E-Learning Authoring Tools Characterized

E-Learning authoring tools are part of a larger organizational infrastructure and learning ecosystem which typically includes hardware, software, content delivery mechanisms, and processes that support the delivery and management of learning programs. This includes everything from hardware such as servers and workers’ desktop computers, software such as learning management systems (LMSs) and authoring applications, delivery mechanisms such as routers and network wiring, and services and processes such as systems administration and the help desk.

Broadly speaking, an authoring tool is a software package which developers use to create and package content for delivery to end users.

More specifically, e-learning authoring tools enable trainers to integrate an array of media to create professional, engaging, interactive training content, and make use of digitized media assets, as well as learning objects from an existing course for reuse in a new one.

Typically, e-learning content developers integrate digital media including:

• Text
• Images
• Animations
• Audio
• Video

…to create e-learning content and courseware.

Since the term 'authoring tool' is somewhat non-specific, many programs can be considered authoring tools, including web editors like Dreamweaver, Flash, PowerPoint and even content platforms like Adobe Connect provide the facility to create learning content.

In 2003 Bill and Katherine Horton (E-learning Tools and Technologies, p.278) further refined this description and categorized the different types of tools into five domains of application (see Table 1) based upon the output that the tools are used to generate.

Table 1 Categories of Authoring Tools

Category	Description
Course Authoring Tools	Expressly designed for creating e-learning. Such tools simplify the process of implementing instructional strategies, creating menus and navigation schemes, and authoring pages—without extensive technical knowledge.
Web Site Authoring Tools	Used in creating mark-up language (i.e. HTML, XML) for web pages, and linking them to produce entire websites. Such sites include courses, or material associated with courses. By including scripting, dynamic display effects, and connections to databases, these tools can create interactive e-learning content.
Testing and Assessment Tools	Used to create and manage assessments. These tools create true-false, multiple-choice, short-answer, text-entry, matching-lists, and other kinds of computer-scored tests. Some facilitate performance tracking and the ability to generate learner-related metrics and related reports.
Media Editors	Used for creating, editing, and "Web-readying" digital images, icons, photographs, animations, sounds, video, and other digital media used in e-learning
Content Conversion Tools	Used for transforming documents, presentations, graphics, audio, video, and other content to formats that can be used in e-learning and on the Web.
Web 2.0 Tools*	Used to facilitate communication, information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design, and collaboration on the Web. It has led to the development and evolution of web-based communities, hosted services, and web applications. Includes social-networking sites, video-sharing sites, wikis, blogs, mashups and folksonomies.

Looking at Table 1, you'll see that I’ve asterisked the bottom category; it's a testament to the evolution of web technologies over the six short years since Horton & Horton’s text was published, a whole new category of authoring tools has emerged, so in my view it's justified to add this Read/Write Web (or Web 2.0) tools category to their list.

Significantly, the lines between applications specialized for learning, and applications intended for other uses have blurred. In addition to using traditional e-learning packages, learning professionals and organizations are engaging with the concept of using using more generally available communication media such as synchronous web conferencing, instant messaging, mobile devices, video conferencing,online documents (and document collaboration), application sharing, knowledge management tools, and e-mail for training.

These technologies can be used as stand-alone substitutes for traditional e-learning software, or to complement other learning channels and modalities. The advantage of using these types of tools is that support the ways the people in every organization and in every training situation already share knowledge: they have conversations, make presentations, perform demonstrations, make conference calls, and give lectures.

More...

___________

References:

Horton, W., and Horton, K. (2003). E-learning Tools and Technologies: A consumer's guide for trainers, teachers, educators, and instructional designers, Wiley Publishing, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana.

--

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]
--

Shiny new technologies used by dusty old professions

I hadn't planned on blogging about informal learning today, but an article in Irish e-zine Silicon Republic interested me, and I thought I'd bring it to you. According to the article Number crunchers find social media a ‘tweet’ surprise, members of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants (CPA) have begun using social media such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn to co-ordinate continuous professional education. The CPA is the educational, representative and regulatory body for over 5000 members and students. The Institute's role is to:

• Regulate CPAs in accordance with the law and the Institute's Code of Ethics in the public interest.
• Ensure that CPAs are constantly up to date in all matters relating to their professional work.
• Maintain the highest levels of educational standards for new entrants to the profession.
• Represent the interests of members where appropriate.

The CPA’s Suzanne Shaw outlined the reason for the emergence of non-formal and informal e-learning technologies in the Institute:

As one of [the bodies] in Ireland that train accountants and regulate them throughout their professional life, our members are predominantly split three ways: practitioners; entrepreneurs; and employees of businesses.

All of them are at the coalface of the current economic climate and many of them use tools like LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook to give one another practical advice about sustaining businesses and planning for a long-term environment. It’s a great way to get information out to people really quickly.

It seems that the CPA members are using Facebook and Twitter to share articles and information to keep each apprised of developments in their domain. Ms. Shaw again:

The beauty of social networking is it enables two-way communication or, if you want, one-to-many communication. The CPA uses it to gauge feedback on courses and products and adjust them accordingly.

One of the benefits of LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter is that they are "ready-made." The CPA's experience is that they can concentrate on the business use of the technology without contributors having to worry about the technology per se. Despite being (by it's very nature) a very traditional organization, the obvious business advantages of using these platforms for information-sharing seems to have eased the transition to using social media. There are a number of core uses of social media for learning in the CPA:

• The CPA recently set up a space on Facebook for new students to get and share information.
• In terms of professional use, with closed LinkedIn forums are used, so information can be kept confidential between members.
• CPA accountants are using Twitter as a way of relaying information or lobbying issues.
• Professional members make use of LinkedIn to keep in touch with each other, as well as business associates.

Interestingly, one of the main drivers of the growth in utilization of social media tools is that accountants' clients are "pushing them to be more involved in online communication" according to Ms. Shaw.

It seems that once members are exposed to Web 2.0 technologies, they adapt their own information-sharing practices to include Twitter and Facebook. Ms. Shaw stated that:

Many share war stories and know-how in the forums. With CPE seminars taking place across the country, people not only meet up but can also keep in touch. Because people have hectic working lives and a home life to balance, they can’t get to every course or seminar, so they ...use these tools to share notes and find out where the next course is taking place. Not every one can make it to the centre of Dublin after a day’s work, so we’ve started uploading video lectures. Students ...are recording podcasts of lectures and sharing on places like Facebook. We estimate about 10% of our 5,500 members and students are using social media for continuous professional education. With Facebook, for example, they are truly engaging with one another. Many use it because they are that generation, others have begun dabbling. It can only grow from here.

Brutus, in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar tells Cassius that

There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune

Act IV, Scene 3.

In a similar vein, I would suggest that there are trends in the uses and the adoption of technology. The current global economic environment as well as the emergence and broad adoption of easy-to-use Read/Write Web tools like Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn in society-at-large are profoundly re-shaping the ways people and organizations communicate.

As we know from Rogers' writings on diffusion of innovation, people’s attitude toward a new technology is a key element in its diffusion. Roger’s Innovation Decision Process theory asserts that innovation diffusion is a process that occurs over time through five stages:

1. Awareness
2. Interest
3. Evaluation
4. Trial
5. Adoption

The final phase of the diffusion process is characterized by large-scale continued use of the idea or technology, and by "satisfaction with" (Diffusion of Innovations, 2003, p.2) the idea. This does not mean that the the individual or organization that has accepted the idea will use it constantly, rather, it means that the diffused idea has been integrated into their schema or metal model as a valuable asset or resource.

Figure 1 Diffusion of Innovation curve
[Click to enlarge]

Individuals or organizations will typically go through these processes at varying speeds, depending on factors ranging from the cost, time, and effort required to implement the diffused concept, the return on the investment, how well it aligns with their previous experience with similar concepts, as well as the complexity of the idea or technology under consideration. By endorsing and supporting a range of well-tested, free-to-use solutions, that are currently very positively received in the public consciousness due to their apparent ability to elect presidents (Obama), overthrow despotic regimes (Obama again for Dubya Iran), and circumvent traditional media channels (Michael Jackson's death). Such momentum is hard to ignore, especially when coupled with the economic imperative of clients demanding access to CPA members' skills via social media.

However, a corollary to the curve described in Figure 1 (above) is the Gartner Hype Lifecycle illustrated in Figure 2 (below).

Figure 2 Generic Gartner Hype Cycle
[Click to enlarge]

I would suggest that Twitter, Facebook etc are well on their way to reaching what Gartner describes as the "Peak of Inflated Expectations" associated with this type of innovation. It remains to be seen if the CPA can take this flood in the tide of technology and progress their non-formal learning initiatives, or if they will be "bound in shallows and in miseries" if they are unable to leverage the potential of this phenomenon. Personally, I'd like to see more evidence of planning and strategy behind their informal learning activities. Based on the information in the article, it looks to me that new learning channels are added in an ad hoc fashion. Nothing wrong with this: 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.

___________

References:

Kennedy, J. (2009). Number crunchers find social media a ‘tweet’ surprise. Silicon Republic. [Internet] 29 June. Available from: http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/13271/ [Accessed 29 June 2009]

Rogers, E. M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.. Simon & Schuster International.

--

TechSmith turns to USERS to help enhance Camtasia

This post is a little off-topic considering that I’m deeply involved in writing a series of articles on the subject of m-learning right now. Nevertheless, I think that it demonstrates the value and power of the read/write web so I’ll plow on.

As you’ll know if you’re a regular reader of the E-Learning Curve Blog, I use a range of content authoring tools to create elearning courseware. Primus inter pares is Camtasia by TechSmith. About two weeks ago, I downloaded and installed the trial version of Camtasia 6, which is a little unusual for me; in the past I have just bought the upgrade as soon as it was released.

This time it was a different: I heard discomfiting rumors over the Net that the functionality profile had changed, specifically that FLV had been replaced with MPEG4 as the asynchronous video streaming format in v6 of the product. As someone who relies on Adobe Connect to deliver much of my content to learners this was not good news, as Connect’s support for MPEG4 isn’t great. With this bit of news in mind, I decided to download the Cam6 trial to evaluate the latest version of the product.

As part of the evaluation experience, TechSmith’s Adam Stevenson contacted me (and a lot of other users no doubt) to ask me to contribute my experiences using the trial version of the product. Info is collected on a daily basis using a simple Google Docs form, and it enables TechSmith to capture users’ experiences with the trial including rants, raves and anything else you want to tell them. I think that this is a very positive (and obvious and sensible) way for software development companies to be connected to their current and potential customer base. In my view, their approach enables the development of a virtuous cycle between user and software provider which has the potential to benefit both parties – and ultimately learners, who should be the focus of our activities.

In the past, my experience has led me to be cynical of “we care a lot” exercises by organizations – sometimes I get the feeling that my well-considered comments end up filed in the circular filing cabinet – you know, the one marked Trash, or worse in electronic limbo at the bottom of someone’s To Do list, never To Be Done.

So what’s different this time?

Check out this post by TechSmith’s Betsy Weber on the removal of FLV:

We've been listening to your feedback on our Forums, through our product feedback form, Twitter, Facebook, and via email. And, one of the things we heard after releasing Camtasia Studio v6 was that you wanted us to put back in support for the FLV video file format.

Well, I'm happy to report that we plan to release an update to Camtasia Studio as soon as possible and we will put back the FLV option. Our goal is to have Camtasia Studio v6.0.2 available to you by March. There will still be support for MPEG-4 in Camtasia Studio as well.

I think that, my friends is what we call a win-win situation.

--

Web 2.0 technologies and learning professionals' opportunities and challenges: LCBBQ July 2008

This month’s Learning Circuit Blog Big Question is should learning professionals be leading the charge in the use of Web 2.0 technologies. More precisely:

• Should workplace learning professionals be leading the charge around these new work literacies?
• Shouldn't they be starting with themselves and helping to develop it throughout the organizations?
• And then shouldn't the learning organization become a driver for the organization?
• And like in the world of libraries don't we need to market ourselves in this capacity?

Should workplace learning professionals be leading the charge around these new work literacies?
The short answer is "Yes, with an if...". Long answer is "No, with a but...". Yes, learning professionals should be at the forefront of orienting and guiding knowledge workers in the use of read / write Web technologies. Knowledge work is, at it's heart, about problem-solving, and knowledge workers are employed to utilize their skills to find solutions to organizational challenges. We can say that knowledge workers are performing at their optimum when they:

• use their deepest skills
• work on many projects at the same time
• know how to allocate their time
• can multiply the results of their efforts through soft factors such as emotional intelligence and trust (Francis Fukuyama, Manuel Castells).

If Web 2.0 technologies enable knowledge workers to undertake these tasks, I believe that it is in the remit of the learning and development arm of knowledge organizations to support this.
However, given that any such learning interventions are undertaken within organizations, there is a corporate responsibility to ensure that any learning initiatives to support learning about Web 2.0 technologies be endorsed by board-level approval of the program with all that entails, which should include

1. recognition for the initiative
2. acknowledgement that it may be difficult to capture metrics on knowledge worker performance enhancement attained through these technologies by more traditional assessment techniques
3. that the learning programs themselves will probably be non- or informal in character, as these Web 2.0 technologies are by their very nature, non- and informal
4. implementing Web 2.0 technologies will probably require substantial investments of time, expertise and capital.

Finding solutions to these challenges is difficult, and many organizations may not understand that this domain is too new to be properly understood at this time.

Shouldn't they be starting with themselves and helping to develop it throughout the organizations?
In my experience, the "throw it over the wall and see where it lands" approach is a non-starter. While learning professionals are typically highly-motivated individuals who expend personal time and effort staying "ahead of the curve" in terms of their own skills and competencies, a "viral approach" to learning in this domain can only have success if the learning professional in question is highly influential within an organization (and probably a C-level executive).

For a "footsoldier" to attempt to modify work practices within a large organization would meet high levels of resistance, particularly from managers who have no desire to change production processes that probably work very well, given the potential disruptions entailed in transitioning to a more collaborative environment.

Shouldn't the learning organization become a driver for the organization?
Most learning professionals would say "Yes", most execs would (probably) say "No."

In my view, organizations function best when the organization's business goals are aligned with their learning goals; ideally the two should support and drive each other. If learning professionals can persuade the executive team that a Learning organization is an Earning organization, then they will usually receive the support to operationalize innovative learning initiatives.

Like in the world of libraries don't we need to market ourselves in this capacity?
Yes, yes, and yes again.

If you are familiar with the 1989 motion picture Field of Dreams, you'll know the mantra of one of the lead characters is "if you build it, they will come."

Yes, if you build it (the learning initiative) they will come.

...But only if they know it's there.

I believe that it is the responsibility of learning professionals both in an individual as well as in a departmental capacity to broadcast what they do and they services they offer at every opportunity. Without resorting to spin, lies, and weasel words, the only way your voice will be heard in the bustle of the marketplace (whether internally within an organization or externally facing) is to "say it loud, and say it proud" about your learning and development offerings and services.

Use what ever resources are at your disposal to do so, and don't forget that as a trainer, you're probably in a position to influence a wider range of individuals in your workplace than those in any other department, except perhaps for Human Resources and ICT.

--

Exciting new online comms and collaboration tools from Adobe

I had planned today to continue my series on organizational learning and e-learning ecosystems, but I have become aware of an interesting new hosted productivity and collaboration suite from Adobe called Acrobat.com, so I thought I'd discuss that today. Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary is known to respond with the acronym "IMFA" (It's My Airline) when others disagree with his decisions, so in the same spirit, IMFB.

Now read on...

Aligning with their stated aim to become a major force in so-called webtop software, Adobe released two new products on Monday: Acrobat.com and Acrobat 9. Product manager Erik Larson has stated that Acrobat.com is another big step towards bringing more desktop-like experiences to the Web.

It is [Adobe's] intent to blur a lot of the lines of the past.

Acrobat.com is a combination of three online services:

• Adobe ConnectNow (a "lite" version of Acrobat Connect 7 for web conferencing and desktop collaboration)
• Adobe Buzzword (and online word processor)
• Adobe Share (online file sharing)

In my view, this represents a serious attempt by Adobe to compete with many of Google's Web 2.0 tools like Google Docs, YouTube and Picasa, as well as solutions like Microsoft Office Live Workspace, WebEx, and GoTo Meeting, usually associated with organizational collaboration.

Buzzword
Buzzword is the default word processor in the suite. it enables multiple collaborators to edit and comment documents. As well as providing a pretty nice WYSIWYG editor, tabs along the bottom of the UI represent the people who have accessed the document most recently, as well as their status (author, reviewer, etc.).

Uniquely for a web-based word processor, Buzzword paginates documents, supports a range of fonts, and lets you generate a pretty good equivalent to a PDF document. However, this is still in beta, so you will likely encounter some frustrations if you are used to creating documents in a desktop environment (i.e. during cut-and-paste operations) and there is no easy way to export a document to a blog or other Web publishing system other than via the previously mentioned cut-and-paste.

However, I have found this to be the case in similar apps such as Windows Live Writer (which I'm using to create this post); the software is still buggy - I'm happy to live with this in a beta app, though some might not be.

Adobe Share
This is a file-sharing application that focuses on document sharing.
You get one gigabyte of free storage, and it enables you to embed a Flash preview of your documents into any Web page (quite similar to FlashPaper). Adobe say that this enables anyone to download and print a PDF of the file (though I have yet to test this myself). I guess that you could describe this tool as 'Flickr on steroids', given Share's facility to make available a range of document types in an environment that those familiar with that tool can easily appreciate.

ConnectNow
I love ConnectNow. I've long been an advocate of online communication and collaboration tools as a powerful solution to the challenges organizations face, particularly if employees work in distributed teams, as well as for hosting training and non-formal learning interventions. I have to declare an interest here: the organization I work for relies heavily on Adobe Connect Pro (currently version 6) for training and informational purposes and I think that it's a great system, not least because it uses the Flash plug-in, so no large player downloads or quirky clients to be installed.



Even in it's cut-down form, making this functionality publicly available is going to be very popular (no more excuses not to talk to the relations in New Zealand!).
ConnectNow allows up to three people have free online meetings, with

• screen sharing
• desktop video
• voice conferencing
• IM-type chat
• white-boarding

Note that significant portions of Connect's functionality have been removed, including the recording facility, as well as the asynchronous meeting playback facility. You can also forget about hosting your on-demand e-learning content on the system, because that's been excised too, though that doesn't mean that you can't use the tool for synchronous learning, such as small-group online mentoring and so on.

Interestingly, ConnectNow (kind of) replicates Connect Pro's ability to integrate with telephone conferencing system via a fee-based toll line (currently only available in some territories like the US, UK, Germany etc). Now that the Flex-based UI uses Adobe Flash 9 rather than Flash 6, the screen looks great - a small thing, but it's attractiveness will certainly enhance users' enjoyment of the product.

Other commentators have suggested that the business model is clearly pay-for-what-you-use:

while right now the service is just a free beta, restrictions on things like file space and number of users will presumably be addressed by monthly subscriptions – moving Adobe from a licensor of desktop software to a web-based software-as-a-service company. We’ve already seen that with Photoshop Express, and with Acrobat.com, Adobe now has all of their major applications available in a Web-based version too.

I would assert that while this may be the plan at the moment, the ubiquity of other free-to-use applications (not to mention the competition in this increasingly hot marketspace) will force Adobe to either make these tools available gratis or include so many extra features to entice paying users that Acrobat.com will becomes a professional-level hosted solution, which presumably is not the consumer market that Adobe are attempting to dominate.

--