Is Social Learning a fad? One Organization Seems to Believe So

Reflecting upon the growing adoption of Web 2.0 technologies in enterprises and organizations, about two weeks ago I wrote a post called Shiny new technologies used by dusty old professions. In it I considered that an ad hoc approach to adding Web 2.0-based learning channels without appropriate strategy, planning, and management could lead to a diminution of their effectiveness in the long term.

In response to my article, I received a comment from a person associated with an organization who had gone down this very road by implementing informal learning and knowledge-sharing channels (including FaceBook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and asynchronous content delivery) on an “as needed” basis, and who contradicted or declared against the points I made in my post.

Here are some of the assertions made in the comment:

• I wrote that informal learning was “casual”
• Regulated professional bodies do not undertake informal learning (supporting evidence to this was included via a link to the organization’s Continuing Professional Education overview document, available online)
• Social Media is a “fad”
• I “miss[ed] the point completely. Social media is nothing to do with e-learning.”
• My name is Brian

Naturally I published the comment (as I do with every comment I receive unless it’s spam). The missive wasn’t e-mailed to me personally, but to my blog, so I assumed it was submitted to the public domain. About a week later, I composed a response to the comment and e-mailed it to my correspondent.

To date I have received no reply from them, so I considered the matter is closed. However, a few people who read the comment got on to me (privately) and said that the remarks that were made in the comment were so inaccurate and erroneous, that it was worth highlighting them to a larger audience.

In fact, they said, the comment was a distillation of the general lack of understanding of informal learning, e-learning, and Web 2.0, and should be addressed as a matter of credibility for L&D professionals, if nothing else. And also that my name is not Brian.

So, for your consideration, my rebuttal to the charge that “Social Media has Nothing to do with E-Learning.”

Now read on…

“To whom it may concern:

Many thanks for taking the time to communicate with me. Firstly I need to apologize: as in many occupations (accountancy among them, no doubt), learning and development professionals sometimes use certain words and phrases in very specific contexts that extend their meaning beyond popular use. It simply didn't occur to me that any of the terminology in the blog article text needed further exposition, and I regret that lack of clarity has caused you to object to and attempt to refute the remarks I made in my blog post.

However, you have misquoted me, suggested that my article was inaccurate, and that I "missed the point completely" so I'm invoking my right to reply. I'd like to say that I hate having to do this, as it makes me come across as long-winded and boring, and I am neither. Nevertheless, I wish to address each of the remarks you made in your comment: I'd appreciate it if you would take the time to reflect upon what follows.

First the misquote: you state in quote marks that I wrote "informal and casual" somewhere in my text. Let me be crystal clear about this: there is nothing "casual" about acquiring skills, knowledge, and expertise. I take the activity (and my part in it) very seriously. I did use the term "ad hoc" but in a completely different context, I will address this later.

I would assert that you felt motivated to respond to me because you would argue for what Colley, Hodkinson & Malcolm call the "perceived inherent superiority" (2002, p.2) of formal learning over informal learning.

Let's get this formal/non-formal/informal business out of the way, because it's part of the first point you refuted. All learning occurs on a continuum (see Figure 1) with formal learning at one extreme, and informal learning at the other, and non-formal learning 'in the middle.' Now here's the good bit, so I'm going to place this in a paragraph all on its own:

Eighty percent of organizational learning takes place informally.

Gartner Research (2008, p.1).

You will note that the continuum illustrated below is on a horizontal axis, and that there is no hierarchical distinction between the learning modalities.

Figure 1. The Learning Continuum

It's apparent that a dichotomy exists between the paradigms of formal, goal-directed training programs and informal "learning at the water cooler" (Grebow, 2002):

it is difficult to make a clear distinction between formal and informal learning as there is often a crossover between the two

(McGivney, 1999, p.1).

For much of the forty years since the terms were first coined (Coombs, 1968, p.1.) there has been a great deal of debate as to the nature of formal, informal and non-formal learning; the components of each of the paradigms, their boundaries and their overlaps. It's an ongoing discussion in L&D, but at this juncture we can say that the distinctions between them have been recognized by the EU and the OECD among other organizations. The European Commission state:

Learning takes place in different settings and contexts, formal, non-formal as well as informal. Learning that is taking place in the formal education and training system is traditionally the most visible and the one likely to be recognized in the labor market and by society in general. In recent years, however, there has been a growing appreciation that learning in non-formal and informal settings is seen as crucial for the realization of lifelong learning, thus requiring new strategies for identification and validation of these 'invisible' learning outcomes. However, definitions and understandings of what counts as formal, non-formal and informal learning can vary between countries.

(Valuing learning outside formal education and training)

At EU level, the following definitions are used:

Table 1. Definition of learning types

Learning Type	Description
Formal Learning	Learning typically provided by an education or training institution, structured (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support) and leading to certification. Formal learning is intentional from the learner’s perspective [my italics].
Non-formal Learning	Learning that is not provided by an education or training institution and typically does not lead to formalised certification. It is, however, structured (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support). Non-formal learning is intentional from the learner’s perspective [my italics].
Informal Learning	Learning resulting from daily life activities related to work, family or leisure. It is not structured (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support) and typically does not lead to certification. Informal learning may be intentional but in most cases it is non-intentional (or “incidental”/ random) [my italics].

Regarding your own organization, I notice that in Continuing Professional Education, under the section entitled 'Unstructured CPE' (p.3), it is stated that:

Unstructured CPE can be defined as any form of informal learning or development of day to day working skills achieved through self-study and/or informal training. Unstructured CPE can be measurable but is not verifiable [my italics].

Personally, I support Alan Rogers' view that a 'new paradigm' for learning exists, in which "most programs [are] partly formal and partly informal" going from formal to informal and from informal to formal in both directions along a continuum. Both forms of education are important elements in the total learning experience" (Looking again at non-formal and informal education - towards a new paradigm, 2004).

As you stated in the Silicon Republic article Number crunchers find social media a ‘tweet’ surprise "It's our job to support our members at each point in their career." Implicit in this statement is support for the ongoing, formal, certified professional development initiatives that are required to ensure your members achieve and retain the appropriate knowledge and skills to undertake their professional activities competently. I didn't question this facet of these activities at any point in my article.

Equally I'm sure you design, develop, and implement your formal training initiatives based upon Training Needs Assessments and Skill/Gap Analyses to remediate deficiencies in your members' current skillsets and knowledge.

The next point I'd like to clarify concerns e-learning, social media, and the Read/Write Web (or Web 2.0). E-learning has been characterized as:

The continuous assimilation of knowledge and skills by adults stimulated by synchronous and asynchronous learning events - and sometimes knowledge management outputs - which are authored, delivered engaged with, supported and administered using internet technologies.

(Morrison, D. 2004, p.4)

So while you confidently tell me that "Social media is nothing to do with e-learning" I have to tell you that you're wrong: it has everything to do with it.

I suspect you perceive e-learning to be that old pageturner-with-audio stuff that characterized e-learning 10 years ago, and is still occasionally foisted upon organizations like the yours for compliance and regulatory reasons.

You don't have to believe me if you don't want to, but believe your own reasoning faculties and reflect on Don Morrison's above definition carefully. You'll see that e-learning 'checks all the boxes' that characterize social media.

As you state, social media are a great way to communicate, engage with, and create dialog between communities of practice. This is what makes Web 2.0 technologies - and it's associated products like Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, as well as related technologies like on-demand video, such valuable and effective learning channels. According to industry analysts Forrester:

Learning 2.0 - or informal learning - means that employees take charge of their learning. Specifically, employees decide when they need information, where to go for information, and how to get information from other resources.

(Schooley, C. 2007, p.3)

This approach delivers learning right when people need it via:

• Delivering small pieces of searched for learning content
• Providing collaborative interaction support
• Making job aids, reference sites, and materials readily available
• Bringing contextual learning to specific tasks while workers are on the job

Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but is this not exactly what your organization is doing?
And finally we get to The Point That I Apparently Missed.

Is social media a "fad"? No.

Everett Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation theory tells us that the technology is maturing and has entered the Mainstream Adoption phase. My view is that the shift in information transmission we're seeing will prove to be as socio-culturally important as the invention of movable type 500 years ago.
You say that social media is

one of many communication channels we successfully use to direct members to education and learning opportunities, class-based or online.

I say that it is a learning channel - as you yourself said "Many share war stories and know-how in the forums": this epitomizes informal (e-)learning in action.

I think now I can reiterate my point (remember the "ad hoc" reference?). The purpose of the blog post was to highlight the issues associated with adding new learning / social media channels without a strategy, a plan, a goal, and a set of learning outcomes. Now, as we know, ad hoc according to Webster's Online Dictionary means "for the particular end or case at hand without consideration of wider application." As I concluded my article:

...it's one of the advantages of a non- or informal approach to e-learning, but I would suggest that too much of a 'make it up as we go along' approach can lead to spreading finite resources too thinly for any of them to be truly effective.

Or, more prosaically, if you don't manage, and maintain your content delivery channels effectively, you will see fall-off in use, and enter what Gartner call the ‘Trough of Disillusionment’ where

[technologies] fail to meet expectations and quickly become unfashionable.

Consequently, they are abandoned. In online circles this is called "blogrot" named after the estimated 125 million out of 133 million blogs that are not updated regularly (Technorati, State of the Blogosphere, 2008). To counter this, organizations need to actively manage and maintain their content and their knowledge, or it can peter out and ultimately cease to be of value.

The purpose of my post then, was to commend your informal e-learning activities, but to temper that commendation by highlighting the requirement to keep up the momentum surrounding these activities, for if your initiative fails, it becomes that much more difficult to re-implement similar programs in the future. Indeed, I consult for institutions including UCC and the ECDL Foundation, assisting the development of their learning programs, so I have a substantial amount of experience in this domain.

I hope this detailed missive clarifies matters; I look forward to making your acquaintance at some point in our respective careers, and I wish you every success in your ongoing learning and development initiatives.

Best regards,

Michael Hanley BA, H.Dip.Ed., H.Dip.Communications, MSc. Education (Hons), MIITD

__________
References:
Certified Public Accountants (ND). Continuing Professional Education. [Internet] Available from: http://www.cpaireland.ie/UserFiles/File/CPE/CPE_Requirements.pdf [Accessed 1 July 2009]

Colley, H., Hodkinson, P., & Malcolm J. (2002) Non-formal learning: mapping the conceptual terrain. a consultation report [Internet] Available from: http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/colley_informal_learning.htm [Accessed 28th January 2009]

Coombs, P. (1968) The World Educational Crisis, New York, Oxford University Press.
Eraut, M. (2000) Non-formal learning, implicit learning and tacit knowledge, in Coffield, F. (Ed.) The Necessity of Informal Learning. Policy Press. Bristol

European Commission, Education and Training (2009). Valuing learning outside formal education and training. [Internet] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc52_en.htm [Accessed 1 July 2009]

Holford, J. Patulny, R. & Sturgis, P. (2005). Indicators of Non-formal & Informal Educational Contributions to Active Citizenship. A Paper Prepared for the European Commission by the University of Surrey. [Internet]. Available from: http://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ActiveCitizenship/Conference/05_Surrey_final.pdf [Accessed 1st July, 2009]

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2009). Recognition of Non-formal and Informal Learning. [Internet] Available from: http://www.oecd.org/document/25/0,3343,en_2649_39263238_37136921_1_1_1_1,00.html [Accessed 1 July 2009]

Grebow, D. (2002) At the Water Cooler of Learning [Internet] Available from: http://agelesslearner.com/articles/watercooler_dgrebow_tc600.html [Accessed 30th February 2009]

McGivney, V. (1999) Informal learning in the community: a trigger for change and development NIACE. Leicester.

Morrison, D. (2004) E-Learning Strategies: how to get implementation and delivery right first time, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Rogers, A. (2004) Looking again at non-formal and informal education - towards a new paradigm [Internet] Available from: http://www.infed.org/biblio/non_formal_paradigm.htm [Accessed 30th January 2008]

Rozwell, C. (2008) The Business Impact of Social Computing on Corporate Learning. Gartner. [Internet] Available from: http://www.gartner.com (subscription required) [Accessed 1 July 2009]

Schooley, C. (2007) Informal Learning Connects With Corporate Training Programs. Forrester Research. [Internet] Available from: http://www.forrester.com (subscription required) [Accessed 1 July 2009]
--

Manufacturing a New Consent: the Arrival of Social Media in Mainstream Culture

Barack Obama has over 100,000 followers on twitter. According to Twitterholic, that’s a lot more than anyone else. On Facebook, Obama has 2.2 million “friends” compared to 745,000 for McCain. On MySpace during the US Presidential Election, Obama had 588,000 friends compared to McCain’s 188,000.

Thanks largely to unprecedented use of the internet, Obama’s campaign attracted 632,000 new donors in September 2008. By some estimates Obama’s internet activities have now raised more than 1 billion dollars since he started campaigning. That’s more than ten times as much as John Kerry raised over the internet just four years ago.

Buzz News

Now read on…

As I discussed last time, the "Propaganda model" views the private media as businesses selling a non-media product — readers and demographic groups — to other businesses (advertisers). The theory postulates five general classes of "filters" that determine the type of news that is presented in news media. These five filters are:

1. Ownership of the medium
2. Medium's funding sources
3. Sourcing
4. Flak
5. Anti-Ideology

Ownership

Herman and Chomsky argue that since mainstream media outlets are either large corporations or part of conglomerates (e.g. Westinghouse or General Electric), the information presented to the public will be biased with respect to these interests. Such conglomerates frequently extend beyond traditional media fields, and thus have extensive financial interests that may be endangered when certain information is widely publicized. According to this reasoning, news items that most endanger the corporate financial interests of those who own the media will face the greatest bias and censorship.

It then follows that if to maximize profit means sacrificing news objectivity, then the news sources that ultimately survive must be fundamentally biased, with regard to news in which they have a conflict of interest.

Funding

Since the mainstream media depend heavily on advertising revenues to survive, the model suggests that the interests of advertisers come before reporting the news. Chomsky and Herman argue that, as a business, a newspaper has a product which it offers to an audience. The product is composed of the affluent readers who buy the newspaper — who also comprise the educated decision-making sector of the population — while the audience includes the businesses that pay to advertise their goods. According to this "filter", the news itself is nothing more than "filler" to get privileged readers to see the advertisements which makes up the real content, and will thus take whatever form is most conducive to attracting educated decision-makers. Stories that conflict with their "buying mood", it is argued, will tend to be marginalized or excluded, along with information that presents a picture of the world that collides with advertisers' interests. The theory argues that the people buying the newspaper are themselves the product which is sold to the businesses that buy advertising space; the news itself has only a marginal role as the product.

Sourcing

The third filter concerns the mass media's need for a continuous flow of information to fill their demand for daily news. In an industrialized economy where consumers demand information on numerous worldwide events unfolding simultaneously, they argue that this task can only be filled by major business and government sectors that have the necessary material resources. This includes mainly The Pentagon and other governmental bodies. Chomsky and Herman then argue that a symbiotic relationship arises between the media and parts of government which is sustained by economic necessity and reciprocity of interest. On the one hand, government and news-promoters strive to make it easier for news organizations to buy their services; according to the authors (p. 22), they

• provide them with facilities in which to gather
• give journalists advance copies of speeches and forthcoming reports
• schedule press conferences at hours well-geared to news deadlines
• write press releases in usable language
• carefully organize their press conferences and "photo opportunity" sessions

On the other hand, the media become reluctant to run articles that will harm corporate interests that provide them with the resources that the media depend upon. Chomsky and Herman state (p. 22),

It is very difficult to call authorities on whom one depends for daily news liars, even if they tell whoppers.

This theoretical relationship also gives rise to a "moral division of labor", in which "officials have and give the facts," and "reporters merely get them". Journalists are then supposed to adopt an uncritical attitude that makes it possible for them to accept corporate values without experiencing cognitive dissonance.

During the year 2005 in the USA, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) criticized the George W. Bush administration for the preparation and distribution of videos which falsely give the impression of being interviews made independently of the administration. The New York Times reported that "more than 20 federal agencies, including the State Department and the Defense Department, now create fake news clips. The Bush administration spent $254 million in its first four years on contracts with public relations firms, more than double the amount spent by the Clinton administration." In April 2008, the New York Times revealed how the US Pentagon and Defense Department traded access to valuable information and powerful decision makers to ex-military officers, many now military contractors, who were parroting administration talking-points and providing favorable "analysis" regarding the Iraq War and related topics on/in major television, radio and print media.

Flak

For Chomsky and Herman "flak" refers to negative responses to a media statement or program. The term "flak" has been used to describe what Chomsky and Herman see as targeted efforts to discredit organizations or individuals who disagree with or cast doubt on the prevailing assumptions which Chomsky and Herman view as favorable to established power (e.g., "The Establishment"). Unlike the first three "filtering" mechanisms — which are derived from analysis of market mechanisms — flak is characterized by concerted and intentional efforts to manage public information.

Flak from the powerful can be either direct or indirect. The direct could include the following hypothetical scenarios:

• Letters or phone calls from the White House to Dan Rather
• Inquiries from the FCC to major television networks requesting documents used to plan and assemble a program
• Messages from irate executives representing advertising agencies or corporate sponsors to media officials threatening retaliation if not granted on-air reply time.

The powerful can also work on the media indirectly by:

• Complaints delivered en masse to their own constituencies (e.g., stockholders, employees) about media bias,
• Generation of mass advertising that does the same,
  By funding watchdog groups or think tanks engineered to expose and attack deviations in media coverage that endanger vital elite interests.
• By funding political campaigns that elect politicians who will be more willing to curb any such media deviations.

Anti-Ideologies

A final filter is anti-ideology. Anti-ideologies exploit public fear and hatred of groups that pose a potential threat, either real, exaggerated, or imagined. Communism once posed the primary threat according to the model. Communism and socialism were portrayed by their detractors as endangering freedoms of speech, movement, press, etc. They argue that such a portrayal was often used as a means to silence voices critical of elite interests.

With the Soviet Union's collapse, proponents of the propaganda model have argued that the functionality and credibility of anti-communism has been fundamentally compromised. Proponents state that new, more functional anathemas have arisen to take its place. Chomsky and Herman argue that one possible replacement for anti-communism seems to have emerged in the form of "anti-terrorism".

I would assert that to an extent social networking and the Read/Write Web has provided a means to enable people to circumvent the traditional filters of information dissemination. I would suggest that attempts to discredit the Obama campaign largely failed (or in some cases even rebounded on the proponents of the flak) due to the availability of information through channels other than the national and local broadcasters and print media, for example.

However, we must ensure our enthusiasm for the seemingly democratic nature of social media is tempered with rational analysis and reflection. In the previous paragraph I said that the RWW negated the five filters "to an extent" because much (but certainly not all) of the information distributed over the channels originated from the Democrat's campaign, and as such must be assessed as adhering to their agenda, to achieve their goals. In this context then, consumers of content would be well-advised to apply the same level of critical thinking to social media channels as to the traditional media.

______________________

References:

Buzz News [Internet] Available from: http://www.culture-buzz.com/blog/Top-5-Barack-Obama-s-Viral-Marketing-1875.html
Accessed 12 November 2008

Herman, E.S., Chomsky, N (2002). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon Books.

Manufacturing dissent: Noam Chomsky and the crisis of the Western Left. [Internet] Available from: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Manufacturing+dissent:+Noam+Chomsky+and+the+crisis+of+the+Western...-a0127013020 Accessed 12 November 2008

Wikipedia contributors, "Propaganda model" Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model Accessed November 6, 2008.

Social Software: the Runtime Effect

In yesterday’s post I alluded to the idea that Barack Obama’s recent US Presidential Election win could, in no small part, be attributed to his effective utilization of social media, including the use of tools and technologies like YouTube, Facebook, blogs, and even PayPal (and other online payment solutions). Citing James Surowiecki’s 2004 text The Wisdom of Crowds, I indicated the characteristics of crowd wisdom, and outlined the four criteria that separate wise crowds from irrational ones.

Social networking guru Clay Shirky describes the phenomenon of group dynamics mediated through Web 2.0 technologies as a “Run-time effect:”

You cannot specify in advance what the group will do, and so you can't substantiate in software everything you expect to have happen… [but social patterns emerge] that …are core to any software that supports larger, long-lived groups.

…there's this very complicated moment of a group coming together, where enough individuals, for whatever reason, sort of agree that something worthwhile is happening, and the decision they make at that moment is: This is good and must be protected. And at that moment, even if it's subconscious, you start getting group effects. And the effects that we've seen come up over and over and over again in online communities.

I would assert that this is the group run-time effect that was leveraged by the US Democratic Party, and that ultimately galvanized such a substantial number of voters to become involved in the democratic process. Shirky describes a number of ways in which these social patterns manifest themselves including:

Table 1 Run-time effects of groups

Pattern	Characteristics	Example
Identification of enemies	The identification and vilification of external enemies as a driver for group cohesion	The Open Source movement in the mid-Nineties versus Microsoft, as personified by Bill Gates
Veneration	The nomination and worship of an icon or a set of tenets. The pattern is, essentially, we have nominated something that's beyond critique	Negatively criticizing Lord of the Rings on a Tolkien newsgroup or discussion forum

These group patterns emerge on the Internet, not because of the software, but because it's being used by people.

An Idea whose Time has Come

I would suggest that one of the primary reasons that social networking software played such a significant role in the 2008 US Presidential Election was precisely because of the nebulousness and loose structure of the read / write Web. But before we can look at this, it’s worthwhile to understand the role of traditional media in distributing information. As I’m not a broadcast media expert, I will investigate this through the filter of Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s Propaganda Model.*

First presented in their 1988 book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, the "Propaganda model" views the private media as businesses selling a non-media product — readers and demographic groups — to other businesses (advertisers). The theory postulates five general classes of "filters" that determine the type of news that is presented in news media. These five filters are:

1. Ownership of the medium
2. Medium's funding sources
3. Sourcing
4. Flak
5. Anti-communist ideology

I would strongly argue for the position espoused by Herman & Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent that as mass media news outlets are run by large corporations, they are under the same competitive pressures as other businesses. According to the authors, the pressure to create a stable, profitable business invariably distorts the kinds of news items reported, as well as the manner and emphasis in which they are reported. This does not occur as a consequence of market selection: those businesses who happen to favor profits over news quality tend to survive, while those that present a more accurate picture of the world tend to become marginalized. In a nutshell, the Republicans had the politically conservative Fox News to deliver their campaign messages (reflecting the vested interests of powerful lobby groups, trans-national corporations, and the military-industrial complex in maintaining the status quo).

However, ranged against this (probably for the first time in history) was the availability of an alternative set of media channels to disseminate information combined with a new generation of voters familiar and comfortable with the media supported by the Internet.

And that’s what I’ll look at next time.

_________________

References:

Herman, E.S., Chomsky, N (2002). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon Books.

Shirky, C. (2003). A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy. A speech at ETech, April, 2003. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html Retrieved 14 October 2008.

Surowiecki J. (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations. Doubleday.

* …and yes, I’m aware of, and entitled to my own biases – IMFB

--

Collective Knowledge and the Wisdom of Crowds

Today, I’m minded to discuss the concept of the effect of information-sharing on the collective consciousness and individual decision-making (and yes, friends, this series of posts will probably allude to the use of social software in the success of Barak Obama’s recent US Presidential election campaign, and maybe even a little about how we can leverage social software technologies for e-learning).

Now read on…

In his seminal 2004 book The Wisdom of Crowds, James Surowiecki discussed the aggregation of information in groups, resulting in decisions that, he asserts, are often better than choices that could have been made by any individual member of a group. The author suggests that typically people look for what he calls the “single decision-maker;” an acknowledged expert who uses their judgment to provide solutions or answers, whereas the better strategy is probably to look for “as diverse and wide a pool of decision-makers as [possible].”

Table 1 Characteristics of crowd wisdom

Cognition	Market judgment, which Surowiecki argues can be much faster, more reliable, and less subject to political forces than the deliberations of experts or expert committees.
Coordination	Common understanding within a culture allows remarkably accurate judgments about specific reactions of other members of the culture. For example, knowing the Rules of the Road has the benefit of optimizing traffic flows.
Cooperation	How groups of people can form networks of trust without a central system controlling their behavior or directly enforcing their compliance.

However, we know that not all groups are wise. Consider, for example, violent mobs, investors in stock market bubbles, or property developers in Ireland in the second half of this decade. According to Surowiecki, four criteria separate wise crowds from irrational ones:

• Diversity of opinion
  • Each person should have private information even if it's just an eccentric interpretation of the known facts.
• Independence
  • People's opinions aren't determined by the opinions of those around them.
• Decentralization
  • People are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge.
• Aggregation
  • Some mechanism exists for turning private judgments into a collective decision.

Clay Shirky (2003) asserts that there was no real means for any group to meet these four criteria until the emergence of social software:

Prior to the Internet, the last technology that had any real effect on the way people sat down and talked together was the table. There was no technological mediation for group conversations. The closest we got was the conference call, which never really worked right -- "Hello? Do I push this button now? Oh, shoot, I just hung up." It's not easy to set up a conference call, but it's very easy to email five of your friends and say "Hey, where are we going for pizza?" So ridiculously easy group forming is really news.

It can be said that e-mail, blogs, wikis and so on are not social per se: Shirky considers that these technologies enable other communications channels including broadcasting (spam), one-to-one (SMS texting), and one-to-many (blogs), as much as collaborative interaction. More accurately, network-based internet technologies are not necessarily social, but they can support social patterns.

More…

_________________

References:

Shirky, C. (2003). A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy. A speech at ETech, April, 2003. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html Retrieved 14 October 2008.

Surowiecki J. (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations. Doubleday.

ADDIE, and the Systems Approach: a Critical Analysis

In yesterday's post I looked at a systems approach to instructional design and development, and suggested that this approach was an emergent property of the process whereby instructor-led courseware developers in the 1990's attempted to apply previously-effective training development techniques to the new domain of e-learning.

As an example, I looked at the ADDIE design appraoch and suggested that it could be characterized as a set of heuristics (or conceptual framework) to enable learning professionals to output content commensurate with the systems approach.

Now read on...

In this context, we can say that ADDIE will only deliver results consistent with the expertise of the content designer, as it relies on their (the designers') skills and experience in transferring information and knowledge to "deliver" learning to the recipient. In E-Learning Strategies: how to get implementation and delivery right first time, Don Morrison remarks that

...like many ISD models it fails to give clear guidance about what makes good learning content. You can follow ADDIE to the letter and still deliver mediocre content.

(2004, p.255)

It can be said that ADDIE (and similar systems' approaches to learning content development) are closer in philosophy and practice to a project management methodology than a pedagogy. In this respect they can be a useful approach when developing "one-shot" training content in environments where repetitive worker activities are the norm.

Take this scenario as an example:

1. Production workers have just started using the new WidgetMaker 300-0 tool: it can create 3o widgets per hour.
2. As it's operating principles are very similar to the the older WM 299-8 (20 widgets per hour) model, the organization decides that workers only need a 2-day familiarization course before beginning production with the new tool.
3. A new production target (30 WPH) is set for workers to reflect the increased efficiency of the tool.
4. After three months, production is still 5WPH short of target. It turns out that workers are using the old production process on the new machine, and with the expectation of attaining 30WPH are actually working harder than ever, but are still 50% short of the difference between the new and old hourly production rate. Much disgruntlement all round.
5. It seems that there's an extra gadget on the handle of the WM300-0 that nobody noticed because of the cursory nature of the 2-day familiarization course.
   
6. Time for some training...

Table 1 Systems Approach Methodology applied to learning intervention

ISD Process Phase	Systems Inputs
	People
Analyze	Organization sees deficiency in workers skill-base or competency set (causes lower productivity from the new widget-making tool, the WidgetMaker 300-0, than had been planned)
	Material
Design / Develop	Two-day delta training developed
	Technology
Implement	Training on new process delivered to learners
	Time
Implement	ILT / WBT course delivered (Learners taken out of productive work to take training)
Evaluate	Workers complete certification on tool
	Outputs
Outputs	Workers' productivity increased	Delta training integrated into updated operators' training program

As this example illustrates, treating learning like a project leads to "training outcomes" equivalent to project deliverables. While these training deliverables may have value in and of themselves, they have limited value for workers in the longer term. We could even say that the outputs are valid; workers have increased productivity and the next training course will have extra content to address the issue of lack of competency on the WidgetMaker 300-0. The efficiency of the system has been improved, and future trainees on the WidgetMaker 300-0 will not experience the productivity "hit" experienced by their colleagues. From a project perspective, it makes sense to fold the delta training into the course for the tool.

• There are a number of negative consequence associated this approach
• The delta training no longer exists as a discrete knowledge asset for the organization
• Over time, specific knowledge of that particular learning intervention will be lost, half hidden among the overall learning goals of the WidgetMaker 300-0. Useless in effect, should another learner require remediation on that particular aspect of the tool
• Without this discrete knowledge resource at workers' disposal, the only way to remediate their specific deficiencies on the tool is to require them to re-take the complete How to use the WidgetMaker 300-0 course. Again.

Our field of educational communications is founded on the premise that communicating content to students will result in learning. In educational communications, information or intelligence (in many different forms) is encoded visually or verbally in the symbols systems employed by each technology. During the "instructional" process, learners perceive the messages encoded in the medium and sometimes "interact" with the technology. Interaction is normally operationalized in terms of student input to the technology, which triggers some form of answer judging and response from the technology in the form of some previously encoded (canned) message. Technologies as conveyors of information have been used for centuries to "teach" students by presenting prescribed information to them which they are obligated to "learn."

(Jonassen, 2001)

Rather, Jonassen argues technology (and in particular so-called Read/Write Web technology) should enable learners to develop their skills in a constructivist learning environment (or CLE).

As a quick reminder, here's the Cliff Notes version of Constructivism:

• We construct our own understanding of the world we live in
• Knowledge not received from outside, but by fitting new information together with what we already know we construct knowledge in our head
• Learning is the process of adjusting our mental models to accommodate new experiences
• Constructivist theorists support that people learn best when they actively construct their own understanding

With this in mind (no pun intended. Well... maybe), we'll be looking at CLEs tomorrow.

____________________________

References:

Exclusive Interview with Professor David Jonassen (2001) IN: elearningpost [Internet] Available from: http://www.elearningpost.com/articles/archives/
exclusive_interview_with_professor_david_jonassen [Accessed 12th January 2007]

Morrison, D. (2004) E-Learning Strategies: how to get implementation and delivery right first time Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

--

E-learning ecosystems and the failure of ADDIE

Onwards with our investigation of the e-learning ecosystem and learning & development in organizations. Today's post looks at the similarly-sounding but fundamentally different Systems Approach to instructional design and learning, and why the doubtful provenance of ADDIE combined with a misunderstanding of the role of content delivery channels have failed a generation of e-learners.

Now read on...

I have suggested that a growing number of researchers and learning professionals (Dillon & Hallett, Jonassen, Rosenberg etc) are recognizing the negative affect of what Brown, Collins, & Duguid (1989) call the "breach between learning and use" (p.1) of training interventions in organizations. We have seen that both instructor-led and 'traditional' self-paced learning courseware are relatively limited in their application, and are most effective in a restricted range of circumstances. Brown, Collins, & Duguid elaborate:

Many teaching practices implicitly assume that conceptual knowledge can be abstracted from the situations in which it is learned and used. [The authors] argue that this assumption inevitably limits the effectiveness of such practices. Drawing on recent research into cognition as it is manifest in everyday activity, the authors argue that knowledge is situated, being in part a product of the activity, context, and culture in which it is developed and used.

(p.1)

To meet these conditions, we can say that it is appropriate to adapt both pedagogical approaches and the technology resources now available to enhance learners performance.

Marc J. Rosenberg concurs:

Although e-learning began as a new way to deliver training, it cannot remain that way because it is no longer able to adequately support all the learning needs of individuals and organizations by itself - if it every was. E-learning has moved in a new, somewhat unanticipated direction that is not always reminiscent of an instructional framework. To be more influential, e-learning must be reinvented. While continuing to provide a viable instructional option in a formal learning setting, it must also move toward informational and collaborative solutions that focus more prominently on the specific jobs people do. It must move beyond courseware and classrooms and into work. To reinvent e-learning is, in many ways, to reinvent learning itself.

In essence, this means transforming workplace learning, so that learning activities and resources are situated around the learner, their work environment, and their tasks, enabling learners to construct their own knowledge in the context of what resources they need to carry out their work effectively. As David Jonassen says:

In constructivist learning environments, technologies are used to situate learning tasks in a variety of contexts. With video, very rich and engaging contexts can be created.

He asserts that in the traditional organizational approach that

[u]nfortunately, most e-learning replicates the worst features of face-to-face instruction. So, it may be cheaper to "deliver" knowledge over the Internet, but it will not be more effective.

This is commonly known as the systems-based approach to instructional design & development (ISD). A system is a set of elements or components that must integrate to perform a specific function. Every job in an organization is used by the organizational ecosystem to produce a product or output. The product or output is the means by which a organization generates its assets and remains self-supporting.

There are four inputs necessary in every system to produce a product or output:

• People: The workers making up a group and linked by a common activity.
• Material: The raw products which go into the system.
• Technology: The technique for achieving a practical purpose or goal.
• Time: The measured period during which an action or process begins and ends.

In learning and development, this systems-based approach is epitomized by the ADDIE conceptual framework (see Figure 1), most notably refined by Dick & Carey in The Systematic Design of Instruction (1996).

Figure 1. The ADDIE ISD Heuristic

The ADDIE approach has been one of the core tenets of instructional design for the best part of two decades, but curiously, it may not exist! In his article In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Model (2003), Michael Molenda undertook a Livingstonian attempt to discover the source for the original reference to the ADDIE model. Molenda’s research uncovered no original reference for the ADDIE model. This lack of an original reference led Molenda to write,

I am satisfied at this point to conclude that the ADDIE Model is merely a colloquial term used to describe a systematic approach to instructional development, virtually synonymous with instructional systems development (ISD). The label seems not to have a single author, but rather to have evolved informally through oral tradition. There is no original, fully elaborated model, just an umbrella term that refers to a family of models that share a common underlying structure.

(p.1)

Hence my suggestion above that ADDIE is more properly labeled a conceptual framework; I would go so far as to say that it could even more accurately be described as a set of heuristics or "rules of thumb" to enable instructional designers from a instructor-led tradition to develop learning content by adhering to the precepts of the systems approach (see Table 1).

Table 1 The ADDIE Model

Phase	Activity
Analysis	During analysis, the designer identifies the learning problem, the goals and objectives, the audience’s needs, existing knowledge, and any other relevant characteristics. Analysis also considers the learning environment, any constraints, the delivery options, and the timeline for the project.
Design	A systematic process of specifying learning objectives. Detailed storyboards and prototypes are often made, and the look and feel, graphic design, user-interface and content is determined at the Design stage.
Development	The actual creation (production) of the content and learning materials based on specifications instantiated during the Design phase.
Implementation	During implementation, the plan is put into action and a procedure for training the learner and teacher is developed. Materials are delivered or distributed to the student group. After delivery, the effectiveness of the training materials is evaluated.
Evaluation	This phase consists of (1) formative and (2) summative evaluation. 1. Formative evaluation is present in each stage of the ADDIE process. 2. Summative evaluation consists of tests designed for criterion-related referenced items and providing opportunities for feedback from the users. Once they have undergone formative and summative evaluation, learners are encouraged to review and revise the courseware as necessary, until they have successfully passed the proscribed tests

The transactional nature of the systems approach assumes that the very act of communicating information to the supplicant (sorry, learner) results in the output of "learning."

Adhering to this content development methodology, instructors consider that the channels used to "deliver" knowledge are cognitively neutral and merely replicate and modalities of the classroom - voice-over narration equating to instructor explanation, the screen being equivalent to the overhead projector or blackboard, computer-mediated interaction being the essentially the same as teacher-student interaction, and so on.

By balancing the cognitive load across the learning modalities, it is supposed that knowledge can be effectively delivered, and the student will "learn." A corollory of this is that the learning delivery channels (visual, audial, text-based, and so forth) themselves have no affect upon the learner's interpretation of the content, so to all intents and purposes, the "sage on the stage" transforms into the "guide by the side."

_____________________

References:

Brown, J. S. Collins, C. & Duguid, P. (1989) Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning [Internet] Educational Researcher 18(1), pp. 32-42, Jan-Feb 1989. Available from: http://tiger.coe.missouri.edu/%7Ejonassen/courses/CLE/index.html [Accessed January 12th 2007]

Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1996). The Systematic Design of Instruction (4th Ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

Dillon, P. & Hallett, C. (2001, October). Powering the leap to maturity: The eLearning ecosystem. Cisco Systems white paper.

Exclusive Interview with Professor David Jonassen (2001) IN: elearningpost [Internet] Available from: http://www.elearningpost.com/articles/archives/
exclusive_interview_with_professor_david_jonassen [Accessed 12th January 2007]

Molenda, M. (2003). In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Model. [Internet] Available from: http://www.indiana.edu/~molpage/
In%20Search%20of%20Elusive%20ADDIE.pdf Accessed 12 May 2008

Rosenberg, M.J. (2001) What Lies Beyond E-Learning? learningcircuits.org e-zine [Internet] Available from: http://www.learningcircuits.org/2006/March/rosenberg.htm Accessed 14th April 2007

--

The E-learning Ecosystem in organizations

In the previous E-Learning Curve Blog entry on this topic 'adapting to knowledge workers learning needs in organizations,' I made a case for the benefits of e-learning as a means to providing workers with the appropriate and relevant learning interventions as they progress from neophyte to mastery of their particular skills, experience and expertise.

By adapting the well-known learning curve, I developed a conceptual model that maps Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning Objectives to learner requirements as they progress along the curve (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Learning Curve model aligning Bloom's Taxonomy and components of the E-learning Ecosystem

In today's blog post, I'll look at preconditions for introducing learning modalities to this model.

Now read on.

There are two components involved in investigating this aspect of e-learning as a means to enhance knowledge worker performance:

1. E-learning tools and technologies
2. Applying effective learning modalities to learning requirements

E-learning tools and technologies

In their influential white paper Powering the leap to maturity: The eLearning ecosystem, Dillon & Hallet define the concept of the "E-learning EcoSystem." The authors assert that a "blended approach" where instructor-led resources are deployed at the earliest stages of a learner's development, and increasingly, e-learning solutions are implemented as the learner develops.

With Web-based training, as with its manual counterpart in the classroom, the zone of applicability is actually quite limited. The only time it makes sense to pull workers off their jobs for training is limited precisely to those times when no other alternative will suffice. Off the- job forms of training make good business sense only when workers are at the bottom of the learning curve and are not yet equipped to perform at any acceptable level of competence.

(p.19)

Through "pervasive connectivity" (p.19), characterized by the growth of deployment of corporate portals and intranets, as well as learning support technologies such as content management systems and knowledgebases, and is the foundation for their e-learning ecosystem. In my view, the choice of terminology that the authors use is interesting; by employing the term ecosystem -

a system whose members benefit from each other's participation via symbiotic relationships... It is a term that originated from biology, and refers to self-sustaining systems,

(LearnThat.com)

they imply that the nature (no pun intended) of organizations parallels complex natural systems. Similarly, a functioning learning ecosphere holistically supports a diverse range of learning modalities which enable the learner to thrive in the corporate environment.

As workers move up the e-learning curve, they quickly leave the relative isolation of pure asynchronous courseware. Initially, they enter the more richly supported environment of the online university, backed by an enterprise-level learning management system.

(p.20)

Progressing along the curve, the authors note the introduction of just-in-time forms of learning content delivery.

As we move even further up the e-learning curve we encounter yet another interesting revelation. Most of the learning technologies at this end of the curve are not generally recognized as “learning” technologies at all. Rather, such items as collaboration tools and intelligent search are more typically thought of as knowledge management technologies. Deploying and utilizing these types of tools are what differentiates an employee from a “performer.”

(pp. 20-21)

Having characterised the e-learning ecosystem, Dillon & Hallet define the components of it:

• Web-base training
• Online university
• Learning Objects
• Electronic Performance Support Systems
• Collaboration
• Intelligent Search

As they suggest, these components "put the 'system' in ecosystem" - a statement that I would suggest is doubly true: by describing the technologies (and to a lesser extent on technology and learning solutions vendors) in their white paper, they neglect to lend appropriate weight to how these systems are implemented.

More.

FÓGRA: Malinka Ivanova of the Technical University in Sofia has an interesting perspective on this topic. Click here to find out more.
_____________________

References:

Definition of "Ecosystem." Learnthat.com. [Internet] Available from: http://www.learnthat.com/define/view.asp?id=302 Accessed 30 May 2008.

Dillon, P. & Hallett, C. (2001, October). Powering the leap to maturity: The eLearning ecosystem. Cisco Systems white paper.

--