Work is learning. Learning is the work.
Our little town has been named one of the cultural capitals of Canada, winning $500,000 for the under 50,000 population category. Culture is one of the pillars of our town commons project, along with environment and entrepreneurship. I hope that raising our profile as a town will enable us to secure some more funds for the building so that we can commence construction this year. If you’re thinking of moving to a small town, that still has lots to offer, drop by Sackville this Summer.
I made my comments last week about R/WW’s All you need to know about e-learning 2.0, and the discussion has been picked up by several people in our community, most notably Tony Karrer. A recent comment on R/WW , #24, by Hank Horkoff of ChinesePod, is perhaps the most insightful on the real effects of “2.0”:
First, I want to second Tony’s assertion that the changes in learning are paralleling the impact of Web 2.0 on mass media. This fundamental shift, re-constructing the value chain around the needs of the end user/student, rather than the needs of producers of content or educational institutions, will reverberate through the learning industry for decades to come. I just wonder why the label isn’t a little more ‘digital native-esque’ as simply Learning 2.0.
Second, with ChinesePod we have been able to build a business model around a three-point strategy that provides a more integrated learning experience for students. One, provide an attraction (free daily podcast lessons, in our case) to compensate students for their attention. Two, facilitate community involvement through use of a variety of software tools and active human participation to build out a community of practice. Three, continually experiment with a number of paid services to generate the revenue necessary to sustain the service many years into the future. Even though Chinese-training for English-speaking markets is only a ‘small niche business’ in Richard’s words, ChinesePod will do more than a million dollars in revenue this year.
ChinesePod gets it right by understanding the user/learner. This three step model is one that any Web learning business should critically examine, so let me reiterate:
I’ve been looking at some training documentation and it seems that when we get into complicated (not complex) cases of lots of stuff to examine, we miss the forest for the trees. Dave sums it all up quite nicely:
Even if the client’s model of training involves only lectures and PowerPoint, “What do you want people to do?” shifts the focus to the reason they’re on the job – the results they’re supposed to accomplish. (If the client focuses only on how they perform, you can ask about the results they produce – whatever’s left over when the workers go home.)
There are lots of tools to help see the forest in my toolbox.
A model I’ve used several times is Marilyn Taylor’s learning cycle. Her work is not widely published but there is a reference in this PDF on Adult Learning (see page 51). You can also read about the model in Making Sense of Adult Learning.
Taylor observed university students in classrooms, and saw a pattern of Disorientation, Exploration, Reorientation, Equilibrium. Each stage took different periods of time with each student, and not all students completed a full cycle during a formal course. The successful students were the ones who could work through the entire process and continue into another cycle. When students are shown the cycle, many get an “ah ha ” moment and realise that their confusion (disorientation) is quite normal.
According to Taylor, disorientation is a natural state in formal education:
Stage 1 – Disorientation: The learner is presented with an unfamiliar experience or idea which involves new ideas that challenge the student to think critically about his/her beliefs and values. The learner reacts by becoming confused and anxious. Support from the educator at this point is crucial to the learner’s motivation, participation and self-esteem.
Working and learning in our information-rich environments with constantly changing tools and business rules presents us with frequent periods of disorientation. As learning specialists, one of our roles should be to help people with their disorientation and exploration. Our first step should be to communicate that disorientation is quite normal. This may be a greater task than it appears because even acknowledging personal disorientation could be professional suicide in certain organisational cultures.
I think that we should be helping people adapt to life in perpetual Beta.
In information intensive work environments (which are almost everywhere), there will be longer, and more frequent, periods between disorientation and reorientation. That means that we have to be comfortable exploring options and possibilities, even though we lack a solid mental framework or easy solutions. Artists do this all the time and now it’s necessary for all of us.
Stephen noted this study on Higher Education Facts and Fiction by Prof. Richard Vedder, distinguished professor of economics at Ohio University. Inside Higher Ed provides an overview of the report and some of the controversy around statements that higher education may not be such a boon to the economy:
Looking at all 50 states over more than 20 years and using at least 1,000 data points, the study found that more state funding to higher education doesn’t necessarily lead to higher growth, and in fact correlates negatively with high growth rates. Building on previous research – which Vedder has done over the years on the topic – the study operates under the theory that students will take some time between the years they enroll and the moment they contribute fully to the economic growth of society. The study looks at three intervals – 5, 10 and 15 years – between the “input” of state funding levels in a particular year and the economic output that comes as a result of students’ education and development later on in life. And instead of finding the kind of positive correlation between increases in state funds and economic impact that colleges like to talk about, he found the opposite.
Higher education is not the engine of economic growth as some would have us believe. For instance, Canadians have the highest rates of formal education in the world, but most studies do not show us as the most productive. Many more Canadians feel that a university education is not necessary to succeed at work than those who do.
Universities may not be the best organisations for us to entrust our economic future. Here’s Chris Sessum’s view of the ivory tower:
The more I think about it, the more I come to see universities as the last place to change what they do. Academics are mostly a reactionary, turf-protective bunch that really don’t like change. When I give talks and demonstrations to colleagues in higher education re: the power of the Read/Write Web, I often feel like Plato’s allegorical friend who shows others that they are looking at shadows on the cave wall and not what’s really going on outside. They laugh and tut-tut and a few approach me when no one is looking (usually via email) and ask if I could come over and show them more in the privacy of their office or home.
Fredericton, with a much smaller population, has had free WiFi since 2004 and now Moncton, NB, finally has a “pilot project” for free wireless access downtown. It’s about time that Moncton entered the 21st century.
Read/Write Web (an excellent source of information on all web 2.0 tools) has its latest piece on e-learning, with e-Learning 2.0: All You Need to Know. One thing I like about these articles is that they don’t come from the e-learning profession, so they really represent client or learner opinions. The article itself covers a few tools, like Elgg, ChinesePod and Google Apps for Education, as well as the more traditional Blackboard LMS.
It’s a good overview and asks for more feedback from readers. I find the ensuing comments more interesting than the article.
For instance, “One common denominator of these e-learning apps is the inordinate focus on the ‘e’ and not so much on the ‘learning.’ ELGG, Sakai, and others are outstanding products to be sure, but they only provide a framework — so where does the learning take place?”
If this question appeared on one of several edublogs, there would be lots of opinions expressed, as well as helpful pointers. My own response is that any technology that we use for learning is a framework and that learning occurs within individuals and often as a result of social interactions between people. Learning does not happen inside the technology.
Another comment, “What we need now are the tools to join up the wikis, blogs, podcasts, etc in a way that the old LMS systems would.” I’m sure that many in our field (including me) would suggest that “small pieces loosely joined” is a good thing and that we already have the glue that can join the tools – RSS.
And another comment, “Personalized learning is a wonderful idea, but what we need are clear standards that will enable all of us who have laboriously built learning management systems to integrate content from publishers.” I am sure that this could fill a few pages of commentary from my colleagues around the world. We could always discuss the history and details of SCORM to cure anyone of insomnia.
My final comment on all of this is that almost any technology can be a learning technology. It’s how it’s used, not what is used. What’s the difference between a conference room and a classroom? What is the difference between a CMS and an LCMS? Mostly branding, I would say. This is one reason that I’m keen on non-educational tools (SNS, wikis, blogs, social bookmarks) in that they are not constrained by some pre-conceived notions about learning. I can use these tools for instruction or for guided study or for discovery learning, just as the same physical classroom can be alternately an exciting learning environment or a prison cell.
Yesterday (June 21st) was National Aboriginal Day in Canada. I’ve been working with the Gespe’gewaq Mi’gmaq Resource Council (GMRC) this year and have learned much about First Nations in Atlantic Canada. This is what GMRC is about:
The vision of the organization is to assist First Nation communities within the traditional district of Gespe’gewa’gi by creating awareness and understanding and gathering support to further sustainable natural resource management. We see a future where we can work together in the bay, manage our resources and have a greater say in how they are managed, while at the same time building cultural bridges with the common goal of effective natural resource management practices.
To learn more, check out the Mi’kmaq Resource Centre at Cape Breton University.
New Brunswick, in the great scheme of things, is a small player on the world stage. There are only 740,000 of us, split up in three urban centres and many rural areas. For the most part, this province, established in 1785, has produced hewers of wood and drawers of water. Forestry and fishing are still big.
But back in the mid-1990’s NB was re-branded as “the” place for the new information highway and especially for online learning. Dozens of companies sprang up and several more from out of province set up shop here. However, the subsequent dot com bomb saw many companies close shop. A few chugged along, especially in Fredericton.
Last night I attended the opening of Bluedrop Performance Learning’s Fredericton office. What caught my attention was that Bluedrop (head office in St. John’s, NL) had not really intended to open another branch office. Bluedrop was looking for a couple of people for the St. John’s office and just happened to be in Fredericton at the time of Provinent’s bankruptcy protection filing and office closure. As a result, many experienced people were looking for work. Bluedrop seized the opportunity and hired an additional 7 employees (all from Provinent) and found office space in Fredericton. The company says that they plan more controlled growth.
The NB learning industry now has a certain competitive advantage in this business. Where else can you find a significant number of instructional designers with over 10 years experience? Ten years ago, many of the people in attendance last night were employed by a different company. Several, myself included, have changed employers more than once. These people, with different business cards, have remained and grown an industry. This was a different crowd from the large NB contingent that attended OnlineLearning 1998 in Los Angeles. These were seasoned, experienced and maybe even battle-scarred professionals.
The core group that remains in this field is doing some pretty amazing stuff. For instance, the team from Red Hot Learning was also there, following the successful launch of a unique online game, The Redistricting Game. RHL headed the programming and development in collaboration with USC’s Interactive Media Division. This is a fine example of using gaming theory and technology to create a tool that can explain the complexities of drawing electoral boundaries in the US. As the opening video says, “When I, as a mapmaker, have more of an impact on an election than the voters – the system is out of whack.” Try it out, it’s free.
Serious games, serious people, serious business. This is what’s happening in New Brunswick today. [I’m also supposed to get some pictures of the serious party, too, which I’ll post here.]
Maybe the more things change, the more they remain the same. I was reviewing a White Paper that I had written in 2000 for my employer at the time and found that not much has changed when it comes to workplace learning. This paper was loosely based on some parts of my thesis, which was published in 1998, so the major themes are at least a decade old.
Here was one of my opening statements on knowledge and learning:
Knowledge is the result of the process of learning, and learning can be defined as a process of giving meaning to our experiences. This view of learning as an active, continuous process is essential when examining workplace learning. Learning is not only some formal event, which happens in a classroom, resulting in information to perform a discrete task, but is also a continuing process of doing and reflecting. We know that people learn as they work, and that the pace of learning and re-learning is increasing everyday.
The “learning organization” was the rage in the late ’90’s, but you seem to hear less about it now.
The learning organization has the potential to become the model for the new workplace. Moving from an organization of many independent workers to a network of interdependent workers will require change on many levels. Implementing a learning organization requires that learning occurs at the individual, team and organizational levels. These changes threaten not only personal mental models but traditional power structures. Many employers and organizations are attempting to change their workplaces into more learning-oriented environments, but the current popularity of e-learning must survive the initial infatuation stage in order to develop stable systems for organizational learning.
It makes me think that when it comes to workplace learning, we haven’t advanced that much.
Many people are finding it difficult to make the transfer into the new knowledge-based economy This may indicate a need for adult learning expertise in order to increase business productivity. Workplaces have to allow for individual learning on the job because workers cannot become learners if the climate is not open to change. The changing role of the immediate supervisor to that of coach will be critical in achieving the ideal of the learning organization. The need for educated, knowledgeable workers with current skills and abilities will continue to increase but the power to change the workplace to a more learning-oriented, and therefore more adaptable, environment rests with those in charge: the employers.
I haven’t seen massive changes, have you?