I received an email today from someone who is looking for online programs (certificate, masters, etc) that offer training in elearning.
From the email - University of Calgary has a certificate, the University of Hull in the UK has a masters program, are there any others? Which ones are the best?
I have no clue, but I'm hoping that someone can point to suggestions via comments, and/or point to places you would look.
By the way, is there a source somewhere for online programs?
Tuesday, 5 December 2006
High Praise from Nancy White
One of the real learning experiences about blogging is realizing that I don't have a clue about what people will find interesting or when they'll leave comments. One of the posts that I thought would have generated some interest was: Be an Insanely Great Professional Conference Attendee.
It didn't generate any comments and only a couple other posts that cited it ... but yesterday it got a comment from someone who I greatly respect and who really knows a lot more about the topic area (community) than I do - Nancy White. She said:
Yes, I'm bragging and I'm trying to draw people into an old post for any thoughts, discussion. But, I still thought this may have value.
It didn't generate any comments and only a couple other posts that cited it ... but yesterday it got a comment from someone who I greatly respect and who really knows a lot more about the topic area (community) than I do - Nancy White. She said:
Great post. You got me thinking about why I tend to shortchange myself in table introductions because I find a lot of what people say is, well, too
disconnected. I can change that pattern by asking a good question.
Thanks!
Yes, I'm bragging and I'm trying to draw people into an old post for any thoughts, discussion. But, I still thought this may have value.
Monday, 4 December 2006
More on the Form of Informal
Stephen Downes has a great post entitled The Form of Informal which - well exactly what it says it discusses - the form of informal learning. In his post, he questions a couple of things I've said in The Paradox of Informal Learning (Form of Informal?) and Informal Learning is Too Important to Leave to Chance.
His full article is worth a read, but the crux is:
(unfortunately a few people have talked about "free range" and other similar terms, but I think that we can all agree that we are talking about finding support/structure for learning)
and
and
I think that Stephen and I agree on the fact when learning occurs it must have occurred in some form. In fact, it would seem that Stephen and I may even have agreement that a big part of our challenge is how to provide the right environment for learning to occur.
Likely he will feel more comfortable with environments where there is more freedom left to the student in terms of the level of support/structure, freedom of the form used, etc. and I'll feel more comfortable with more control on support/structure, form, etc.
Stephen's concern with my "greater control" is:
Which takes me right to what I'm discussing in both the posts he cites. How do you aim at performance objectives, provide appropriate support, structure and form without dictating to some level? No one says its structure free, but how much structure is allowed before it becomes too much to be informal? There's some kind of spectrum here with all sorts of shades.
What's interesting is that the moment you begin to understand the form that informal learning took and provide support for that kind of learning in the future you start down the path of dictating solutions. Providing job aids was one example that Michael McGinnis cited. The first time a person learned how to do that task/job it was likely through someone showing them how to do it. Once they put it in a job aid - it feels more formal on the spectrum. So maybe it's not a paradox, maybe its a spectrum. But, it feels a lot like what Artifical Intelligence faces - informal is a bit mysterious and putting structure to it makes it feel more formal and much less mysterious.
Of course, I personally am not that concerned with the definition of the term nor really even the paradox as I am in understanding the next level of informal learning: what kinds of guidance, what kinds of support, how can be provided, that ultimately lead us to accomplishing our performance objectives?
His full article is worth a read, but the crux is:
nobody equates 'informal learning' with 'structure-free learning'
(unfortunately a few people have talked about "free range" and other similar terms, but I think that we can all agree that we are talking about finding support/structure for learning)
and
What makes informal learning different from formal learning is not that it is formless, but rather, it that it is conducted outside the domain of the formal education infrastructure, with the associated and not trivial implication that it is managed by the learner, and not the professor or institution.
and
When I have characterized the distinction between formal and informal learning, I have done it this way: by saying, if you can walk out of the room, or change the shape of the discussion, or skip an activity, without (academic or other) sanction or penalty, then it's informal learning.
I think that Stephen and I agree on the fact when learning occurs it must have occurred in some form. In fact, it would seem that Stephen and I may even have agreement that a big part of our challenge is how to provide the right environment for learning to occur.
Likely he will feel more comfortable with environments where there is more freedom left to the student in terms of the level of support/structure, freedom of the form used, etc. and I'll feel more comfortable with more control on support/structure, form, etc.
Stephen's concern with my "greater control" is:
It is one thing to say, "I'm personally much more confident if I have a set of performance objectives that I can use to derive learning objectives and skill development opportunities around. I want to put structure in place that guides the learner along the way." It is quite another to say that the learner (a) must attend your class, and (b) must adhere to your learning outcomes and learning methodologies.
Which takes me right to what I'm discussing in both the posts he cites. How do you aim at performance objectives, provide appropriate support, structure and form without dictating to some level? No one says its structure free, but how much structure is allowed before it becomes too much to be informal? There's some kind of spectrum here with all sorts of shades.
What's interesting is that the moment you begin to understand the form that informal learning took and provide support for that kind of learning in the future you start down the path of dictating solutions. Providing job aids was one example that Michael McGinnis cited. The first time a person learned how to do that task/job it was likely through someone showing them how to do it. Once they put it in a job aid - it feels more formal on the spectrum. So maybe it's not a paradox, maybe its a spectrum. But, it feels a lot like what Artifical Intelligence faces - informal is a bit mysterious and putting structure to it makes it feel more formal and much less mysterious.
Of course, I personally am not that concerned with the definition of the term nor really even the paradox as I am in understanding the next level of informal learning: what kinds of guidance, what kinds of support, how can be provided, that ultimately lead us to accomplishing our performance objectives?
LCB Question for December - Past Year, Present Challenges, Predictions
The Learning Circuits Blog Question for December has been posted. The questions this month are:
Answering this question is a bit more of a challenge for me. So it may take a few posts. Let me put out a few initial thoughts, but I’m expecting that other posts will spark more thoughts.
What will you remember most about 2006?
I believe that I will remember 2006 as one of the more important transition years for me. It is the year that I recognized that there is a revolution going on in eLearning similar to 1996 when I saw that web-delivery of tools, content, etc. would grow to dominate in what was then a desktop/CD-ROM world. The revolution in 2006 is possibly even more profound.
Some of the more specific memories from 2006:
What will you remember most about 2006?
What are the biggest challenges for you/us as head into 2007?
What are your predictions for 2007?
Answering this question is a bit more of a challenge for me. So it may take a few posts. Let me put out a few initial thoughts, but I’m expecting that other posts will spark more thoughts.
What will you remember most about 2006?
I believe that I will remember 2006 as one of the more important transition years for me. It is the year that I recognized that there is a revolution going on in eLearning similar to 1996 when I saw that web-delivery of tools, content, etc. would grow to dominate in what was then a desktop/CD-ROM world. The revolution in 2006 is possibly even more profound.
Some of the more specific memories from 2006:
- I started my blog in February 2006.
- I started using del.icio.us and Yahoo MyWeb to save bookmarks - locally saved favorites seem rather limited now.
- I had a real "aha experience" after using add-ins to provide features inside my blog. Boy were they easy to use. It's all pure service. And this experience kept coming all during the year with Wikis, and more (Incredibly Cool! Vision of Future of Application and eLearning Development)
- I found myself no longer recommending the use of RoboInfo or other similar programs for reference materials. Wikis are way better even if the end-users don't edit.
- I had a very interesting disagreement with a client about the technical direction for their solution - they wanted local editing via a Word add-in locally installed - I advocated providing a pure web delivered solution. I lost the argument. In the long run, they'll lose. No one should advocate putting stuff on a desktop anymore without a dang good reason.
- I found myself using Wikipedia early in research tasks on all sorts of topics.
But by far the most vivid memory of 2006 comes from a comment made during a panel that I was moderating on eLearning 2.0. We had discussed Wikis, Blogs and were embarking on Second Life. Someone from the audience in all sincerity said:
“This stuff is freaking me out.”
She is right on the money. It is freaking us out. We know something pretty special is happening right now.
If you are a glutton for more of this, take a look at:
What do you see as the biggest challenges for 2007?
I could answer this as the biggest challenges for Learning Professionals generally, and maybe I'll come back and do that, but for now, let me just write what I see as some of my bigger challenges in 2007.
- Finding high quality people, especially programmers
This may come as a surprise, but it's really hard to find really good on-shore development talent. Especially since I'm spoiled by a really great, really nice, fun group of developers. - Deciding if I should be speaking more or less at conferences?
I love going to conferences when there's energy and I meet interesting people with interesting problems. I hate hearing the same presentations over and over. The last couple conferences have been interesting again, but I'm not sure if that trend will continue. In the meantime, I'm spending more time blogging and in virtual sessions. Those seem to have been a good replacement for my conference time. I'm still unsure how I should spend my time. - Retooling my knowledge
I've been paid to be a CTO type consultant on a broad range of topics. And if you are talking Reusable Learning Objects, Courseware Templates, Tracking Mechanisms, Content Management, etc. I'm really well positioned. Of course, since I'm truly believe that the form of what we will be building in the future is changing and things like RLOs and Courseware are going to become much less important, then my current knowledge base seems diminished. Instead, I now need to get smart on things like community, networks, personal knowledge management and other such topics. These have normally been tangential, but I see them as core moving forward. I've already started on this, but the challenge is knowing where to focus. - What does all of this mean? What will the landscape look like in 10 years?
Along the same lines, I really am challenged right now to understand where all of this is going. If it doesn't look like a course and doesn't look like a reference system, what will it look like? What is the form of informal learning? - Why am I not finding more opportunities to create front-end tools?
I am a big believer in the ability of web sites to provide simple forms that a user can fill out, that captures data that can be reused, and then feeds the data into templates that provide significant value. At the simplest, these are dynamic job aids. More complex solutions look like marriage matching (eHarmony), action planning solutions (large retailer), marketing support tools (large financial services). These are the most powerful and best solutions that I can personally be involved in. Yet the projects are sparse. My challenge is to find more of these projects. - Find Lots of Examples of eLearning 2.0
I've already started to identify some of the initial eLearning 2.0 kinds of solutions that people can adopt right now. But 2007 would seem to be a good time to find even more smart, small, starter examples of solutions that don’t fit within classic eLearning, eReference type solutions.
What are your predictions for 2007?
First, let me say that before I predict anything, I always start with a couple of quotes that keep me grounded:
A consistent pattern in our response to new technologies is we simultaneously overestimate the short-term impact and underestimate the long-term impact.
–Roy Amara of the Institute for the Future.
The future is already here; it’s just unevenly distributed.
–William Gibson – Author
So let me start with a prediction that I always get right. 2007 is going to look a lot like 2006.
That said, let me suggest a few specific predictions:
- More learning professionals are going to find themselves blogging.
- Discussion will emerge/increase around the next generation of LMS that focus on quick access to content, search, web 2.0 capabilities, with tracking being done behind the scenes. In the meantime, LMS Dissatisfaction will continue to the Rise and Do You WANT an LMS? Does a Learner WANT an LMS?
- Discussion will emerge/increase that SCORM doesn't fit next generation learning.
- 2007 will have even more creativity around types of solutions and how those solutions get created.
- Informal learning will be a big topic and will become more formal
- Courses and Courseware are going to continue to fade
- Training 2007 will still have a blind spot around eLearning 2.0, but one keynote by IBM will open some eyes
- It will be harder and harder to find any software getting installed locally
- We will start to see Wikis and tools like ZohoCreator being used by normal people like us to build simple web applications - similar in complexity to spreadsheet programming.
That's it for now, I'm sure I'm going to want to add to this as I read other responses to the questions.
The Paradox of Informal Learning (Form of Informal?)
If you read my blog, you know that while I'm a big believer in the need to improve human performance outside of classic formal learning interventions, e.g., personal learning support, you also know that the term and a lot of the discussion around informal learning makes me worried. By way of background for my comments, you may want to look back at:
- Informal Learning - Let's Get Real - Part II
- Informal Learning - Let's Get Real
- Elves, Measuring Results and Informal Learning
- Guidance Needed - Are we Misguided in Informal Learning and ...
- Informal Learning is Too Important to Leave to Chance
I just saw two posts on Informal Learning that made helped me to realize the dilemma. First, was Informal Learning on Training Day, written by Michael McGinnis -who has been on a couple of panels that I moderated. In it he talks about three kinds of tools that he's provided that support informal learning: Structured OTJ Checklists, Knowledge Guides, Quick Reference Guides. What's interesting about this is that I normally wouldn't think about these as being "informal learning" mostly because while they aren't part of a formal learning setting, they are classic kinds of tools that we build as part of an overall learning intervention.
The other post was by Clark Aldrich, Is it self-defeating to write a book advocating Informal Learning over Formal? Where Clark says:
I am struck by a basic paradox. Can one criticize formal learning models in a
book? Isn't a book the epitome of what one is suggesting is the wrong model?
I don't really agree that you can't use formal learning techniques to tell or teach about a topic such as informal learning. This is the same as discussing virtual classroom tools at an in-person conference session. There's no problem, but it is ironic.
On the other hand, Clark's comment did make me think about the paradox that informal learning faces...
Once we give structure and form to a learning intervention, doesn't it stop
being informal?
This is much like the challenge of Artificial Intelligence that I was struck by back in the 80s. If you define a problem, such as playing chess and you say that requires intelligence - the moment you write a program that solves the problem, then you redefine what it means to be intelligent because in hindsight its pretty obvious how to play chess. It's just an algorithm. Intelligence must be more than that. It must be learning. But once you program a simple learning solution, then intelligence must be more than that.
Informal learning faces the same paradox. The moment you figure out the "form" of a solution - can it still be "informal" ??? Look at the words closely.
Blogging and Collaboration
Tom Haskins has written a couple interesting posts on collaboration in the Web 2.0 world: Four phases of collaboration and After blogging - collaboration.
I think his picture of and description of the Four Phases is fairly accurate, but I also think that there's likely a depth element to it. One of the wonderful things about blogging has been the ease with which collaboration occurs. It's natural. You quickly jump to Phase 4. However, part of it is that there's little risk and no expectation of an on-going relationship.
If you look at some of the posts around blogging from the LCB October Big Question and my summary: Top Ten Reasons To Blog and Top Ten Not to Blog, you can see the fear of blogging, fear of inequality, but the quick turnaround. That's why folks are talking about Blogs and Community more and more.
I think his picture of and description of the Four Phases is fairly accurate, but I also think that there's likely a depth element to it. One of the wonderful things about blogging has been the ease with which collaboration occurs. It's natural. You quickly jump to Phase 4. However, part of it is that there's little risk and no expectation of an on-going relationship.
If you look at some of the posts around blogging from the LCB October Big Question and my summary: Top Ten Reasons To Blog and Top Ten Not to Blog, you can see the fear of blogging, fear of inequality, but the quick turnaround. That's why folks are talking about Blogs and Community more and more.
Friday, 1 December 2006
Significant Work Needed to Help Instructional Designers
The November LCB Big Question was "Are ISD / ADDIE / HPT relevant in a world of rapid elearning, faster time-to-performance, and informal learning?" I was planning to try to write up a summary at some point (similar to last month's eLearning Technology: Top Ten Reasons To Blog and Top Ten Not to Blog), but I must say this month it was a lot harder. My personal summary is very briefly (more below):
- There’s general consensus that ISD, ADDIE, HPT provide a good foundation, but that they need to evolve.
- There’s little practical advice that can assist Instructional Designers in what the evolved forms really are.
- There are a few skeptics.
And I find that second bullet especially troubling given that the crux of the question as Mark Oehlert from e-Clippings put it:
If the question of whether or not your job is relevant fails to stir up some considerable heat - then I despair for us.
Well Mark start despairing for us...
I’m beginning to wonder if we are expected to just wing it until we become marginalized. As a Forbes article stated –
One thing is clear: In two decades, your job probably won't exist, at least not in the same form.
So let me step back and give some foundation for my summary. Oh and before I go any farther, I should point out that, as is always the case, there is general consensus that as Jay Cross put it:
This is the wrong question.
And as Russ Crumley put it:
we’ve already answered that.
So, again, Dave Lee and I are continuing our consistency in asking bad questions.
Also as background, there were quite a few people who said, ISD/ADDIE/HPT – huh? That was actually quite a big surprise to me. Maybe they are already irrelevant?
ISD, ADDIE, HPT are Good Foundations
There was general consensus that they provide a good foundation for the future.
More models will emerge, but they'll only be improvements on existing models. We'll always take shortcuts, but it's important to know what the original route was in case you get lost.
SAT, ISD and ADDIE are excellent methods to develop training that is stable ... The Internet is forcing us out of our self-constructed disciplinary boxes. ... As work and learning become connected online, the barriers are blurring between organisational development, HR, training, education, HPT, etc. A new, amalgamated field of practice requires better tools and integrated theories from which to base our practice.
The challenge we now face is not the creation of more tools, but better use of the tools we have, while applying the fundamentals of human behavior and performance, including the role of emotion, curiosity, discovery, and the desire to improve.
The role of the instructional designer will be to use the ADDIE model to determine what baseline structure can be built into the formal piece of the learning and what parts of the knowledge base are fluid and need to maintained delivered in an informal venue, be it a blog, a podcast, or talking points delivered by a project manager to his or her team.
We need these models now more than ever ... Would you ask a builder to skip the design step for a building? No need for the architect, just build the building.
We need to be reminded of this discipline to avoid jumping to solutions, without having a proper understanding of the problem.
ISD, ADDIE, HPT need to Change
There was also general consensus that while they provide a foundation, they need to change.
Jacob McNulty:
In a world where products, targets and strategies adjust constantly the application of these models (ISD, ADDIE, HPT) will be greatly diminished. As the roles of knowledge workers expand and require them to use information that changes quickly it will be more important for the workforce to have easy access to information rather than them be required to retain it as the result of a well-designed course.
I use the term ‘greatly diminished’ because I don’t feel the models will become obsolete or completely irrelevant.
The models listed in this month’s Big Question were designed for a type of training that was relevant for the needs of an environment different from today’s.
my argument: A, D, D, I, and E are relevant. ADDIE may not be
some method still needs to be applied to decide what features to provide and the look and feel of the vehicle -if we are completely without strategy, we are likely to wind up with a resource like Homer's car
Little Practical Advice
While the consensus was that the models were changing, I found myself wondering what that really means in practice. How will they change? What do I need to do differently? And I didn’t see a lot of advice. Here's a few of the things I saw...
Karl Kapp
You can do the model in an abbreviated format. For example, for the analysis phase of ADDIE, hold a one hour focus group. Yes, one hour for analysis. Now, will you get the best analysis in the world? No, but you will get some insightful information. Instead this step gets skipped, even just doing a one hour analysis can save learners hours of time in terms of focusing the instruction.
Figure out Rapid HPT, ISD, ADDIE Increase the Breadth and Improve Your Understanding of New Models / Tools Become Meta-learning Experts Learn to become guides, aggregators
Don’t work in Silos – integrate with learners, produce rapid prototypes - the content development team work in silos and deliver the final product to the ‘client’ for evaluation.
Without knowing what we’re trying to achieve, metrics that let us know how we’re doing, and ownership of the outcomes, among other things, you don’t have any idea what you’re doing.
the problem lies not with the models, but in how we approach them and what we take out of them. models like ISD, if used creatively, can help produce highly effective learning programs.
I would recommend anyone interested in the design and development of learning experiences to explore the various models relating to instructional design and to develop their own views on the strengths, weaknesses and general applicability of these models.Jay Cross
Think like a great chef. - Great designers use the models as a great chef uses a recipe.
Skeptics Among Us
There were several notable comments that suggested that we should move away from these models and these terms:
Wendy Wickham:
Even in the classroom these models disconnect from reality ... The longer I work, the more I realize that the old roles of "Trainer" and "Instructional Designer" are becoming irrelevant.
This Leaves Me With More Questions Than When I Startedtraining and instructional design don’t cut the mustard ... Keeping the labels is not good ... It’s not going to fall into a course or job aid.
I’m questioning whether we really know what the next generation of ISD, ADDIE, HPT really looks like. I’m being told to not just do D & I, but I’m also not given time to do A, D, E like the models suggest. I’m told to at least spend an hour with the learners or in a focus group. Is that enough? How do I know if that’s enough? When should I demand more?
The kinds of interventions I’m using are changing. How does informal learning change what I do in A&D? How about in E? How does Rapid Learning change it?
I’m personally surprised at the lack of depth in the responses. I’m also surprised that some of the real visionaries such as Allison Rossett doesn’t have better suggestions. Do the experts really just think we should learn the models as a good foundation and wing it from there? That is what we are doing, but is that it?
I hope this isn't the end of the discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
