrer - Safety Training Design

or you could also include your blog name with something like:

Tony Karrer - Safety Training Design : eLearning Technology

Posts So Far:
The learning professional can never be 'responsible' for anyone's learning, but they help to create an environment in which learning takes place in every context.
Posted by Tony Karrer at 6:18 AM 29 comments

Thursday, January 31

Instructional Design - If - When - How Much

Cammy Bean helped spark and work through the February 2008 Big Question with me.


Instructional Design - If, When and How Much?


In a bit more detail, the critical question seems to be:

For a given project, how do you determine if, when and how much an instructional designer and instructional design is needed?
To help you get started, I would recommend looking at some of the thoughts in the following posts:
The more that Cammy and I have explored this topic, the more questions we feel we have:
  • What value do we really offer beyond a SME with a tool? How do we distinguish the cases where we are needed?
  • (Reuben Tozman) What skills/knowledge do instructional designers bring to the table that is unique to our profession that other trades do not? Is our value in wielding the latest and greatest rapid development tools? Not if our SME's are using them also? Is it our knowledge of psychometrics when we create assessments? Nope. Is it our writing abilities? Is it our knowledge of communications?Do you think instructional designers should be able to use the tools?
  • Do you think instructional designers should go away and leave the rapid tools to the SMEs?
  • If we want SMEs to use rapid eLearning tools to create content, do they need training in ID? What training?
  • If someone without a background in ID is told to "create this course" - are they doing instructional design? Or is it something different? Is there some kind of range of ID capability? How do you explain the spectrum?
  • How can I really tell if there was good ID work? Could I have done as well by producing something far less?
  • If it takes more to create something "better" - do I really need to do that? How about when up-front knowledge of return on investment is not really known?
  • How is this different in academia vs. corporate.
Cammy's thesis - and I agree - is that ID is widely varied. But with that variety comes a big question of the value of ID as compared to a SME with a Wiki or rapid eLearning tool.

How to Respond:

Please post on your blog or put thoughts in a comment and I'll put a link to your post. You will get bonus points for:
  • Including a link to this post and even better include the Big Question logo.
  • In your comment, provide an HTML ready link that I can simply copy and paste. In other words - please include an HTML anchor tag in your comment. PLEASE.
Posts So Far:
Posted by Tony Karrer at 3:05 PM 40 comments

Monday, December 31

Predictions for Learning in 2008

Happy New Year! As promised ...

The Big Question for January is:

What are your Predictions for Learning in 2008?


To help you get started, you might want to look back at the posts on last months big question and last year's predictions.

How to Respond:

Please post on your blog or put thoughts in a comment and I'll put a link to your post. You will get bonus points for:
  • Including a link to this post and even better include the Big Question logo.
  • In your comment, provide an HTML ready link that I can simply copy and paste. For example, Tony Karrer - My Aha Moments in 2007 is great. To do this simply use an anchor tag in your comment.
Posts So Far:
Posted by Tony Karrer at 9:51 AM 24 comments

Thursday, December 13

What is to Come in 2008

As I read the blog I'd like to post a few updates on our research and predictions for e-learning in 2008.

1. Social Networking is hitting the corporate scene, driving tremendous demand for informal learning, or what we call "learning on-demand." The solutions organizations are looking for include blogs, wikis, and communities of practice. The CoP companies we talk with tell us that their businesses are booming (Tomoye and Mzinga being two which focus heavily in this space).

We just surveyed 800+ worldwide training directors and CLOs and found that 83% feel they have a significant or urgent need to change their learning programs to deal with the learning styles of younger workers. And despite this need, only 35% feel that they have the tools and experience to do this today.

What we expect to happen in 2008 is an explosion in the use of "self-published content"- that is solutions which enable learners to reach out and support each other. Organizations which do this today include Cisco, IBM, Symantec, Infosys, and many more. In fact, this is something which is relatively easy to do - if you remember that your role is to "facilitate"this content interchange, not "create content."

2. E-Learning, as defined, is not as successful as one may believe. I have to say, I started working in e-learning before the term was coined and spent much of my career over the last 10 years in the development, analysis, and research in this topic. I figured that by now we would have "figured it out." This is not the case. In fact, in the same research I cited above (to be published this Spring), only 19% of organizations feel they are doing a good job at building "high-impact"courseware, 13% at building simulations and other higher fidelity forms of training, and most surprising of all, only 23% feel that they are doing a good job at blended learning.

This really suprised me. While many large organizations are doing quite well at this, far more are still behind the curve. I believe the problem is that the complexity of e-learning grows each year, and now we consider searchable content, audio, video, and web 2.0 interactions as "standard" for all internet applications. Content which is in the early 2000s "page turning" style has become very boring and hard to complete.

Anyway, much more to talk about but I'll keep this short. Please contact me at (510) 654-8500 or visit our website for more - we're publishing our 2008 predictions this week. (www.bersin.com)
Posted by Josh Bersin at 7:45 AM 5 comments

Wednesday, December 12

Self-organized groups and the methods and ethics of accessing learning resources

Jay Cross has posted some further reflections on the Hole in the Wall project that was presented in a keynote speech by Sugata Mitra at Online Educa Berlin two weeks ago. Although the Hole in the Wall has been going for at least 7 years and has been deployed (as Sugata told me privately) extensively not only in various locations within India but also in Africa and Cambodia, confirming the potentially universal application of the results, the deeper findings of the ongoing experiment only came home to me in Berlin, which -- incidentally and somewhat ironically -- perhaps reveals that public presentations by an active speaker in front of a passive audience may occasionally be an effective way of transmitting knowledge. This post can also be read as my personal answer to the Big Question for December, since the Hole in the Wall (HiW) was indeed the most significant revelation of the year for me. It’s always pleasant to see the experimental confirmation of one’s favorite hypotheses (concerning both social learning and e-learning as a resource), but as with all empirical evidence, I’ve discovered in HiW material for extending the original hypotheses and introducing new dimensions (e.g. the organizational, the psychological and the ethical).

It seems to me that the fundamental key to the success of HiW is the notion of "self-organized groups" who learn on their own. If education is to become truly non-invasive, as Jay suggests, it must refrain from defining both the goals and the means to reach them, entrusting the groups with this task. If educational gurus (authorities) notice that a group is neglecting what is considered "essential" in the curriculum (for whatever reason, whether it’s basic security, survival or inculcating an existing set of values), the group could be challenged to account for why they may be neglecting a certain topic or reminded of the interest in pursuing it. Respecting the self-organizing group and its decision-making capacity is the sine qua non of success. It also happens to be the absolute opposite of the organizational principles of traditional education and training.

It's worth reflecting on how learners in self-organized groups use external resources to solve problems. One of Sugata’s anecdotes in Berlin concerned a girl who was overwhelmed by the exposure to the micro-biology courses in English (a language she had to learn as the medium of instruction). She stole some money from her mother to phone her uncle in Delhi, who she hoped might be able to explain in simple terms what DNA was. His vague and unscientific but nevertheless informative answer gave her the minimum she needed to begin constructing her understanding of the lessons she wanted to explore.

In other words, everything one already knows or has access to in the world becomes a potential resource for building rather than simply receiving knowledge, traditionally from a single authoritative source. This is probably also the best answer to Andrew Keen – another keynote speaker in Berlin whose stock-in-trade is lamenting Web 2.0’s loss of the sense of established authority common to traditional education and the Web 1.0 -- because it demonstrates that even sources of knowledge (the uncle) that are not fully reliable can contribute to the construction and refinement of knowledge. Being exposed to a multiplicity of sources and entering into dialogue with them is the best way of evaluating the components of knowledge and understanding relationships between complementary elements. Inevitably such increasingly complex networks of knowledge (and interpretation of existing knowledge) produce a more diversified intellectual culture capable of appreciating value rather than relying on arbitrary criteria, such as university degrees or media-induced standards of celebrity: see for example this interesting article in the LA Times on the Trump University.

I expect that within the family (in Indian culture) the mother could forgive her daughter for the theft. It’s worth noticing that in some cultures – and especially within educational institutions -- that theft would not be forgiven and the child would be branded as a real or potential delinquent. It’s the old Jean Valjean problem that our western cultures are still struggling with, where the “rule of law” can easily become a rigid regime of “law and order” and human potential stifled with a vengeance.

Sugata told me that his results apply strictly to an age range of 6 to 13. He wouldn't commit to drawing any conclusions about how the findings might apply to older children and even less to adults. It's obvious that a similar experimental setting would be difficult to imagine. But I believe that parallels can be found, that the principles concerning the motivational factors of learning are similar and that, with some imagination in the "learning design", similar results could be produced in adults. The place to begin, of course, is CoPs since what the HiW children effectively did was to build and run their own CoP. And isn't "self-organized group" the best and most succinct definition of a CoP?
Posted by Peter Isackson at 12:19 AM 2 comments

Friday, November 30

December Big Question - What did you learn about learning?

We've somewhat lost our fearless Blogmeister, Dave Lee, so we've not been doing the Big Questions the past few months. I'll be doing the moderating. But, we are starting again ...

The Big Question for December is:

What did you learn about learning in 2007?


To help you get started, you might want to look back at some discussions going on last year at this time with a similar kind of question:
I personally am going to be looking back at some of my blog posts and look for those "aha moments." There were quite a few, but it's always good to go back and look.

January's Topic:

Predictions for learning in 2008

How to Respond:

We are going old-school on this, no forms.

Please post on your blog or put thoughts in a comment.

If you post on a blog, please include a link to this post. Ideally, you would also include the Big Question logo. After you post on your blog, leave a comment on this post with a link to your blog post. Periodically during the month, I will add you to the list below.

By the way, if you can make it as easy as copy and paste for me, that would be great. Otherwise, the links may not look great, but everyone can still get there.

Good stuff already coming in!


Posts So Far:


Posted by Tony Karrer at 8:35 AM 39 comments

Saturday, November 24

The Campfire and the Sandlot

One can imagine the time in our pre-paleolithic history when formal learning consisted of two balanced parts:

During the day, people with skills would show others how to do something. "Grab the spear here," the teacher might say, taking the hands of the apprentice and putting them in the right spot. "Now practice in that sandlot over there by throwing it at that big tree. Keep doing it until you get it right. Then throw it at the smaller tree."

While at night, people around the campfire might tell of great adventures, including myths and legends. People would share ideas, and help their community expand their thinking. The best story tellers would gain bigger audiences and develop their own craft of narrative and suspense.

Then came the technology of writing. And suddenly the balance shifted. Communities were able build on the written work of the past. Written work also scaled well, where the work of one village could impact villages all around it. The disciplines of accounting and drama evolved geometrically. Meanwhile, practicing in the sandlot didn't change much. It was still a one-to-one activity.

Since the technology of writing, many subsequent discoveries have further augmented the "learning to know" skills. Paintings, theaters, printing presses and books, photographs, schools, universities, sound recordings, movies, scanners, Google (and now, the Kindle) all turned our culture into masters of linear content, enabling both great artists and our own exquisite vocabulary around such catnip as plot devices, antagonists, suspense, and the hero's journey, just to name a few. We can watch a Spielberg movie, a piece of campfire-style intellectual property that is the recipient of cumulatively trillions of dollars of investment and R&D, and evaluate it at a level of cultural sophistication that would awe citizens from a even a hundred years ago.

And yet, in the "learning to do" area, we are probably worse than our hunter-gatherer ancestors. For teaching the simplest skills, we mirror our ancestors ("put your hands here"), and for the more complicated skills, we don't have a clue. Ask a Harvard Business School professor to develop leadership (or any Big Skill) in a student and she will go into campfire mode with PowerPoint slides of grids, case studies, and so-called inspirational stories.

The advent of flight simulators and computer games, however, have introduced technology around "learning to do" that can finally scale. Today, there is a robust, if nascent, set of "sandlot" tools that is receiving a significant intellectual investment of the current community, and is able to build on the discoveries of the past. Today's "authors," often game designers, can begin to create virtual sandlots where participants can practice skills, instead of just hearing about them (the theory of nudging a pinball machine to get a better score, from a campfire perspective, is trivial; the practiced application is where it is hard).

And, correspondingly, an entirely new language is being developed. Gamers now effortlessly talk about end-of-level bosses, mapping Actions to interfaces, the attributes of on Maps, and what is good or bad level design.

During the next twenty years, the sandlot technologies (the "learning to do" through games and simulations) will successfully challenge the campfire institutions of universities, movies, and books not only for the discretionary time of the community (which we have already seen), but for help in improving their quality of life. We are already seeing glimpses of the latter through Carmen SanDiego, The Oregon Trail, Age of Empires, America's Army, Full Spectrum Warrior, Virtual Leader, and Brain Age. Will Wright, the creator of SimCity and The Sims, is the first Shakespeare or Beethoven of this medium.

In other words, people will engage in games not to play a super-hero, but to actually become more like one. And the balance between "learning to do" and "learning to know" may finally be restored.

Posted by Clark Aldrich at 3:49 PM 15 comments

Sunday, October 21

How would the world have evolved if everyone assumed training was just about worthless? Like it has!

There is a pact between corporate students and corporate trainers (and, I think, IT, budget holders, the lawyers, and middle management) that essentially says, "We all know that training does almost nothing. Given that, let's all agree to make it as frictionless as possible so that we can all check off that necessary corporate requirement and get on with our 'real' work."

This was the motivation for "e-learning" back in 1999. "Given that training was useless, let's make it cheap and convenient." The biggest sponsors of e-learning were the corporate managers who most opposed learning programs. The vendors who did well offered the most titles as cheaply as possible.

Today, most organizations only bother with level one analysis of training. "Question one: did we make the program as convenient and easy as possible? There is no question two." And stunningly, in a recent eLearning Guild's report, managers of educational programs from both academics and corporate, when asked about relative importance in a learning program, ranked ease of deployment (57.4% said it was very important and 37.2 said it was important) over every other category, including provides a strong return on investment (34.6% very important/ 41.4% important) and fun and exciting for participants (50.2%/28.4%).

The newest attempt to reduce the friction of learning to all stakeholders may be epitomized by the informal learning movement (which is happening if we choose to label it or not). "People learn what they need on the Internet. Who needs an LMS when you have Google?"

Simulation people disrupt that pact at all points. Students actually have to put some skin in the game, and experience intellectual awkwardness (which they hate). Trainers have content that does literally change behavior, so now they have to be extra careful it is the right content, and they actually have to learn how to measure the impact of formal learning, something they have never really figured out. IT, in some cases, has to now justify why some employees have old browsers, bad connections, and no sound. Middle managers have to free up the participants to actually learn (which means offloading work and not just letting it pile up in their absence).

Any new program can be killed by any member of the pact who feels that the deal is changing. We may be at a point where real formal learning is the enemy of everyone (but the organization's shareholders).

There are exceptions, of course. There are environments that truly value formal development programs. These are the groups that say (in a riff on the more famous phrase) "train hard, manage easy." That seems better than, "if you pretend to teach me, I will pretend to learn."

Posted by Clark Aldrich at 6:05 AM 16 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)