I’m an Instructional Designer so respect me!

Instructional designers, like all workers, are treated in different ways by different people but a key question, which as yet remains unanswered, is are they respected?

Over the course of the last few years I have come across a number of instructional designers (who obviously have to remain anonymous) who bemoan the fact that the role they play in designing eLearning programmes is not respected or appreciated. Many of them feel unvalued, frustrated, demotivated, usurped and fed up. By nature, instructional designers are very good, if somewhat unassuming, team players, however for many a feeling of exclusion has become the norm.

So, what’s going on that has led to this sorry state of affairs? Well, I have managed to determine two causes which, singly or together, invariably lead to one effect.

Cause 1 – Project managers rule

For instructional designers who work in teams, alongside graphic designers, video producers and programers, there is usually a project manager ‘conducting’ the work and acting as the ‘go-between’ with the team and the client.

When a project manager is not and has never been an instructional designer, problems arise when they assume the instructional design mantle and seek to cut-off essential communication channels with the client and the lead/senior instructional designer.

In situations where the project manager is a control freak and/or will do anything to keep the client happy by agreeing to their requests, no matter how unwise, inappropriate, time-consuming or costly, then the lead/senior instructional designer becomes impotent and their vital role ceases to exist.

In the worst case scenarios, project managers have even been known to undermine the credibility, knowledge, skills and experience of instructional designers by dismissing the latter’s efforts and achievements to the client, as well as keeping the two parties well apart in order to retain their control.

Cause 2 – Authoring tools dominate

In this situation, the instructional designer is forced to work to the lowest common denominator ie the authoring tool or software. The instructional designer is told “We will be using ‘X’ tool, so you will need to design the programme accordingly.”. Depending on the tool, as some are not so limited as others, this can result in the instructional designer being severely constrained in how they can treat the content. Not only is this extremely frustrating, it is also very demeaning, somewhat akin to asking a top-notch organist who is used to having four manuals at their disposal to achieve the same musical outcome with only one manual!

In those cases, which sadly are becoming more and more common, where the instructional designer is also the programer, then the tool in question easily dominates most design considerations. The individual in question either forgets any instructional design knowledge and skills they may have or lets the tool dominate their design.

In either case, the outcome is one in which the ‘science’ and ‘art’ of instructional design plays very little, if any part. No small wonder then that many people are asking just what is an instructional designer good for!

Effect – Bottom of the heap syndrome

In an increasing number of cases, instructional designers are now being treated as second class citizens. In terms of an eLearning pecking order they are rapidly being relegated to the bottom of the heap. No small wonder then that so many feel unvalued, frustrated, demotivated, usurped and generally fed up.

A recipe for disaster

If this state of affairs continues then quality and fit-for-purpose eLearning programmes, irrespective of whether they are stand-alone, form part of a blended learning solution, or are used as a form of performance support, will rapidly become a thing of the past.

Sound and effective instructional design are the sine qua nons of all formal learning solutions, as well as for provision which is used informally for performance support. This is no more true than when, arguably, the most demanding delivery medium of all, eLearning, is involved.

We have got to do something to address this current lack of respect of instructional designers by, first, acknowledging that it exists, second, by bringing it to the attention of others and, third, by enforcing our role as indispensible L&D professionals. I sincerely hope that this post will make a positive contribution to the first two steps.

“I got to have (just a little bit) – A little respect (just a little bit)” (Aretha Franklin)

If you have had similar experiences to then please do use the comments box and tell me about them.

The Terror of Templates: an Instructional Designers nightmare!

In today’s world of rapid everything, particularly when it comes to e-Learning programmes, I have noticed and become a victim of a most disturbing trend: the scourge of templates.

Rapid e-Learning design has its place but not when instructional design is compromised. The use of templates is nothing new, where at the start of a e-Learning project it is agreed by the instructional designer in conjunction with the client, the graphic designers, and the programers, where specific assets can be placed on the screen.

Over the last few years though, I have noticed a most disturbing and counter-productive trend – one where templates become the sine qua non of all e-Learning design; effectively kicking instructional designers into touch. So, here’s my take on what is the good, bad and (the downright) ugly of using templates in designing e-Learning programmes.

Templates – the good

First of all, let me say that as an instructional designer I define and use templates. However, these are very simple and few in number. Generally, they just cover where graphics and text can go, to make life easier for other instructional designers in the team and for the programers.

Knowing what the various options are, it’s relatively easy to look at some content and decide what screen layouts to use: graphics & text, text & graphics, graphics/text and so on.

What happens next though is left solely to the instructional designer, in terms of how the text, graphics and audio work with one another, and the interactions that are required. The instructional designer is therefore completely in charge.

Templates – the bad

Here, the programers, with minimal or even no input from an instructional designer, come up with 20 or so templates, all of which are to do with what they want to see in order to make their lives easier.

Very few, if any, of these has anything to do with what an instructional designer would have chosen or that will work best for learners.  They attempt, and generally fail, to describe everything, including interactions.  Their use serves only to provide boring and predictable e-Learning programmes.

In short, these types of templates become a strait jacket for the instructional designer, depriving the latter of any creativity or of using their considerable knowledge and skill of learning to produce high quality, effective e-Learning.

Templates – the (downright) ugly

OK it goes like this. An e-Learning provider (who will remain nameless) gives me a total of 80, yes 80, templates to use (and on pain of death if I didn’t use them correctly). Each one of these 80 templates is so complicated, so restricted, and so inane that I rapidly lose the will to live!

Being an inquiring soul, I ask why do all these templates have to control what I do? Answer: “Well, we are using an offshore company to keep the costs down and this is the only way we can control what they provide”.

So, the tail is wagging the proverbial dog. I tried, oh believe me how I tried, but after a few days I gave up, as I couldn’t work/dance to such a cacophony.

I also felt that everything I knew and was experienced in doing as an instructional designer had just flown out of the window.  In short I’d become the operator of a sausage machine!

Sweet dreams

If I am going to sleep well and perform at my best as an instructional designer, then the ‘terror of templates’ has to become a thing of the past.

I do wish more instructional designers who have had sleepless nights or, worse still nightmares, about this scourge of the templates would also speak out. The life of an instructional designer can, at the worse, be a fairly unthankful task but with all these templates, it is rapidly becoming an unworkable one.

As I always live and work in hope, can I now say ‘goodbye to the terror of templates as “Sweet dreams are made of this. Who am I to disagree?” (Eurythmics). I most sincerely hope so.

Should you blow up your LMS?

Does your organisation have a learning management system (LMS)? If it does, do you love it or hate it? Either way, what is its role – is it a disabler or an enabler when it comes to learning?

Learning management systems have been around for at least 10 years and were, at one time, regarded as an indispensible component of all e-Learning provision. Today though the nature of learning in organisations is changing to include and acknowledge both informal and social learning which means that the usefulness of the LMS needs to be reviewed.

Why have a LMS?

Many organisations embarking on e-Learning have been recommended to buy a LMS, in fact this is often the first thing they buy, even before the e-Learning programmes, courses, modules, etc, on the advice of vendors. "The greatest scam ever pulled off by vendors was convincing management that an LMS isn't just a database. The second biggest? That they really needed one. The third? That it is a ‘Learning’ ‘Management’ System." (Jane Bozarth, 2010 on Mark Oehlert’s eClippings blog).

A learning management system is basically a software application for the administration, documentation, tracking, and reporting of training programmes, classroom and online events, e-Learning programmes and training content. A robust LMS should be able to do the following (Ellis 2009):

§  centralize and automate administration

§  use self-service and self-guided services

§  assemble and deliver learning content rapidly

§  consolidate training initiatives on a scalable web-based platform

§  support portability and standards

§  personalize content and enable knowledge reuse.

By using a LMS organisations can track its staff’s use of training programmes, their test results, how long they took to complete a course, to name but a few. This capability has led many to say that a LMS is a sine qua non of all regulatory/compliance training and, as this use has much credence, it is difficult to argue against it. However, the current debate is much wider than this, as it would be very difficult to justify the cost of a LMS (which can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds) for just regulatory/compliance training requirements.

The LMS critics

Very recently, both Dan Pontefract and Richard Culatta (2010) have criticized the standalone LMS:

"Those organizations (and frankly public learning institutions) that are clinging to their standalone learning management systems as a way in which to serve up formal ILT course schedules and eLearning are absolutely missing the big picture. Sadly, there are too many organizations like this out there." (The standalone LMS is dead, Pontefract, 2009).

"The traditional stand-alone learning management system (LMS) is built on an industrial age model. There are two specific problems with this model, first it is monolithic within a learning institution and second it is generic across learning institutions." (The traditional LMS is dead, Culatta, 2010).

In addition, research conducted by the LMS supplier IMC found that among larger organisations, most had a LMS, with over 90 per cent having had one installed for more than two years and nearly 50 per cent of these had a LMS installed for five years or more. When these organisations were asked if they would recommend their current supplier only 23 percent said ‘very likely’, with negative responses totalling 50 percent, leading to the conclusion that either they were not completely satisfied or they had made the wrong decision in the first place.

When asked if they were completely satisfied with their LMS in relation to both current and future requirements, only 30 per cent said they were, with an astounding 70 per cent saying they were dissatisfied, and where 30 per cent said that their concerns were in relation to future requirements.

Is it the learner, the L&D function or the organisation who benefits the most from having a LMS? Again, whilst most people are using it to benefit their learners (ie as an enabler) and to capture data of use for the L&D function, such as management reports, there is considerable under-use for the benefit of the organisation, which coupled with a very low level of satisfaction with their current supplier, means most are unable to show a realistic return on their investment in the functionality of their LMS.

The changing nature of learning

Jay Cross has, for many years, been one of the main advocates of ‘informal learning’, which has led to the term becoming established in mainstream use. Although there is no scientifically proven research, it is generally accepted that approximately only 10 to 20 percent of our skills learning comes from formal means, such as training courses and development programmes, and with which the L&D function is typically most comfortable.

The essential approach of a traditional LMS is to ‘push’ content to situations where gaps in skills have been identified. The LMS is key to identifying a skills need, delivering content (in the form of a course, module, etc), monitoring the learner’s use of what is provided, and recording if the learner’s needs have been met.

However, informal learning relies on the ‘push’ of content at the point at which there is a need. This means that the LMS now needs to be able to capture that skills have been acquired informally if the skills database is to be keep up-to-date, otherwise it will become a disabler of learning.

In addition, people are now using public social and collaboration tools to build their own personal learning networks for use in their work. To include all these tools or to retrofit them into the functionality of a traditional LMS is a massive undertaking, although those suppliers who are evolving are looking at ways in which to do this.

What’s the solution?

There are two different viewpoints here. One view is that it is easier and better to add some management capability to the social networking tools rather than retrofit all that functionality into a traditional LMS. The downside of this is from the aspect of data migration to ensure that there is a transfer of data from one area to the other.

The alternative view is to forget the previous approach, because what is needed now is an organisational system which supports and enables an informal approach to learning as, quite simply, you cannot manage or formalize informal learning as it then just becomes formal, managed learning.

This type of system is an example of enterprise 2.0 architecture (blogs, wikis, chat etc). More and more collaboration systems are now appearing in the marketplace, commercial systems like Socialtext and Jive, and open source systems like Elgg and Liferay, which cater for all budget sizes. The use of this type of enterprise system will support the relatively new concept that learning=working and working=learning.

The way ahead

As Don Pontefract has said “Whether you’re in a private or public organization ... start first with a ‘collaboration’ system rather than a ‘learning’ system, and build out from there.” and, even more to the point, “Blow up your LMS.  Find a way to integrate it into your collaboration platform.”(2009).

If you are tempted to go down this route then it is vital that you work with your IT Department or Business Operations on this, as a whole-enterprise approach is required here and not yet another L&D initiative!

(From an article by J. Christian-Carter (2010), Training Briefing, No 55, Croner, Wolters Kluwer (UK) Ltd.)

The Need for Change

Recently, many challenges have been laid down at the door of Learning and Development (L&D) as far as some much needed change is concerned. However, even if you agree with these challenges, meeting and achieving them is going to be something else altogether.

Every day on Twitter I read so many tweets about the need for a stunning amount of change in L&D. Judging by what people are saying, change in large corporates, public sector organisations, small and medium enterprises, higher education, further education, as well as secondary and primary education is required. Yes, it’s right across the board and, as I value greatly these people’s views, a tremendous challenge for all of us in L&D – perhaps the largest one most of us have ever faced.

Why?

My assessment on why this need for change has come about is because so many of our L&D policies, strategies and processes have not moved with the times, or with the technology which we now have at our disposal, and are still firmly based in the last century.

When looking back over the first decade of the 21^st Century only a hermit could be justified in saying that there has been little change. In the course of 10 years all of us, no matter where we are located in the world, have seen an exponential amount of change which is already having a direct impact on all aspects of our lives, including our work and our job roles.

For all of us working in any area of L&D, there is now considerable pressure being brought upon us to get ‘with it’ and to drag L&D into the 21^st Century. The cost of not doing so isn’t something we should even contemplate.

What?

In a nutshell we need to free-up and open-up L&D in all areas.

In the corporate/public sector world L&D needs to be representative of and support the goals of the organisation: training needs to change both in style and approach; development needs to change with informal learning recognized and rewarded; and, people need to be given the technology and tools to help them learn better and faster.

In education teachers and lecturers need to be freed-up to help their students to learn in ways which suit the latter, allowing them to use a range of learning processes, technologies, and tools.

How?

This is the ‘six million dollar’ question, although the cost will probably run into billions of dollars! But it’s not just about cost, it’s also about attitude – a resolve and a belief that change is required as well as the ability to effect that change.

There will always be those who resist change, initially at least, but unless those people who have the resolve and belief are allowed to start effecting this much-needed change, it will never happen. Those who resist initially will either retire or leave the profession or, more positively, will join in when they see and experience all the benefits that undoubtedly will result.

The learner

For me, it’s all about those who learn. They always need to be our focus and not us, complete with our preferences and prejudices. We are here to help people to learn and to develop as human beings. The omens are good with a growing groundswell of L&D professionals not only clamouring for change but also working extremely hard to bring it about.

The most important action for us is to remove the strait-jackets, which time and other people have imposed on learners, in order to liberate them. This has to be the starting point and then all we have to do is to deliver what learners need and want.

So what challenges are you facing in L&D right now – do please tell and share?

Learning & Development 5 years on

In June 2010 the BILD (British Institute for Learning and Development) attempted the impossible: to hold a conference with the theme ‘Learning and Development – the next five years’. So, just how did the ‘crystal ball’ perform?

The day’s conference showcased some of the current trends and innovations in learning and looked towards what the future might hold for Learning and Development (L&D). As Jack Wills (the BILD’s Chairman) said “If we accept that a ‘learner’ is a consumer by nature and reflects the society in which he/she lives, we might be able to spot some significant trends in how we might support them”.

Significant trends

Leaving aside the more human performance and organisational change aspects, it is far easier to speculate about how technology will have advanced by 2015 and the role that it might play in L&D. In the last 10 years technology has advanced so much that for some of us it is difficult to keep up with. Technological advancements over these years have, are having, and will have a truly mighty impact on L&D. It’s not just the Internet, it’s also the tools and, more importantly, the vision to see how all the advancements can be used to help everyone to learn.

Immersive technologies

David Wortley from the Serious Games Institute (www.seriousgamesinstitute.co.uk) gave an excellent presentation, telling delegates what immersive technologies are, what their impact will be on the next generation of learners, how and where they are being used, their benefits for education and business, and their future implications for business and society.

The most graphic part of the presentation was what happens to someone who dies from a head wound/trauma. Whilst this was not something for the faint hearted, it showed in a way that no other current technology could, by linking real-world data to realistic simulations, exactly what happens; it was not pretty.

As David said, “Immersive technologies are engaging our discretionary time, attention and money. It is this investment which is driving innovations in all aspects of society and changing our relationship with technology. Learning is being transformed from a transfer of existing knowledge by experts into a facilitated, self-directed discovery of new knowledge in collaboration with our peers.”.

The future of learning technologies

When it came to predicting the future, Alan Fletcher from the Open University (www.kmi.open.ac.uk) was simply superb, so much so, that many delegates having heard him complained of their heads hurting! Having taken those present through a 50 year time travel to the present day, to show how much technology has changed particularly in the last ten years, Alan then went on to demonstrate, by using new media channels, how learning content can be communicated very quickly to the whole world.

As for the future, it will no doubt be based on Web 3.0 technologies and in all probability in less than eight years from now. This will provide us with a semantic web, allowing us the superior handling of information, to apply reasoning technologically and to map a journey between one piece of content and the next, all of which will enable individual learning journeys. Alan concluded by saying that “Latent Semantic Analysis is a theory and method for extracting and representing the contextual–usage meaning of words by statistical computations applied to a large corpus of text.”. No small wonder then that people’s heads hurt?

Mobile learning

Mobile learning is not the same as e-Learning, according to Geoff Steed of the Tribal Group, because most existing e-Learning design guidelines do not apply to m-Learning. The key to successful m-Learning is to use it to deliver small pieces of the total learning experience at the point of need. The concept of ‘at the point of need’ is becoming an increasingly important one and was mentioned by several speakers; it certainly has a particular resonance for all those who see learners as consumers.

Geoff also gave a brief but interesting description of the m-Learning work being undertaken in further education, which had showed improved student retention and achievement, as well as in education more generally (www.m-learning.com). He concluded by saying that m-Learning gets around current learning delivery barriers and it’s easy to see why.

On the horizon

Brian Bishop, Caspian Learning, who definitely understands the instructional design process, highlighted three technologies which are on the horizon and which he feels will soon become mainstream: augmented reality, cloud computing, and haptic devices.

Augmented reality (AR), which should not be confused with virtual reality, is already in use, eg for military training. It means a live direct or indirect view of a physical real-world environment whose elements are augmented by virtual computer-generated imagery; with the help of advanced AR technology, such as adding computer vision and object recognition, the information about the surrounding real world of the learner becomes interactive and digitally usable.

Cloud computing is also here right now, ie data stored ‘in the cloud’ and accessible via the web. However, it is likely to be used more and more by organisations and individuals, and therefore will have a commensurate impact on learners.

When it comes to the use of haptic devices (the perception and manipulation of objects using tactile feedback) we now have the technologies to create the required 3-D graphics, so it is likely that the use of these will grow in the future.

The future?

Whilst all this may excite or chill people in equal measure, “the game we professionals in L&D play, to some extent, is using the trends and products that the consumers will face: working with them and not against them, using the consumer trends to our advantage.” (Jack Wills, BILD). For those of us who are involved in any form of L&D, we need to appreciate that those who learn are our consumers and, by so doing, we will be in a position to provide them with the learning experiences they need.

The Power of Social Media

The Power of Social Media

I’ve now gone past the ‘wow’ factor with Social Media (SoMe) to appreciate just what SoMe tools can do in the world of Learning and Development. Here are a few thoughts.

The tools

Well, for starters, there are so many of them and they are increasing on an almost monthly basis. If you want to see a list of some of them then look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media which also provides a neat classification. Also Jane Hart (http://www.c4lpt.co.uk/) the UK’s leading SoMe guru (I hope she will forgive me for describing her thus) provides a ToolsZoNE area on her website, which lists over 2,000 tools in 12 categories.

But which ones are useful for L&D purposes? Again Jane Hart (http://c4lpt.co.uk/recommended/index.html) lists 100 top tools as voted for by 278 learning professionals worldwide in 2009. Interestingly ‘Twitter’ is ranked the number one tool. Delicious is ranked second with You Tube, Google Reader and Google Docs forming the top five respectively.

So, without a doubt, many SoMe tools are not only suitable for L&D purposes but they are also being used more and more by the profession.

The power

Although it is relatively early days with using SoMe tools for learning, particularly formal learning, there is a number of interesting reports from people who have embedded the use of these tools into their L&D programmes. One of the most recent reports from Jane Hart (I hope she doesn’t start to get a complex!) can be found at http://bit.ly/9XyYXL which details Jane’s experience of using Twitter in a face-to-face workshop. If you want to know ‘how’ just read her write-up as it’s excellent.

On 30 April the topic for #lrnchat was ‘Enterprise 2.0’. I expected the ‘chat’ to be about Enterprise 2.0 platforms but to my delight it focused on Enterprise 2.0 tools, i.e. SoMe tools. You can find a transcript of the chats on this topic at http://lrnchat.com/. It was interesting to discover that only a relatively few people had actually managed successfully to embed some of these tools into their current L&D programmes.

Apart from IT issues, such as IT departments/controls which block or act as a negative influence on the use of such tools, there are some other factors which, seemingly, are limiting their use. Factors such as getting buy-in from the ‘hierarchy’, the ability of learners to use the tools, a limited vision as to how these tools can be used effectively and not just because they are available, and how to ‘manage’ their use by the L&D profession, appear to be some of current constraints.

However, in the next year or so I expect to see the increasing use of SoMe tools in L&D as current constraints are overcome. It is their power and potential which will come to the fore and survive, believe me!

Many thanks to my growing network of L&D folk, without whom I would not have been able to write this post.

The Tidal Flow of Technology

Just like the tide, the effects of technology also ebb and flow. What was yesterday’s hot topic can become tomorrow’s has-been. However, is this always the case?

The tidal flow of social media

When the concept of social media first burst on the L&D scene, I bet I was not alone in thinking that it might become another one-minute technology wonder. Last November, I was asked by the British Institute for Learning and Development (the BILD) to give a presentation at one of their Connect meetings on ‘Web 2.0’. I entitled my presentation ‘The New Face of Learning?’ – here’s the link to the slideshow for you so you can see what I talked about. Note, the ‘?’ mark in the title as that is particularly significant.

or click here

Recently I have been thinking some nine months on whether what I said on that occasion was still current or not. I must admit that my approach then was one of caution, not in terms of actually using Web 2.0 applications but more about the impact their use is likely to have on organisations, instructional designers and end users.

The impact issues which I raised then are still very current, if any thing they are becoming even more important. For example only the other day I read about an organisation which had banned its employees from using Twitter in the workplace – a trend which I think is likely to grow rather than to recede! Even in one’s private life the use of things like Twitter and Facebook needs to be done with due care and consideration if one’s professional life is not to be compromised. I know that every time I twitter I am extremely careful about what I say, unlike some people whom I couldn’t possibly name!

So, how do things stack up now? Has the social media tide flowed and ebbed or is it still flowing? My considered view is that it is still very much flowing and that there is a lot more flowing yet to come. I think that in the next few years the use of social media is going to result in a mixture of pleasure and pain; probably in roughly equal measure.

… and in case you are not convinced, then just remember this: “The secret of success is learning how to use pain and pleasure instead of having pain and pleasure use you. If you do that, you're in control of your life. If you don't, life controls you.” Anthony Robbins.

Trendy Terms Alert (3)

Here is my third L&D ‘Trendy Term’ alert. Each Trendy Term Alert (TTA) will consider whether the term has any mileage or whether it should be consigned to the trash can.

TTA: ‘Informal Learning’

Jay Cross has largely been accredited with coining the term ‘Informal Learning’. However, at the moment there doesn’t appear to be any agreement about what activities actually constitute informal learning and in what circumstances it takes place. The only agreement seems to be that informal learning is everything that isn’t formal learning! So, at the moment people appear to be defining it in terms of what it is not. Interesting?

Different things to different folks

It would seem that informal learning means different things to different people, for example, whilst to most it means learning which is not structured or organised, some people see it as learning which takes place outside of a dedicated learning environment, and others as learning which is not formally organised into a programme, course, event, or curriculum.

Absurd claims?

“20% of learning is formal and 80% is informal”! Now, where on earth did this myth come from? Certainly not from empirical research I can assure you. I also very much doubt whether such a claim could ever be quantified so accurately and so consistently, simply because there is not, as yet, a clear, standard, and working definition of ‘informal learning’.

“Informal learning is only possible through the use of Social Media”! Complete rubbish, as long before educational and training institutions were established most people learned informally. Indeed, ask any enlightened teacher or trainer and they will tell you that there has always been informal learning and that for time immemorial it has contributed to how all us learn each and every day of our lives.

Much ado about nothing?

No, not really, because in many ways I believe that technological advances in recent years have been a catalyst for this apparently new found interest in informal learning. In most of its guises, informal learning requires a considerable degree of self-direction on behalf of the learner. In addition to this, the informal learner also needs access to appropriate resources. Technology in the form of networks and computers have opened up access to a vast range of learning resources including knowledge, materials, and people.

Technology, in the form of television, computers, mobile ‘phones, PDAs, iPods, and so on, now lets millions of us to communicate (eg via e-mail), to exchange information and knowledge (eg via Blogs and Wikis), to access learning materials (eg e-Learning modules). If any of these activities result in unplanned, unstructured, and unorganised learning then in my book they can be described as informal learning.

Implications

The first implication for organisations, and in particular their learning and development functions, to realise is that informal learning exists and that probably a lot more could be done to encourage and support this type of learning. One way of doing this is to provide access to informal learning resources, such as technology, materials, and people. Another way is to encourage the use of informal learning activities as part of formal learning programmes and to foster and to support environments which are conducive to informal learning.

The second implication is for organisations to realise that there is a very fine dividing line between formal and informal learning. Informal learning, by its very nature of what it isn’t, is something of an untamed beast. Like Aslan, in the Chronicles of Narnia, informal learning will come and go as and when it chooses, it will be there when it is needed, it will always result in a positive experience for the person concerned (as negative learning is not a meaningful concept), and above all it cannot, by its very nature, be controlled, managed, or quantified.

Conclusion?

with a dose of caution though!

N.B. This blog is based on an article I wrote for Croner’s Training Briefing, January 2007.

Delivering More For Less

If leaner is supposed to be meaner, then how can more L&D be delivered for less without compromising quality?

Tightening the L&D belt

It is a truism, budgets are being tightened during these financially challenging times. I also keep on reading about how we need to get more for less out of L&D provision. Indeed, I’ve just written an article for Croner’s Training & Development Briefing on this very topic as it seems to be of such current interest.

The current situation is affecting both suppliers and buyers/users of L&D. The conundrum is how to achieve more for less without affecting the quality of what is provided to the end user, i.e. the learner. On the face of it this may appear to be an unanswerable poser but judging from all the advice given the answer is blindingly obvious!

If I were to be given £1 for every time I have read that L&D provision must meet the needs of the organisation, the needs of learners, and use the most appropriate delivery media, I would by now be very well-off! However, it would appear that such practices are far from common place and I’m really finding it hard to believe this. Surely after all this time of preaching the ‘cost-effectiveness’ mantra everyone would know what is required but, alas, it seems not. Perhaps the current financial situation will be the very thing which forces them to realise it? For the life of me I hope so.

Talking about cost-effective delivery media, there’s also an increasing emphasis being placed on using ‘technology enabled learning solutions’ wherever feasible. Laura Overton of Towards Maturity fame has been busy giving some very useful advice on how learning technologies should be used to achieve a positive impact on staff and on business results. Laura cites 6 ‘strands’ or behaviours which successful organisations adopt, like defining the need and improving the relevance of L&D provision and considering the needs of learners, none of which are ‘rocket science’, just simply accepted (by some) as best practice.

So, achieving more for less in the present climate is not the conundrum that it might at first seem – you never know but it might even turn out to be a good use of L&D budgets and give people value for their money!

Trendy Terms Alert (2)

Here is my second L&D ‘Trendy Term’ alert. Each Trendy Term Alert (TTA) will consider whether the term has any mileage or whether it should be consigned to the trash can.

TTA: ‘Web 2.0 – e-Learning 2.0 – Learning 2.0’

By now millions of words must have been written about one or more of these ‘Trendy Terms’. It all started with Web 2.0, a clearly defined and meaningful concept, and this was then followed by e-Learning 2.0 and, fairly recently, Learning 2.0.

Web 2.0

According to Wikipedia, Web 2.0 refers "to what is perceived as a second generation of web development and web design. It is characterized as facilitating communication, information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design and collaboration on the World Wide Web. It has led to the development and evolution of web-based communities, hosted services, and web applications. Examples include social-networking sites, video-sharing sites, wikis, blogs, mashups and folksonomies.”. However, the WWW inventor, Tim Berners-Lee has called the term “a piece of jargon”!

Notwithstanding this, a lot of people understand what the term Web 2.0 stands for and its use. So, when someone says that they are using a Web 2.0 tool, such as I am here, then it’s quite clear to them what others mean.

e-Learning 2.0

This term was coined by those using e-Learning to specify the use of Web 2.0 tools. For some, including me, e-Learning has always encompassed the use of Web 2.0 tools but as the former is so often seen as re-versioned PowerPoint presentations or a modern day version of a computer-based training programme, then I can see why the term e-Learning 2.0 has come into being.

I don’t have a problem with either the term ‘e-Learning’ or ‘e-Learning 2.0’, just as I don’t with ‘face-to-face learning’, ‘action learning’, ‘distance learning’, etc. because they tell me how the learning provision is being delivered, which can be extremely useful.

Learning 2.0

I’m not at all sure what this term means because for me it means virtually nothing. I suspect that it has been invented by those who don’t like the term ‘e-Learning’ and who want it removed from the L&D vocabulary but why, especially given my previous comments?

If ‘Learning 2.0’ = ‘e-Learning 2.0’, as I suspect it does, then why confuse the issue because it doesn’t make any sense? Neither does it help others to know what the person using the term is talking about! If it going to be used on an on-going basis then what is ‘Learning 1.0’? The latter needs to be defined and quickly in my view, and good luck to anyone who decides to take this particular task on.

Conclusion?

Web 2.0 =

e-Learning 2.0 =

Learning 2.0 =

Jack of ALL Trades?

There is a fast growing and disturbing trend which is becoming apparent in the e-Learning world – no longer is it good enough to be an instructional design specialist, you now have to be a graphic designer and a programer as well!

Jack or Master?

I have spent years (14 to be precise) perfecting my specialism as an instructional designer of blended learning. However, only the other day someone rang me and said “Hi there Judith, I’ve got the perfect job for you. We need an instructional designer for 20 days to get an e-Learning programme produced. I assume that you can program in Articulate?”.

My reply to this was along the lines of “... err, sorry, no, I’m not a programer, I am an instructional designer. I have written scripts which were to be programed in Articulate, so I know how the suite of tools work, but as I have said already, I am not a programer and neither am I a graphic designer. I know and specify what graphics I want but I couldn’t design them to save my life!”.

Now, if this was a one off, then OK, but it wasn’t. I’ve had and seen numerous job opportunities recently for the ‘Jack of all instructional designer trades’, which makes me wonder what on earth is going on and, far more importantly, what effect this trend is going to have on the job which I do and, from what others tell me, do very well.

Becoming a top notch instructional designer takes years of experience and I’m still learning and developing in this role. I haven’t the time, skills or inclination to stop my learning and development to learn how to program, even if the authoring tools to be used are in the ‘Rapid’ category. We need more quality instructional designers and not ‘Jacks of all Trades and Masters of None’! Each to their own, that’s what I say. There are plenty of people out their who are ace at graphic design and others who just love programing – so let them get on with it, that’s what I say.

So, what lies beneath this worry trend? The answer my friend, is ignorance and greed! Ignorance of what instructional design is all about and greed in wanting to get something produced as quickly as possible and as cheaply as possible. Just as I thought we were finally turning the corner in the production of quality e-Learning programmes, it would seem that we are now in real danger of turning the clock back by expecting people with real instructional design skills and experience to become something they are not.

My dilemma now is, that in order to earn a living, should I learn how to use authoring tools such as Captivate and Articulate? I hope, most sincerely, that the answer is ‘NO’!

Trendy Terms Alert (1)

From time to time I am going to blog about a current L&D ‘Trendy Term’. Each Trendy Term Alert (TTA) will consider whether the term has any mileage or whether it should be consigned to the trash can.

TTA: ‘Social Learning’

I have heard and seen the term ‘Social Learning’ more times than I’ve had hot dinners of late! So why the popularity?

I guess it has everything to do with Web 2.0 or e-Learning 2.0, where technology allows people to learn easily in a social environment by exchanging views, having discussions, using webinars, etc. But hasn’t this always been the case without technology? Think about seminars, tutorials and other face-to-face learning techniques. Apart from the dreaded and so often sterile lecture, learning with the involvement of others has been going on ad infinitum.

However, learning can only be an individual activity. Only I can learn something, you cannot learn it for me. So, in a sense, this particular TTA is an oxymoron. I can, of course, learn something by experience, without the help of or input from others. I can also learn from someone, like a teacher, tutor, trainer, coach or mentor, or even a blog, just as I can from being in a group with a number of people, without or with the assistance of technology.

So why is it important to stress or mention the ‘social learning’ dimension? To be honest, I haven’t a clue, unless it is to hype the use of certain types of technology – surely not!

Conclusion? Well, I think we should consign this particular TTA to the …

What's in a name?

It has annoyed me for some time now how the word 'Learning' is used with frequent regularity as if it is something which is provided, i.e. an input, instead of an outcome as a result of what has been provided.  Only the other day someone asked me about what had happened to the term 'Training and Development' and I found myself answering that 'Learning and Development' is a modern substitution for Training and Development, where the word 'training' has been dropped in favour of 'learning' so as to stress the outcome as well as the means.  But has it?  I'm not so sure now and here's why ...

If learning is an outcome and development (e.g. training, tutoring, coaching, mentoring) is an input then why are the two so often referred to in the same breath as if they are both inputs?  OK just think about this, if I were being extremely pedantic (if such a thing's possible) then the term learning and development is an oxymoron!  Back in 2005 I wrote an article entitled 'Training Fads and Fancies' and in it I stated the following ...

"One of the latest fads to hit training is to avoid any reference to it wherever possible.  For many, the term training is now a definite ‘no-no’.  Use the term and you risk a response of almost non-politically correct proportions in some quarters.  Now I know I might be treading on dangerous ground here, but it has to be faced that ‘learning’ is the new fad term.  As a result its unquestioned use has given rise to such contradictory terms as ‘learning and development’, ‘learning and resources’, ‘learning and development departments’, ‘learning managers’, and ‘learning consultants’.  I know I am not alone in thinking that training is an outward process, whereas learning is an inward one.  Whilst people in a department, or an association come to that, might be concerned with how and what people learn, they do not and cannot learn on behalf of others.  I don’t have a problem with terms like learning materials, learning workbooks, open learning, distance learning, e-Learning, The British Learning Association (now the British Institute for Learning and Development), or those who set out to provide effective learning solutions (well, I wouldn’t would I?), as all these use the word ‘learning’ in its proper context, but I do have a problem when it is used to replace ‘training’, especially when the latter describes perfectly adequately where a person’s or a department’s responsibilities lie.  I am sure that it won’t come as any surprise to know that I regard this latest development as faddism in the extreme."

... and, what's more, four years later I still do!

As long as we are clear about what we mean by 'Learning and Development' then no problem.  For example, I am passionately interested in how people learn and throughout my entire career I have sought to help people of all ages by providing solutions and inputs designed to aid their development, be these through teaching, training, coaching, consultancy, blended learning programmes, and so on.  I provide what I hope are quality development opportunities and advice but only the person at the receiving end can do the learning - I can't do it for them.  However, I am becoming increasingly worried about the growing trend to avoid any reference to or use of the word 'Training' as, in the end, I believe this to be extremely short-sighted and counter-productive.

Perhaps, if there are other like-minded souls out there, we should start a campaign to put the word TRAINING back on the map!