Breakthrough eLearning

Deep Learning vs. Surface Learning

2015-03-06T14:37:00.002-05:00

I have been in the adult education and training business for almost 30 years and I still see an unfortunate fixation on content. So much of education and training is focused on ensuring that learners know certain things. So little is focused on providing learners with the ability to actually go beyond knowing, to being able to do certain things. This dichotomy can be represented on a number of different axes:

Content vs. Skills
Knowing vs. Doing
Memorizing vs. Understanding
Surface Learning vs. Deep Learning

Eric Mazur, a Harvard physics professor, has gone through a lot of self-reflection and has written about and presented widely on how he has changed his approach to teaching in order to help students move to the right side of the axes noted above.

Eric Mazur

A couple of decades ago, Mazur came to the realization that although his students gave him good reviews and that they were largely successful in achieving good grades in his courses, many of them, in the end, still did not grasp basic concepts of Newtonian physics, nor could they apply these concepts in any meaningful way. His students could memorize formulas and apply these to basic textbook problems and pass their tests. However, they did not internalize these concepts and therefore did not really understand them.

Mazur came to the conclusion that the problems presented in the textbook modeled inauthentic problem-solving. Students were asked to apply procedures to find unknown answers. This does not mimic real life, wherein we usually know the goal at hand, but we need to figure out how to arrive at this goal. In the textbook approach, it is easy to merely go through the motions of plopping figures into memorized formulas that spit out the answer (that hopefully matches the one at the back of the book), without really understanding the significance of the answer or the meaning of the process that got you there.

Conversely, if you are given a goal to reach (i.e. the answer) up front, and then need to use the principles you have learned to reach that goal, you are more likely to grasp the underlying principles and to be able to apply these to solve all kinds of problems. Actually applying new knowledge to solve real problems allows you to go beyond mere memorization (the low end of Bloom's taxonomy of learning objectives), and to reach higher order thinking skills (e.g. analyzing, evaluating, creating).

So Mazur flipped his classroom. He stopped lecturing, assuming that his learners could read the text and/or course notes ahead of time. Classroom time is now devoted to problem-solving. Learners are asked to solve problems individually, and then they solve them in groups with other learners, and compare answers and debrief. This peer-to-peer instruction and collaboration is important, as Mazur feels that novice learners who grasp a new concept are better at teaching other novices. He, as the expert, with decades of experience in the field, cannot relate as well to the difficulties that novices face as he is too far removed from the time when he first faced these basic conceptual hurdles himself.

Also, Mazur has changed how he assesses his students. He applies the "Google test" to determine whether a certain question or problem is suitable for an assignment or exam. In other words, if the answer can be found via a simple Google search, it is not an authentic learning exercise. This is why all Mazur's tests and exams are open book. The answers go beyond mere facts. They require learners to go through a process and apply what they have learned to specific problems, thereby demonstrating their understanding of the fundamental principles. You can forget facts (which only require short-term memory), but you cannot forget understanding.

Mazur uses the open book approach because he says that it mimics reality. In real life situations you are not put in isolation and told that you cannot access any resources to help solve problems.

In fact, some of Mazur's exams are collaborative as well. Students do the exam the first time individually, and then submit. Then they do the exam again in a group with some of their peers (debating the correct answers) and submit collective answers. The learner's mark is an amalgam of the individual and group efforts. Exams thereby become another learning opportunity, not just a measuring stick.

Mazur says that education is a two-step process.

1. Transfer of information
2. Assimilation of information

Step 1 is dead easy. Yet this is where most educators and trainers spend most of their time and effort. Step 2 is the harder nut to crack. This involves providing opportunities for learners to apply their new knowledge in different contexts, perhaps even screw up, get feedback, recalibrate, and try again, so that they actually reach understanding.

Whether in the education realm, or the corporate training realm, we should be putting more of our efforts into Step 2 in order to go beyond surface learning (that fades quickly) and to achieve deep learning (that sticks forever).

Seriously - Stop Talking; Start Showing

2014-04-06T12:04:00.000-04:00

A few weeks ago, four leading lights of the learning business - Michael Allen, Julie Dirksen, Clark Quinn and Will Thalheimer - released a call to arms. Their Serious eLearning Manifesto laments the sorry state of eLearning and asks those who agree to sign a manifesto pledging to commit to producing eLearning that is relevant, performance focused, contextual and interactive. The basic delineation between what is and what should be can be seen in this breakdown they supply in their manifesto:

Reading through the Manifesto, I found myself nodding my head in agreement. There is little to disagree with; it is a nice summation of best practice principles for results-focused eLearning. However, I kept thinking this is really preaching to the choir. Most learning professionals who are serious about eLearning are already onside with such an approach and can easily distinguish between good and poor eLearning. The challenge is in convincing decision-makers - clients, executives and paymasters - that eLearning will be much more effective if we can move beyond the typical approach of producing content heavy page turners based on memorizing useless facts.

In fact, such a question was posed to the writers of the Manifesto during their online launch. Michael Allen replied that the best approach to convince decision-makers about a better way of doing eLearning would be to demonstrate to them two contrasting approaches - one standard passive, non-interactive content-focused page turner, followed by quiz, versus an example showing an active learning approach focused on realistic contexts and learner choices. Allen said that would make it easy to get buy in for a smarter approach to eLearning.

That's when it hit me. Allen and his colleagues would have been better off demonstrating bad vs. good eLearning, than in writing a long document of principles and then talking about these for an hour via a web presentation. In the end, these are just words, and words only take you so far (particularly when trying to sway those not in the learning business). I really think that the Manifesto authors could have been more effective by setting up a website that demonstrates two contrasting approaches to the same training challenge. One button could be labelled "The Usual," that demonstrates the worst of what eLearning can be (e.g. boring, linear, predictable, obvious, forgettable, irrelevant). The other button could be labelled "A Better Way," that demonstrates an approach that exemplifies best practices (e.g. contextual, interesting, interactive, engaging, relevant). Seeing, after all, is believing.

In fact, Michael Allen took such an approach at a Masie Learning conference session I attended a few years ago. He showed typical approaches to sexual harassment training, and then showed a sample from a very simple yet powerful and highly interactive online course that his company had developed for a client. Everyone there clearly understood the difference between the two approaches. Much better than a manifesto.

Twenty years ago I worked for a company called Lifelearn, that produces educational products for the veterinary industry. Back in the 90s Lifelearn was producing eLearning that exemplified everything put forward in the Serious eLearning Manifesto. Veterinarians worked through realistic case studies, made decisions on diagnosis and treatment, and saw the results of their decisions (including the possible virtual death of animals). The learning was performance focused, there were real-world consequences for decisions made, and there was "spaced practice" in that learners could go through the same case studies many times.

I remember one time being at a conference to market Lifelearn's products to veterinarians. One of my colleagues would talk about how great our virtual training programs were whenever a veterinarian ventured into our booth. Many only had a few minutes as they passed through, and would leave before my colleague could demonstrate the programs. I took my colleague aside and told him to stop talking, and start showing (in much more colourful language). Because once people saw it, they got it.

I won't be signing the Serious eLearning Manifesto. Why?

1. I got "the religion" on this stuff years ago. Signing a pledge seems a little redundant.
2. Words are cheap; actions count.
3. Although I understand completely the idea of shaking things up a little, the idea of a "manifesto" is a little OTT (over-the-top). I believe meaningful change is more evolutionary than revolutionary.

The Pitfalls and Promises of Mobile Learning

2011-04-03T11:24:00.009-04:00

If you are in any way connected with the fields of training, learning and development, or eLearning, you are probably regularly inundated with messages about the wonders of mobile learning. Mobile devices, such as smartphones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), and tablet computers are becoming ubiquitous and increasingly powerful with respect to their range of functionality. Just about anything you can do on a desktop or laptop can now be accomplished via much smaller and more portable mobile devices. This is why many organizations are now looking to make learning materials available via these devices. They offer the possibility of reaching your learners wherever they happen to be in a very portable, flexible and convenient manner.

However, all this fanfare about mobile learning - or mLearning - must be taken with a grain of salt.

Firstly, unlike traditional eLearning, which relies on fairly common web standards to make things work correctly (no matter the learner’s computer operating system), there is a wide range of very different and distinct mobile operating systems. You will have a real challenge on your hands if your learners are using different smartphones with different operating systems (e.g. Google Android, Nokia Symbian, RIM BlackBerry OS, Apple iOS, Microsoft Windows CE, HP Palm WebOS, etc.). Mobile content must be developed in different ways to work on all of these competing mobile platforms. This can add greatly to the complexity and expense of developing and delivering mLearning.

Secondly, the small screen size of most mobile devices, particularly most smartphones, is a limiting factor with respect to the type and extent of learning content that can be successfully delivered via these devices.

Here are some tips about mLearning.

Only Do mLearning When Your Learners are Truly Mobile

It makes no sense doing mLearning just because you can. However, if the learners you are trying to reach are truly mobile, then mLearning makes sense. It can be a way of reaching “road warriors” with the training and support they need when they need it. Here are two of the best examples of mLearning I have come across:

On the first day of the launch of a new product, sales reps communicate with each other via their smartphones. They share information about what benefits and features of the product are getting the best response, and what are the best approaches to countering objections. The organization was able to adjust and refine its sales approach for this new product by the first afternoon of its launch.

A technician on a service call comes across an older model furnace with which he is not that familiar. He is able to access a knowledge database via his smartphone and successfully trouble-shoot the problem and fix it.

Keep it Short and Sweet

Most mobile devices are not well suited for delivering large amounts of learning content. Therefore, delivering a traditional “course” via smartphones is not practical or effective. However, for small “nuggets” of learning, or as an adjunct or follow up to other types of learning (i.e. in-person or eLearning courses), or as a just-in-time performance support tool, mLearning does have its place.

On the Good News Front…

The emergence of tablet computers (e.g. Apple iPad, BlackBerry PlayBook, Samsung Galaxy Tab, etc.) may be a good compromise between robustness and mobility. Tablets will be able to facilitate much more in-depth learning experiences (because of more expansive screen real estate), while maintaining fairly good portability.

Also, there are many software applications on the market that make it easier for you to author learning content and make it accessible to mobile devices, including:

OnPoint CellCast

www.mlearning.com

OutStart Hot Lava Mobile

www.outstart.com/about-hot-lava-mobile.htm

Intuition Mobile Learning

www.intuition.com/solutions/mobile-learning/

Chalk Pushcast Software

www.chalk.com/Home.aspx

If you do venture into mLearning, make sure it is for all the right reasons, and that you start with a pilot to work out all the bugs before scaling up to a large roll out.

Why Aren't Online Training Supports the Norm?

2011-03-18T11:22:00.023-04:00

A little while ago I was interested in a rapid eLearning authoring tool, and a sales rep did a web presentation for me, showing how it worked. He then encouraged me to download this software for a trial period. His demo was 20 - 30 minutes long, and only provided a very quick overview. I was concerned about how much time I would need to get to know the software in order to give it a really good test. So I asked if there were any online tutorials that could walk me through things as I familiarized myself with the product. Unfortunately, and not surprisingly, the answer was "no."

The sales rep pointed to product manuals in PDF format that could be downloaded and read. And the company did offer webinars on their product (for which they charge a fee). I wasn't interested in the PDF option because of the amount of time I calculated it would take, and I wasn't interested in the webinar option because I didn't want to spend money to decide if I wanted to spend money on the product (if you get what I mean).

I don't want to call out this particular software company. It would be unfair to do so, as it seems to be the norm these days that companies offer amazing and feature-rich products, but then do so little to help people learn how to use them. It is also rather ironic that a company can offer a tool that allows the user to create highly engaging and interactive online learning, yet they rely on static print to teach people how to use their tool. It is like the apocryphal tale of the shoemaker's children going barefoot.

I really wish that more software companies would provide always-available online multimedia "how to" tutorials on the use of their products. I realize that most of what we learn about software is via trial and error, but I still feel that there is a need for a "head start" at the beginning to get going, and then specific guidance on specific problems on an on-going basis as you get to know the software better, or need to perform a specific task with it.

Even when software companies do go beyond the PDF manual approach to client education, they tend to fall back on some fairly traditional approaches - in-person classroom sessions, or scheduled webinars. However, self-study online tutorials have advantages over these methods, as illustrated in the following chart.

	Traditional Approach to Software Training Support (e.g. In-person Class or Webinar)	Online “How To” Tutorials
Timeliness / Convenience	Rigid, scheduled for a specific time, relies on having all the right people in the right place at the right time / set time for everyone	Available 24/7 from anywhere with an Internet connection, and learner devotes as much time as is necessary
Focus	Course-based, follows a set curriculum	Solution-focused, learner finds the answer to a specific question when needed
Depth	One size fits all	Learner delves into training only as deeply as is required
Pace	One size fits all	Learner moves through training materials at own pace
Relevance	Information dump, hope it is all relevant	Learner focuses in on what is relevant to him/her
Retention	Difficult, too much covered all at once	More retained, as learning is accessed in bite-sized chunks and applied as needed
Review	Difficult, have to wade through course manual or replay an entire webinar	Easy access to exactly what is required
Cost	High and on-going (e.g. trainers, materials, travel, out-of-pockets, etc.)	After start up costs for developing tutorials, marginal costs are extremely low for supporting an almost infinite number of learners

Although addressing software training here, the same principle can apply to any sort of product or service. An educated client is likely to make better use of your product or service, get better value from it, and, therefore, be a more satisfied client. Our firm is finding that more and more of our work is centred on helping organizations use online education to provide better client service.

And I say put such online training supports right on your website and freely available to all. That way these resources can serve two purposes - added support for your existing clients, and an excellent marketing vehicle for your prospective clients. Smart companies are also posting such training resources to YouTube, for even wider distribution.

Don't treat training supports as an afterthought. By putting them online and available 24 x 7 x 352, you are making it easier for clients to use your product and for prospects to understand it, and by doing so, to purchase it.

Lessons Learned from the Past Year

2011-01-14T11:53:00.006-05:00

The ASTD Learning Circuits Blog (moderated by Tony Karrer) poses a monthly "Big Question" and asks learning professionals to share their insights on key topics. The Big Question for this past December was "What did you learn about learning in 2010?" Two of the contributions really resonated with me. Ryan Tracey's polemic against online courses and Jason McDonald's advocacy of slowing down for deeper learning hit home for me as I have been coming to similar insights myself lately.

Why Must So Much Learning Be Force Fed Via Courses?

Online courses must die! This is the deliberately provocative title of Ryan Tracey's submission to the Big Question conversation. His thesis, in a nutshell, is that not all eLearning in an organization needs to be experienced via courses. It is inefficient, not always effective, and wasteful of developers' and learners' time to have courses on every conceivable topic. Just because we have easy-to-use rapid course authoring tools for eLearning does not mean we have to use these in every instance. Most learning of simple content, processes or tasks can better be handled via easily-accessible job aids or focused learning objects/applets.

Tracey calls for the creation of Informal Learning Environments (ILEs), that are essentially searchable knowledge repositories of PDFs, audio clips, videos, slideshows, case studies, etc. Learners pull what they need from this repository as and when they need it, and also have access to experts and peers via blogs, wikis, discussion forums and social bookmarks.

Tracey also advocates for a separation of content (whether in the form of courses or other types of supports / resources) and assessment. His mantra is to "informalise learning, formalize assessment." The idea is that learners can access learning any way they choose, and, when ready, complete a formal assessment exercise to prove their competence in various areas.

Let's Slow Down

Jason McDonald's big insight in 2010 was that to accomplish any kind of deep and meaningful learning we need to slow down. Multi-tasking and being constantly hyper-connected via email, texting, tweeting, Skyping, Facebooking, etc., is not conducive to deep, reflective learning. Modern life has left us too scattered and our attention torn in 10 different directions. It is not surprising that we sometimes find it hard to internalize new learning (whether from a course or in the ways noted by Ryan Tracey above).

This is why McDonald urges everyone to try, every once in a while, to be consciously in the moment, and focused on one thing to try to fully comprehend it and to apply this learning in your life and/or work. The key is to tear yourself away from your laptop, Blackberry, iPad, iPhone, etc. once in a while and to think about one thing at one time. Go off to a quiet corner and read that book, research report, user manual, job aid, etc. Some of my best insights come to me when I am out walking, bike riding or cross-country skiing (sans Blackberry). I will subconsciously process something I learned earlier that day / week / month, and come up with a new way of looking at a particular challenge. The mind is clear and can work efficiently when off the "grid" for a bit.

Lessons

So if you are a learner yourself, or organizing learning for others, remember that not all learning need come packaged in a course, and give yourself and your learners the space and time to process and internalize that learning.

Instructional Design Malpractice

2010-10-29T10:22:00.002-04:00

I recently came across an interesting online conversational podcast with Clark Quinn (Quinnovation) and Cammy Bean (Kineo) on the topic of "instructional design malpractice." Of course there is no such crime on the books, but perhaps there should be.

The upshot of the admittedly tongue-in-cheek conversation was that there is too much boring eLearning out there that is overly long, overly detailed, and just not focused on what counts - namely, changing behaviour. Quinn, an expert on the use of games in learning, says much of existing eLearning is an "unemotional knowledge dump." Learners must read through or listen to loads of often irrelevant subject matter content, and then do an often insulting multiple choice test. Is it any wonder that many learners dread eLearning more than root canals?

Ouch, this really hits home. I'm sure I'm not the only one out there who has been guilty of such crimes in the past, or has some embarrassing examples of "unemotional knowledge dumps" in my portfolio. But what brings it on? There are the usual excuses: no time; no budget; client wants a knowledge dump, etc. But if we as eLearning developers were to be honest with ourselves, we are often the problem because we do not fight hard enough for what we know to be the right approach.

Quinn contends that instructional designers need to take a more active role in educating subject matter experts and fighting for what they know works best for eLearners. He says we have a responsibility to keep digging for what is important. Instead of just blindly accepting droves of content from subject matter experts, we need to get to the gist of what the targeted learners will need to be able to do. What cognitive decisions will they need to make? This is what should inform the learning, not memorizing a wad of useless facts.

For Quinn, good eLearning:

Is centred on skills (doing vs. knowing)

Is lean (focused on what is important, to-the-point, less-is-more)

Is emotionally engaging (hooks the learner with clear WIIFM - What's In It For Me - statements)

Provides mental models for learners (greater context for new skills that are being developed)

Uses examples (makes the learning real)

Provides opportunities for practice (learners apply new concepts, make decisions, see results)

Provides opportunities for reflection (providing a closure to the learning experience, reflecting on what the learning means in the learner's own context)

We should keep Quinn's seven-step model for good instructional design in mind when developing eLearning. Clients rarely hire us for any particular subject matter expertise we may have. They hire us because we know how learning best happens and what type of learning will have real impact where it counts - in changing behaviours. So it behooves us to take an activist role and fight for what we know works best. Otherwise, we may be rightly charged with "instructional design malpractice."

Work = Learning

2010-10-20T10:51:00.003-04:00

"Change is so fast and furious that work and learning blur into one activity."
Jay Cross, et. al., Working Smarter in Terra Nova Circa 2015

Jay Cross and his colleagues at Internet Time Group have recently published an interesting article on the evolution of work. Noting the major shifts in human history, from the Agricultural Age, to the Industrial Age, to the Information Age, they now say we are on the verge of "Terra Nova," a new age characterized by "creative collaboration in networks." Their thesis is that Terra Nova will supplant traditional top-down hierarchies with networks of people working collaboratively, sharing information in real time, to solve problems. To quote:

"Terra Nova screams out for a never-ending process of applying learning while working, not apart from it, predicated on:

1. Learning what you need to know, when you need to know it
2. Reinforcing the lesson by applying
3. Knowing where to find relevant information in lieu of memorizing it
4. Learning from your peers and on your own rather than from instructors following a set curriculum"

We are seeing this shift occurring in our own work for clients recently. Many of the projects that we have worked on lately have been less about creating online courses, and more about creating the means for individuals to learn collaboratively (e.g. learning communities, wikis, etc.), and to learn at the point of need (e.g. searchable knowledge repositories, embedded electronic supports, etc.). Sometimes courses do not meet the learning need because they take too long to develop, their lessons can be forgotten over time, and they are often too long and detailed to meet specific learning needs effectively or efficiently.

This trend suggests that we should worry less about teaching people about specific subject matter content, which can change rapidly in the context of a job, and help them develop competencies in searching, sharing, critical thinking, analysis, networking and collaborating.

I have seen this shift myself for the last few years in watching colleagues who work in IT. Developments in this field change rapidly and regularly. When something goes wrong - such as a system going down - IT personnel do not have time to take a course to figure things out. They need a solution ASAP, so they do Google searches and scan various online IT community of practice discussion boards or help boards, as well as tapping into their network of contacts, for immediate answers. They are learning about the intricacies of their field each and every day in this way. As the pace of change in all fields starts to match that in IT, we are all now having to learn quickly and on the fly.

This does not mean that the course is dead, or that there is no need for the course. There is still a place for the course in developing more complex competencies over time, and for various forms of compliance training. However, organizations have to decide what kind of learning is best suited to a course and what types of learning are best suited for "quick hit" approaches such as knowledge databases, online communities, and live webinars, versus formally-structured courses. To help clients determine what approaches work best for which training challenges, we often provide a decision-making matrix that maps training mode against the complexity of desired learning objectives, degree of feedback required, content stability, timeliness and need for evaluation and tracking.

In short, the pace of change is too rapid, learning needs too immense and immediate, and time is too precious to force fit all required learning in an organization through courses. Learning can no longer be thought of as something apart from work, it needs to be integrated into the daily fabric of work life. We need to create work environments that facilitate learning at all times.

Demonstrate Your Value

2009-01-18T19:09:00.009-05:00

The training blogosphere has been buzzing lately with a great deal of agonizing, soul-searching and prognosticating about what the recession means for the industry. As with recessions that have come before, there are concerns about huge cuts to training budgets, loss of training staff through down-sizing, and a general retrenchment in training operations.

Many point to eLearning as a possible saving grace among all the doom and gloom. They rightly note that eLearning provides many savings and efficiencies over traditional training methodologies in terms of reduced travel costs, reduced back-fill costs to cover for the physical absence of trainees, and increased reach by being able to train large numbers of people in a short time frame.

For many executives and senior managers, however, a more efficient and cost-effective training function may not be enough to save the training area from serious down-sizing in tough economic times. In good times, they may give the training operation the benefit of the doubt that training interventions are having positive impacts on the organization. Bad times require proof. If, as a training manager, all you can offer is savings over the way you did things before, senior management may decide that the greatest savings would be to cut your operation all together.

So, by all means, do all you can to streamline your training efforts. Use eLearning wisely to reach more and more learners for less and less money expended per learner over time. But you need to go beyond this to demonstrate training's value to the organization. You need to address some pain the organization is experiencing and make a positive contribution to alleviating this through training.

Whether this pain is a need to increase sales, improve customer retention rates, or decrease defect rates, you need to position your eLearning efforts as part of the solution to this problem. You need to work with the relevant business unit to devise a training program that addresses the pain, and to collect metrics that demonstrate the intervention is working.

This is how you can move the training function from an expense line that is easy to cut, to a valued contributor to solutions. Of course, you should be doing this in good times as well as bad.

Lessons from Wii Fit

2009-01-06T15:06:00.009-05:00

We visited some friends over the holidays and they were lucky enough to secure the Wii Fit balance board. Nintendo, the makers of this device, have been having difficulties keeping up with the demand for this nifty game. It plays with the Wii console, hooks up to a TV, and allows users to perform various physical exercises on it (e.g. balance games, yoga, aerobic, and strength training) and see their results on the screen.

Six adults managed to spend an entire afternoon engaged in various activities on this device. Instead of the usual holiday pursuits of over eating and imbibing, we were exercising and having a ball. As we headed home later that night, I started thinking about the genius that lies behind Wii Fit and the lessons it can teach those of us in the business of eLearning.

Personalized and Goal-Based

You enter in your own personal information (apparently I am a little short for my weight), set your own goals around fitness, and can monitor your progress over time.

There is built in motivation as you can earn "Fit Credits" which allow you access to even more activities as you progress.

You can compete against yourself (trying to meet your own goals) and/or compete against others for added motivation.

Coaching and Immediate Feedback

There are virtual coaches who explain how everything works and provide immediate feedback on your performance, along with some encouragement along the way.

Flexibility

You can spend as much or as little time as you would like on the various exercises, investing time as you have it.

Simple, Intuitive Navigation

Six adults in their 40s and 50s did not have to once ask a child how the system works. A simple screen layout, along with helpful audio and visual prompts throughout, made for an easily-understood interface.

Hard Fun

The activities are fun, but not necessarily easy. They push you to perform. In fact, as you progress and earn more points, the activities become more challenging. This is as it should be as you begin mastering any task.

Of course, most of us do not have millions of dollars in development money to spend on our eLearning projects. However, that is not the point. You may not be able to equal the production value of the Wii Fit, but there are real lessons to be taken away regarding how to make learning personalized, motivational, supported, flexible, intuitive, fun and challenging.

Focus on Action in eLearning Design

2008-07-14T18:57:00.012-04:00

My job involves coaching and mentoring a great many instructional designers - both within our own eLearning development projects and as a service for many of our clients. One of the biggest challenges I face in this regard is getting designers to get to the essence of a training challenge and cut out all extraneous content that detracts from the main learning objectives. Less is indeed more when we can get from A to B in a short, straight line.

I recently came across an excellent technique called "action mapping" that I will start using to help focus eLearning on intended outcomes based on desired actions. Cathy Moore, in her very informative blog (Ideas for Lively eLearning), lays out succinctly how action mapping can work in this slideshow:

SlideShare"> | View | Upload your own

Moore advocates an approach to eLearning design that works backward from the intended business goal (expressed as an action). This avoids the trap of a linear information content dump and piling up irrelevant information that does not really help learners get to the desired goal. Action mapping is a four-step process as follows:

1. Identify the business goal.

2. Identify what people need to do to reach that goal.

3. Design activities that help people practice each behaviour (the "to do's" noted in #2).

4. Identify the minimum information people need to complete each activity.

By starting with a clear goal and focusing on required actions to reach that goal, we can provide a great deal more focus to our learning design and avoid the information dump that unfortunately characterizes much of eLearning today.

Rule #1: Respect the Learner

2008-05-11T14:46:00.014-04:00

Our Certificate in eLearning Management is based on principles of experiential learning. In other words, instead of just learning about eLearning, we have learners doing various facets of eLearning to demonstrate competency attainment. The last competency deliverable in our Engaging Your eLearners course is for learners to actually facilitate on online session, receive feedback from participants, reflect on their experience, and produce a list of facilitation best practice principles.

One program participant recently lead a 10-day asynchronous online discussion as her facilitation competency exercise on the topic of "What advice would you provide for a novice learning designer?" The topic really forced me to think about what I considered to be the most important thing to keep in mind when designing learning experiences, especially with respect to designing eLearning.

The conclusion I came to was that it was most important to respect the learner. Learning Designers should:

Respect the Learner's Needs

We too often cram way too much content into eLearning experiences, not all of it immediately relevant to what targeted learners need to know and need to do. We have to be the filters / editors between what subject matter experts (SMEs) think is important and what is most important to learners.

Respect the Learner's Time

This is closely related to the first point. Adult learners are time-starved. You need to get to the point quickly, divide learning into digestible "chunks," and create intuitive and easy-to-navigate learning experiences.

Respect the Learner's Intelligence

Acknowledge that learners have brains and are willing to use them. Do not make tasks / assessments so mind-numbingly obvious or easy that they insult the learner's intelligence. Challenge them, make them stretch, and let them fail if need be. The best lessons are hard-won.

Just like Aretha Franklin, all that learners want is a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

Update on eLearning is Green (March 2nd Posting)

My last posting on the green benefits of eLearning generated a lot of response, including these resource links from reader Andy Lang:

http://www.terrapass.com/buy-carbon-offsets/

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/

eLearning is Green

2008-03-02T19:57:00.013-05:00

In the course of helping a company devise an eLearning strategy, we were interviewing a number of key stakeholders in the organization. These interviews are an important part of the process of gathering information on the best ways of better integrating eLearning into the organization's training mix.

When we asked interviewees why the company wanted to better utilize eLearning, we heard many of the usual and quite predictable answers: they need learning on demand and at the point of need; they need to reach a highly dispersed workforce; they need to keep up with the rapid pace of change; they need a consistent approach to training across the organization, etc. However, we also heard from two Vice-Presidents who said that replacing a lot of classroom-based training with various eLearning approaches (e.g. online courses, webinars, knowledge repositories, online communities, etc.) will help them meet their strategic focus of becoming an environmentally sustainable company.

This was something of an "aha" moment for me. It is so obvious now, but I never really stopped to consider it before. eLearning is a green industry! They talked about reducing their "training footprint." These two VPs could see how more eLearning meant less carbon expended on planes, cars, taxis, training rooms (to ferry and house trainers and trainees across the country) and fewer trees expended on three-inch thick training manuals (which seem to be de rigueur for in-person training sessions).

I'm not the expert on environmental questions, but I am sure there must be some formula out there for calculating an organization's carbon footprint, and the amount that their current training efforts contribute to this. If anyone has seen any literature out there on this question, please pass it on.

So, if you are looking for more potential benefits to list when convincing decision-makers to invest in eLearning, be sure to mention its green nature. This, however, cannot be the only reason for doing eLearning, or the only measure of success. If you reduce your organization's training footprint, but fail to provide training that is focused on real value creation for the organization, you are not really any farther ahead. You may end up helping save the planet a little in the short-run, but lose the company in the long-run.

Let's Broaden the Training Conversation

2008-02-10T21:26:00.001-05:00

I really enjoy Donald Clark's Plan B Blog. Clark is an Englishman with loads of experience in the training field. He has an acerbic wit and writes about training in general, and eLearning in particular, with a refreshing candor. You may not agree with everything Clark says, but there is no confusion about where he stands. One of his recent postings about the blandness of training magazines really resonated with me. I myself stopped all my paid subscriptions to training publications a long time ago and only flip through the free ones quickly in the off chance that there may be something interesting and of value. There usually is not.

Clark thinks that training magazines are so dull, boring and predictable because they rely on an advertising model for their existence. Therefore, they go out of their way to be non-controversial, non-critical, non-offensive, and full of puff pieces about how rosy everything is everywhere in the world of training.

Certainly, the advertising model has something to do with this blandness. However, I also think that part of the problem is the very insular nature of the training field itself. Articles in training magazines are, for the most part, written by training professionals (consultants, academics, vendors, CLOs, training directors, instructional designers, etc.) to be read by people just like them. It's much the same phenomenon at training conferences - training folks talking to training folks.

This is why so much of the dialogue is self-congratulatory and a little delusional. Every thing's fine. Everyone is great. There are no problems. All training is of good quality, useful, effective, and, of course, well worth the investment of time and money. It is those nasty people not in the training function (executives, managers, business unit heads, etc.) who don't understand the inherent value of training and don't give it the respect and resources it deserves.

Well, working in the "eLearning trenches" every day, I can tell you that it is not as pretty a picture as is painted in the training magazines, or presented at training conferences. It is hard work producing quality learning experiences that meet real needs. Not everything produced by our field is of great quality, and results can vary tremendously. Some things work, and others don't, and we are still figuring things out as we go. It's messy business.

I think we should be more self-critical and be honest with ourselves about the state of our field. It is only when you recognize and openly admit problems that you can begin to work toward real improvement. The training field could really benefit from some lively discussions, debates and disagreements about what we do and how we do it.

Another way to broaden the training conversation is to invite non-training folks into the discussion. We should be giving a greater voice to our clients (executives, managers, directors, and learners) and listening to their needs and their concerns. We should be hearing more from these folks in our magazines and at our conferences, and a little less from each other about how wonderful we are. It can be a real eye-opener to see yourself as others see you.

Broadening the training conversation will not only improve the quality of our magazines and conferences, it will improve the quality of training itself.

Tap Into Your Organization's Tacit Knowledge Pool

2008-01-27T12:51:00.000-05:00

The training / learning model embraced by most organizations can be characterized as top-town, centre-to-periphery, and decidedly one-way. In other words, training is pushed from the centre, out to a dispersed audience of learners to be passively received in isolation. Not only is this usually not a very productive or enjoyable learning experience for trainees, this one-way "push" model of learning completely fails to leverage the treasure trove of knowledge and organizational memory residing in the brains of those in the field.

In other words, all the tacit knowledge about how things work, what does work and does not work, lessons from past experience, etc., that individuals have remains unshared with others across the organization. Technology can make this tacit knowledge sharing a very efficient process, but, unfortunately, most organizations do not take advantage of such technologies.

Two items that have found their way into my email inbox in recent weeks really help to illustrate the importance of changing our organizational training models to more closely reflect how people learn in the age of Google and social networking.

Firstly, Janet Clarey of Brandon-Hall Research provides this excellent slide show that contrasts the multitudes of ways that individuals learn and interact online in their personal lives versus the very linear, isolating, and ineffective ways that learning is often organized in the workplace.

Secondly, Intel corporation set up an internal wiki, titled Intelpedia, that captures and shares knowledge across the organization. Anyone within the organization can post and edit content on this wiki. In its first year, Intelpedia had more than 5,000 pages of searchable content and had garnered 13.5 million page views. Talk about leveraging the tacit knowledge stored in your peoples' heads!

Remember, not all learning need be in the guise of formal courses (whether in-person or online). Sometimes, for many just-in-time, on-the-job learning challenges, the best thing you can do is facilitate an easy way of communication and knowledge sharing and get out of the way. Such an approach recognizes that most useful learning within an organization is informal and happens on- the-fly and as needed.

Trim the Text

2007-12-16T18:08:00.001-05:00

I was at a meeting last week when someone commented on a thick file folder I had brought along, bursting with papers related to the project at hand. When asked about it, I replied that I am of the generation that does not like reading a lot of text off a screen. My eyes get tired easily, I feel I cannot read as quickly or accurately on screen, and I end up printing off the relevant information and reading it and marking it up off-screen.

I suppose on-screen readability will improve as technology improves. Amazon, for example, contends that its new Kindle digital book technology has overcome these limitations noted above.

Kindle

However, the comment on my printing habits, along with the following things I have come across in the last couple of weeks, has lead me to reflect on how much I rely on text in the eLearning I produce, and whether less text and more visuals and narration would be more effective. To wit:

Tom Kuhlmann, who runs the user community for Articulate, outlines in this demo how you can present a concept much more effectively via the use of graphics and narration. The demo shows four different ways that you could teach someone how cell phones work.

Cathy Moore, in her Making Change blog, shows how you can create more effective eLearning by trimming copy, showing rather than telling, and letting learners explore rather than being spoon-fed.

There is a whole conference (VizThink) now dedicated to the art and science of visual thinking.

There is sub-field of architecture, transportation and urban planning called wayfinding, that focuses on how best to help people navigate their ways through cities and buildings as intuitively as possible (i.e. via good clean design, creative use of symbols, and an economy of words).

There are lessons in all of these examples about delivering messages and enabling learning with more than just flat, one-dimensional, and often overly long text.

I think I tended towards an over-reliance on text in eLearning in the past because I began in this field in a post-secondary environment wherein text is revered. It is the bedrock of scholarship after all. As I move farther from the university environment, I am relying less and less on text. And not just for the practical considerations of ease-of-use. Rather, I do so because:

Most of the adult learners being served by the eLearning I produce are time-starved and do not have the time or the patience to read great tomes (online or otherwise), and;

Using a variety of approaches (text, narration, graphics, animation, video, etc.) makes the learning more engaging and memorable, and accommodates different ways of learning.

Creativity Should Precede Technique

2007-11-06T20:05:00.000-05:00

Our daughter wants to be an animator. She will be going to university or college next year and has been checking out various computer animation and digital media programs. Interestingly, none of these programs really care about the applicant's computer programming skills. They are looking for talented and creative artists. They will help them hone these skills and then teach them how to channel them appropriately in a digital environment. In fact, we heard from some that students will be free hand drawing and doing story boards for a long while before they ever touch a computer.

What's this got to do with eLearning you ask?

I think eLearning professionals can learn from the approach used in the animation industry. As I have written many times in the past, I think the eLearning industry places far too much confidence in technology (e.g. authoring tools, learning management systems, content management systems, learning objects, etc.), and not enough on the human ingenuity and creativity required to make these tools sing.

As part of her research, our daughter checked out the Pixar site, her holy grail of possible future employers. They have a very interesting FAQ section for budding animators. Many of the things they say they are looking for in their animators are the things we should be looking for in those who design and develop eLearning. Here are some snippets from the Pixar site, followed by my take on how these principles apply to an eLearning context.

Pixar: "Pixar places the technology of computer graphics firmly at the service of the art of animation, not the other way around."
eLearning Context: "We should place computer software firmly at the service of the art of learning, not the other way around."

Pixar: "What Pixar looks for first and foremost in animators (is that) we want you to be able to bring the character to life, independent of medium."
eLearning Context: "What we look for first and foremost in eLearning designers (is that) we want you to be able to bring the learning to life, independent of medium."

Pixar: "A common question is, "What software should I learn?" The answer is....software doesn't matter; learning to animate matters."
eLearning Context: "A common question is, "What authoring tool or learning management system should I learn?" The answer is....software doesn't matter; animating learning matters."

Pixar: "Realize that whizzy technology is not great art."
eLearning Context: "Realize that whizzy technology does not, in itself, create a great learning environment."

Pixar: "Computers don't animate. People do."
eLearning Context: "Computers don't teach / educate / train / engage / enlighten. People do."

In the animation process, it is only AFTER the creative effort of animators working up characters and a strong story line is completed, that the idea for the movie, TV show, game is passed on to technical directors whose job it is to make this vision a realty. In much the same way, eLearning programmers and technicians should only start their work after an eLearning designer has constructed the creative vision for the learning experience.

Animators ensure that that the characters they create are interesting and that their story lines are compelling. Likewise, eLearning designers should ensure that the learning environments they envision are based on principles of active learning, interactivity, realistic stories, and are in the proper context for the targeted learners.

Technology doesn't magically create engaging animated stories out of a vacuum. Nor can it magically create engaging eLearning environments. Both processes require the intervention of creative human beings who understand the end goal and bend the technology to their will (not the other way around).

Context is King!

2007-10-09T20:49:00.000-04:00

I received an email invitation today to join a webinar to be led by Ed Cohen, the Chief Technology Officer of Plateau Systems, titled "The Future of Learning Content." It promised that I would "learn about the important trends that are shaping the development, deployment and management of learning content," and discover "how content can be more effectively purchased, deployed and managed" (presumably using Plateau's technology). I took a pass. I did so because I think that gathering, tagging, storing, sharing, manipulating, and managing good content is the easy part (whether using Plateau or any other content management system, including customized databases). However, what is sorely missing in the world of eLearning today is CONTEXT.

During the dot.com frenzy of a few years ago, when there were mergers of content providers and those that controlled online distribution channels, one often heard the phrase "content is king." The idea was that the ones owning the "pipe" needed something with which to fill it. You can see some of the same thinking among those developing eLearning programs for companies, associations and educational institutions. There is this obsession with filling the eLearning "pipe" with static content. Hence , there is so much eLearning today that amounts to little more than online books which nobody really wants to read. (Note: I am not innocent in this regard, I have had a hand in such projects.)

In the age of Google, when one can find content on just about any topic imaginable in a matter of seconds, we have to move beyond this obsession with content in eLearning. It is time to focus on context. In other words, we must move past the presentation of content to the creation of context wherein learners can can apply and reflect upon the new knowledge they encounter. It is a matter of moving beyond "knowing" something to being able to do something with this new knowledge (e.g. make a good decision, solve a problem, improve a process, resolve a conflict, etc.)

There are a number of ways to put good content into context in the aid of learning, including:

Creative Learning Design

Encourage active and applied learning via immersive cases, games and branching scenarios
Challenge learners, allow them to fail in safe environments and to learn from failure
Provide learners with opportunities for self-reflection

Enabling Community

Connect peers and allow them to learn from each other
Connect experienced pros with novices in mentorship relationships

Facilitate Learning on Demand

Nothing puts learning into context better than allowing learners to access it at the point of need and then use it immediately

Doing eLearning right is much more than just creating a huge and tidy repository of lifeless content that can be sliced and diced innumerable ways. It is about creating effective learning environments that allow learners to learn in a context that is real and meaningful to them.

I attended a reception last week put on by ExperiencePoint, a Toronto-based company that produces online learning simulations. They announced that early in 2008 they will release tools that will allow others to create their own simulations, with their own content. Now this is interesting - more of a Context Management System than a Content Management System. Perhaps there is hope after all.

eLearning Lets it All Hang Out

2007-09-26T19:22:00.000-04:00

I just read a report that came out in June titled Laboratories of Reform: Virtual High Schools and Innovation in Public Education. Published by the Education Sector, an independent education think tank in Washington, the paper provides an overview of online education at the high school level across the United States. Not surprisingly, the results are mixed; some jurisdictions are doing a fine job of providing alternative access to secondary education, and in others the quality is just not up to snuff. However, what I found more interesting in the report was that eLearning efforts often precipitate important re-examinations of teaching and learning practices (eg. increasing student participation, fostering self-reflection and independent learning, etc.), and that experiencing online teaching often motivates teachers to improve the ways they teach in the classroom. The report also highlights how administrators and parents are appreciative of the transparency of actually seeing what happens in online classes and can more easily monitor quality. It is in these ways that virtual classes act as "laboratories of reform."

This has long been a bug bear of mine: that it is widely assumed that what happens in the in-person classroom is sacrosanct, yet distance education and eLearning efforts have to consistently prove that they are as good as the classroom experience. Not withstanding the "no significant difference" studies between various forms of education, non traditional approaches have always assumed a greater burden of proof. Having been in the distance ed and online fields for a dozen years, I can attest to the fact that the work I have been involved with faces far more scrutiny and is held to higher standards than what happens in the classroom.

The irony of all this is that there is no hiding in any case with respect to eLearning. Everything is available for as detailed examination as one wishes to undertake. One can very easily assess the quality of:

learning content and activities
learning objectives
learner direction and supports
structure and sequencing
interaction
teaching presence
feedback to learners
learner assessments

Because it is "all out there" in eLearning and a permanent record is created, it makes it far easier for stakeholders to know exactly what is transpiring in the virtual learning environment. It is therefore much easier to assess quality against expected standards, to hold course designers and facilitators accountable for their work, and to initiate continuous improvement programs. Whether in secondary education, post-secondary education, adult continuing professional development, or corporate training, there is too much that happens in physical classrooms that occurs in an unexamined vacuum.

Does the World Really Need More Lectures?

2007-09-13T19:18:00.000-04:00

I did some quick mental math and came to the conclusion that I must have sat through many thousands of lectures delivered by hundreds of lecturers in my lifetime. And through all of this - primary school, middle school, high school, undergraduate studies, graduate studies, and innumerable professional development courses and conferences - I could probably point to a small handful of lecturers who were totally enthralling and provided a meaningful and memorable learning experience. There are two reasons for this. One, genuinely good public speaking and presentation skills are scarce. Two, straight information presentation is not a good way to learn anything at other than a surface level.

What brought on all this reflection was a notice I received that Lectopia, a lecture capture system developed by the University of Western Australia, had been acquired by a company called Anystream. The newly combined entity is now known as Echo360. Their mission is to supply universities and colleges with this technology that allows for the capture of live lectures to be played on a browser later, allowing the user to see and hear the lecturer via a small window, and to see the lecturer's notes / presentation in a larger window. The idea, as far as I can tell, is that learners could replay the lecture later for review, or the captured lecture could be "dumped" into a course management system for inclusion in online versions of courses.

After viewing some of the sample lectures on the Echo360 site, and remembering other similar examples using other technologies, I can definitely say that I am not impressed. Most lectures are bad in person, but they are even worse when replayed later online. You cannot really see the lecturer (window very small), the sound quality is crappy, many of the graphics used are difficult to read, and you cannot interact with anyone or anything. Everything about it reinforces the impression that you are not there and not part of it.

If the idea is to merely present information for easy anytime access online, why not produce this professionally in a controlled environment (not the chaotic echo chambers of huge lecture halls), where you can ensure that sound, pictures, graphics, animations, etc. are all in synch, of good quality, and working as intended? Not to mention editing out all the "ahs," and "ums," and "where was I now" comments. You can then use the in-class time for meaningful interactions beyond information transfer (e.g. debates, case studies, role plays, etc.) and deeper levels of learning.

Recording lectures to replay online reminds me of the very early days of silent films. Directors filmed stage plays. Then someone realized that having this new technology (the camera) meant that they were not bound to the stage, that they could take the camera and go on location and film virtually anything anywhere. We still haven't had that "aha" moment yet with respect to the ways that technology can free us from the lecture hall and the mind-numbingly boring way that we continue to educate and train. We are still walking backward into the future.

Let's Junk the Jargon

2007-09-05T19:33:00.000-04:00

A recent Chief Learning Officer magazine electronic newsletter carried a press release about Thomson Learning and Tata Interactive Systems collaborating on a new project called the Thomson Learning Lot. According to the press release,

"Tata will...develop systems for content-creation work flow, as well as for publishing and archiving objects, then rendering the learning material on the portal... The project involves combining such technology as LAMS, DSpace, Fedora, Zoomla, uPortal and so on...This is another example of the Web 2.0 software-as-a-service (SaaS) approach where various open-source softwares are used."

Huh? After reading the entire announcement top to bottom, I still have no idea what the Thomson Learning Lot is, why it exists, who's lives it will improve, or why I should care. This is because the entire message is presented in impenetrable jargon.

I realize that every field has its own language and is prone to jargon. However, I think the eLearning field takes it to a new level. If you want proof, just go to the website of an eLearning software vendor, or attend an eLearning conference, or read an eLearning magazine or journal. The speech or prose is often laden with jargon that is exclusionary of those not on the "inside" and makes eLearning seem much more mysterious and complicated and costly than it need be.

I think that such exclusionary language works against the interest of the field because it scares off those we may be asking to invest in eLearning projects. We would be much better off speaking to potential clients or key stakeholders (i.e. those controlling the purse strings) by using plain, straight-forward English (or French, or Farsi, or Chinese, etc.)

In the meantime, however, there are ways to cut through the jargon. I offer the following translations of key eLearning terminology for the uninitiated.

"We offer a robust, stable, and fully-scalable enterprise-wide LMS solution to facilitate competency development across the organization."

Translation: We hope this newest version of our eLearning software does not crash and burn when it has more than five users on it at time.

"Our plug-and-play open architecture approach facilitates interoperabilty and is based on industry standards for Web deployments (XML, SOAP or AQ) and supports major learning standards (AICC, SCORM, IMS, and IEEE)."

Translation: Our eLearning software plays well with others.

"Our product is an integrated, field-configurable, shrink-wrapped application."

Translation: To be honest, I haven't figured this one out yet, but I think it must be well packaged.

So the next time someone tries to snow you with eLearning jargon, ask them to translate it in such a way that your grandma or grandpa would understand. If they can't, don't do business with them. Because, if we cannot get past the jargon, we cannot focus on what is truly important. And sometimes the jargon hides the fact that the person using it has nothing important to say.

Can You e-Learn at Your Desk?

2007-07-24T20:07:00.001-04:00

Elliott Masie is constantly polling readers of his Learning Trends online newsletter on interesting questions related to workplace learning. His latest asked "Can workers really e-Learn at their desks?" In other words, can they fit eLearning into their daily tasks at their workstations without having to do it at home, or before or after the workday, or in some quiet designated eLearning space in the workplace? Masie got some interesting responses, with opinion divided, and many responding with a "depends," and then listing those conditions in which it generally will or will not work.

The "pro" side arguments tended to be centred around the following points:

We all multitask all day, every day, why couldn't eLearning fit into this mix?
We tend to learn best in small chunks anyway, and can fit this into our working day while at our desks
Finding time to squeeze eLearning into your schedule is simply a matter of making an appointment with yourself and putting everything else aside while you do it

The "anti" side arguments tended to be centred around the following points:

There are far too many distractions (e.g. email, phone, instant messages, pagers, bosses, co-workers, etc.) in most workplaces to be able to concentrate on deep learning while at your desk
There is no such thing as "do not disturb" in the modern workplace, you are "always available," so forget about the "schedule time for yourself" argument
You need quiet time away from all the noise, distractions, and interruptions of your workstation to make real progress with eLearning

Myself....I tend to side with the "depends" crowd (leave it...it's too easy). Some eLearning is clearly meant to be accessed on-demand, as needed, at the desk. Things like just-in-time embedded electronic performance support systems (e.g. mini tutorials on how to use certain software, or how to conduct certain business processes) are clearly designed for at-your-desk learning.

However, I really do not think that learning that requires a great deal of thinking, reflection, discussion, and competency development works while you are trying to squeeze it in among phone calls, reading and responding to emails, and having chats with whomever happens to come by your desk. Any learning wherein the objective is to change attitudes or behaviours or develop complex competencies, really works best when there is a chunk of time dedicated to it, and when it is done away from the chaos of one's workstation. We work in a culture of hyper communication and hyper activity that is not conducive to deep learning, self reflection and practice.

I have seen many great eLearning initiatives come a cropper because someone in charge thought that the targeted learners could squeeze it in while juggling a dozen other projects during the workday. We think nothing of giving people a number of days away from their desks to attend conferences where they are merely talked at for three days straight, yet find it strange to carve out a few hours of quiet time for them to complete some interactive and self-reflective eLearning.

Two Ships Passing in the Night

2007-06-13T17:30:00.000-04:00

I'm in the unique position of straddling the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors and seeing the way that each approaches eLearning. I have worked in both sectors. I now serve clients in both sectors, and speak to prospective clients in both sectors. And what a study in contrasts this presents. It is like observing two absolutely different cultures, and two completely different ways of approaching a problem. In short, they are so different that it is like watching two ships passing in the night.

Corporations (for-profit sector) tend to approach eLearning as an IT problem that needs to be solved. There is an inordinate focus on software systems (e.g. learning management systems, learning content management systems, etc.), software tools (e.g. course authoring, content creation, testing tools, etc.) and technical standards (e.g. SCORM, AICC, etc.). Every day my email inbox is inundated with the latest studies directed at corporate training departments about which LMS or LCMS is rated as "best of breed," or which content creation tool will cut eLearning development time in half. In all of this, it seems that there is an assumption that if you choose the right technology, everything else (including learning) will take care of itself. I liken this to a sort of techno-fetishism.

By contrast, most educational organizations, professional associations, advocacy agencies, etc. (not-for-profit sector) tend to approach eLearning as a way of solving a particular learning challenge (e.g. meeting defined learning or competency objectives, increasing reach, providing more flexibility for targeted learners). They tend to start with thinking of creative ways of solving learning challenges, and then work back to the types of technologies that will help them achieve their goals. Because of this, they are more open to looking at alternatives to expensive software expenditures such as build-your-own approaches and open source solutions. Because they generally have tighter budgets than the for-profit sector, they have to be more creative in finding solutions. This can be a good thing.

We recently met with a professional association about their eLearning efforts. They apologetically mentioned that they do not use an LMS, and that their eLearning was very basic. They created a rudimentary HTML template for the organization of content and tacked on a link to very basic discussion board software. However, their eLearning was good because they took care to ensure that it is based on principles of active learning and learner engagement. They invested a lot in learning design, and very little in technology.

Many corporations invest a fortune in complex eLearning technology, only to under utilize it. For example, they may use a tremendously expensive and complex software suite to post static content, test on it, and record who has competed what. It is much like buying a Hummer for trips to the corner store. At the same time, I have seen not-for-profits hammer together a beater with used parts, yet drive it across the country.

Of course, these are generalizations based on personal observation. There are always exceptions both ways. However, my experience shows me that not-for-profits are spending less on technology, yet getting better results from their eLearning. In other words, they are profiting more from their eLearning investments than the for-profit sector. Ironic, no?

Kicking the RFP Habit

2007-06-05T15:16:00.000-04:00

Two weeks ago, in a moment of weakness, I almost submitted a response to a request for proposals (RFP). It was for an eLearning development project for which I knew our firm could have done a terrific job. However, I remembered an earlier vow that I had made to myself never to put myself and my colleagues through "RFP hell" again, was resolute, and I ignored the invitation.

Don't get me wrong, I am not expecting work to land on our doorstep, and I know you have to prove yourself and compete for work every day. I have won and lost my fair share of RFP competitions in the past. What has turned me off the RFP game is that far too many times I have invested precious time and resources in responding to such competitions that had ill-defined or unreasonable expectations, did not have transparent evaluation criteria by which to judge proposals, were for projects that never materialized, or wherein the "fix" was in (i.e. a favourite vendor was already selected and the RFP process was a bureaucratic necessity to prove "due process").

Here's my list of RFP pet peeves (in no particular order).

Information Extremes

Some RFPs expect you to base an entire proposal on two or three pages of ill-defined generalizations regarding project purpose, goals, deliverables, etc. On the other extreme, some RFPs outline project deliverables, submission rules, bureaucratic procedures and associated legalities in such infinite and prescriptive detail that it takes you the better part of a day just to read the document, by which time you have lost focus on the actual purpose of the project.

Project Vaporizes

Twice in the last couple of years we have put many days work into responding to RFPs only to find out some time later that the projects were not going to go ahead. No apologies, no sorry you wasted half your life, nothing.....urgh.

Unreasonable Expectations

You know the story....they want learners to develop and demonstrate 10 key competencies, but they only have a half hour per person to devote to learning. Oh, and by the way, they want this online course up and running by Tuesday.

Cone of Silence

You are not allowed (under penalty of death) to talk to anyone "on the inside" about the project, or to toss around ideas with them about approaches that might work. It is very hard in such situations to meet client expectations when you can't even talk to them. The reason stated for such rules is that this may produce an "unfair" advantage. Well, if someone shows that kind of initiative maybe they should have an advantage.

No Transparent Evaluation Criteria

RFPs often do not have clear and transparent criteria or processes by which they will judge proposals. This means that it is based entirely on the whims of whomever is making the call. This makes it difficult to know what points to stress in your proposal. Worse yet are those situations when they say they will be judging proposals on A, B and C, and then say you didn't get it because you didn't have X. When did X enter the equation? If I knew you needed X, I wouldn't have bothered.

Moving Goal Posts

We responded to an RFP for an eLearning development project not too long ago and were told we were the only ones to have sent anything in. We met all the stated criteria, and were within the budget of $X that they had set for the project. I thought great, the project is ours. Not so. This organization re-issued the RFP with a budget of $X + 160% (not kidding). We thought, fine, they want something a bit more elaborate, so we will included many more Flash animations in our second proposal and pegged our budget at $X + 140%. Needless to say, we didn't get the job and, to top it off, were criticized for increasing our budget to such a degree over the first proposal. Huh? They could have had an excellent product for $X if they had given us the job in the first round. This led me to think that the "fix" was in (see below).

The Fix is In

I have no hard evidence, no smoking gun, but I am pretty sure that a lot of RFP competitions are fixed. The client knows exactly which vendor they want, but because of internal purchasing rules, they have to get X number of bids. This is really frustrating if you are one of these sacrificial lambs. If ensuring value for money is the goal, why don't folks just find another way to do this without wasting every one's time? For example, why not submit your preferred vendor's quotation to some disinterested third party expert review?

It is for these reasons that I resist the RFP urge. How do we get business, you ask? Luckily, we have existing clients that keep coming back to us for our services and who recommend us to others. And we also get business the old fashioned way....we contact those we think have needs for the types of services we offer (eLearning strategy, design, development, evaluation, etc.) and see if we can get a foot in the door to learn more about potential clients, have a conversation, and make a pitch. If there is interest, we will produce a work plan and budget for a specific project.

If you are someone who regularly issues RFPs for eLearning work (or for anything else for that matter), and you are noticing that there are fewer responses, it may be that other vendors have also sworn off such processes. Karin Albert, the author of the eLearn Campus course titled Maximizing the Value of Your eLearning, offers these tips about preparing RFPs.

Be specific and precise: the more you can clearly explain exactly what you want, the easier it will be for the vendor to provide an accurate estimate of costs and time lines.

Be conservative: don’t give the vendor an exaggerated or overstated picture of the opportunity you are offering them.

Be realistic: don’t minimize or understate the negative side of the opportunity.

Be complete: don’t leave anything out that you know will affect the project.

Be succinct: ask for only the information you need to make a decision.

Be straightforward and honest: if you don’t really know something, say so.

Words to live by.

Can I say for certain that I will never ever respond to an RFP again? No. It is hard for an addict to promise this. Maybe it would help if there were some sort of support group for those who have "gone clean."

I'm interested to hear what others have experienced with RFPs....from both sides of the fence (vendor and vendee(?)). Is the process always painful, or I have just been very unlucky?

Client eLearning Re-visited

2007-05-30T15:57:00.000-04:00

A few weeks back I lamented the paucity of good examples of eLearning for clients / potential clients, and then posted some examples of client eLearning that folks had sent to me the following week. And then recently I was sent an email from the bank (Scotiabank) I criticized in my original posting on this subject, noting that they had changed their online client education efforts quite substantially. Their new initiative is called MyVault, and it certainly is an improvement over what they had done previously (i.e. sending me to sites that were collections of PDF downloads very similar to things they had already sent me in the mail).

They had obviously been working hard on improving their client eLearning efforts long before I leveled my criticisms, so I cannot take any credit for the turn-around. But what a turn-around it has been. MyVault provides users with an array of online resources to personalize their own financial education, and online interactive tools with which to make key financial calculations and decisions.

Specifically, MyVault is organized around five key areas as follows:

My News

You can select which general and financial news sources you wish to access
You can sign up for RSS feeds you wish to be delivered to your "vault"

My Plans

You have access to a personal calendar, to-do list, cash flow tool, and links to various documents that you have saved while navigating the site

My Library

You have access to all issues of the bank's newsletters, various financial articles, podcasts, and a financial glossary
You can read advice from financial advisors and submit topics you want them to cover

My Community

You can join online discussions on a number of financial topics (e.g. investing, borrowing, home ownership, taxes, etc.)

My Tools

You can use a number of interactive tools to do various personal financial calculations (e.g. retirement savings plan, net worth, optimal mortgage payment schedule, mortgage comparisons, rent vs. own calculations, manageable debt load)

MyVault goes way beyond the digital brochure approach that most organizations use for their client education initiatives. It allows the user to personalize their learning experience and to better understand complex financial processes by interacting with easy-to-use online tools. This is a great value-add and has the effect of engaging both existing and potential clients much more deeply than just reading standard and static marketing materials. On top of this, Scotiabank has created an attractive, colourful and easy-to-navigate interface for MyVault (very non-bank like....see above).

Think about this approach for your organization. Are there ways that you could provide a more personal, interactive and educational experience for your clients and those you wish to attract as clients?

Beware the Technology Police

2007-05-16T16:07:00.000-04:00

I remember doing a pitch to some potential clients once, showing them how they could really bring their eLearning to life by including some rich, multi-media, case-based scenarios. They seemed genuinely impressed by some examples I showed them and I thought we were making real progress. They said they would like to have their eLearning follow a similar path, but that there was one little problem. It turns out that someone had decided that it would be a good idea to have Flash removed from all computers within this organization. I can't remember the exact reasons why, but it had something to do with concerns about preventing employees from playing games or wasting time on other diversions / entertainments while "on the clock." After I picked my jaw up off the floor, I said thanks, it's been real, and quickly found the nearest exit. At the time, and ever since, I have thought that the technology police within organizations are using such short-sighted technology bans to cover up a lack of actual management, not to mention foresight and imagination.

Since that encounter of the "Flash ban," I have come across many other examples of similar technology-limiting edicts that are equally as silly. In my mind, if people are wasting time, or are not productive, or are not meeting objectives, this is a performance issue, plain and simple, and it should be addressed as such. Banning computer technologies that can be used for very productive purposes because some people are abusing the privilege, is not a smart move. It is akin to:

bricking in windows because some people are staring out of them while day dreaming on the job;
cutting off all phone lines because some people are making too many personal calls; or,
not allowing conversations among employees because some people are too chatty and waste others' time.

These are, of course, extreme examples. However, I think it is equally silly to deny all of your employees the potential benefits of information and communications technologies that can enhance learning, build community and enable personal and professional growth because someone does not want to manage those who are not responsible.

Recent news stories tell me that the technology police are flourishing. In the last few weeks I have come across stories about school boards banning cell phones from school property and government departments banning use of Facebook, the social networking site, by government employees.

With respect to the first story, yes, it is highly disruptive to have cell phones going off in class, and this should not be allowed. However, part of the stated rationale in banning the cell phones was to stem cheating (enterprising students were, apparently, text messaging test answers to each other). I do not condone cheating, but perhaps the bigger problem here is that schools are still giving memorization tests in an age of instant access to information. Why not give the students some real challenging questions to answer that cannot be condensed to yes or no, true or false, 1812 or 1867? And then encourage them to surf the net with their phones and to text message each other (even reaching out beyond the confines of the school), collaborating on some big and meaningful problems. This will more closely resemble the world into which they will be entering.

With respect to the second story about government employees "wasting time" on Facebook, why not encourage them to establish Facebook contacts with public sector workers across different departments, and across different governments around the world? What could be learned by hearing about how others are tackling public policy issues? What kinds of connections could be made? What kinds of sharing and learning could take place?

If people are slacking off / goofing off / not doing their jobs, by all means manage this. But having the technology police make across-the-board bans is not managing. It is pure laziness. Worse than this, it is forsaking the tremendous benefits that such technologies can bring because one does not wish to manage performance.