Informal Workplace Learning: KMs and virtual environments

Concluding our overview of influences which are contributing to the emergence of informal and non-formal learning in the workplace. Yesterday, I discussed three of the five change factors influencing how learning activities are being implemented in the workplace:

1. Blended learning
2. Talent management
3. Web / Learning 2.0
4. Knowledge centers
5. Immersive learning simulations (serious gaming).

Today, I'm going to look at the remaining change factors.

Knowledge Centers
A knowledge center provide a central, just-in-time location for information. It is a single-focused interface with information about a specific topic, like IT applications, sales, or project management. A knowledge center is often a portal or part of the company intranet (like Moodle or SharePoint), or it is the knowledge management component of an LMS like BlackBoard. Knowledge Centers are where information workers go for FAQs, the latest tips, tricks and how-to's, links to external resources, relevant information, and other resources about a specific topic that may not be directly related to a formal course (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 Employees Find Help In A Knowledge Center

Sites must be useful, up-to-date, and responsive to employee needs. An organization must decide on the most important knowledge center topics, create a user-friendly site, and populate it with information. A designated person must be responsible for maintaining the knowledge center portal and identifying new information and material for the site. Survey employees about their needs and provide a feedback box on the site.

Immersive Learning Simulations: Serious Games
Simulations are models of the real world. Add pedagogically sound content, learner interaction and involvement, and a gaming element — all focused on achieving a learning goal — and the result is an immersive learning simulation (ILS).

The challenge is getting the right mix of learning and gaming. Today’s most immersive learning simulations are custom creations from a specialized vendors, and they are more obviously expensive than traditional e-learning content development. Achieving the right balance between the gaming and learning components takes expertise from three professionals: a subject matter expert, an instructional designer, and a game developer, all working closely together.

As more immersive 3D social networking environments like Second Life (2L) become available, serious gaming will become a more common modality for non- and informal learning. There are some problems associated with the environment, however. According to Bill Brandon (2007, p.7)

for typical non-students (employees) sitting through a slide-presentation-and-lecture in Second Life is no more effective (and likely less so) than sitting through the same dog and pony show in a physical space.

With this in mind 2L does have potential; e-learning practitioners can use it to create effective constructivist learning environments. For example, if you have a requirement similar to this for sales training, negotiation skills, diversity training, or any other communication- based skill, Second Life might be all you need. Interactive learning activities (like simulations, immersive learning, and gaming) put employees in virtual yet authentic situations, where they can learn the skills and materials while also making decisions and getting immediate feedback on their choices.

The transformation of workplace learning means that organizations must develop informal learning as a resource for employees. As the younger workforce becomes a more significant part of organizations and moves into management positions, these people will demand different kinds of learning opportunities and tools to get to learning resources quickly.

Figure 2 VLE on 2L

They expect to control much of their own learning, so learning professionals must offer an range of useful up-to-date resources inside and outside the organization for information, knowledge, and training. If employees don’t see these learning resources as part of their organization's talent management and development programs, the chances are that they will move to more progressive companies that will acknowledge their learning and career development needs.

__________________

References:

Brandon, B. (2007) ‘Give Your e-Learning Some (Second) Life: Simulation Made Easy.’ eLearning Guild. [Internet] Available from: http://www.elearningguild.com/articles/abstracts/index.cfm?action=viewonly2&id=246 (subscription required). Accessed 19 March 2009

Schooley, C. (2008) Informal Methods Challenge Corporate Learning [Internet] Available from: http://www.forrester.com Accessed 12 March 2009

--

Informal Workplace Learning: paradigm changes - more

I'm looking at some influences which are contributing to the emergence of informal and non-formal learning in the workplace. In my previous post on this topic, I outlined five change factors:

1. Blended learning
2. Talent management
3. Web / Learning 2.0
4. Knowledge centers
5. Immersive learning simulations (serious gaming).

I will discuss the first three of these today.

Multiple-Channel learning or ‘blended’ learning is not a new learning approach, but it is becoming more common within training programs. Multiple-channel learning uses a range of learning modalities to train learners, as appropriate to the content and the context (see Figure 1). For example, a learning module might include some classroom learning, followed by some self-paced e-learning, with periodic online virtual classroom sessions for discussions. When learners reach a level of competence, they could be assigned mentors who work with them during their on-the-job training period.

Figure 1. Multiple “Blended” Learning Channels

However, no formula exists for a successful multiple-channel learning course. The question that a learning and development professional must ask is,

What instructional blend is going to work best, given the kind of students, the nature of the content, and the skills these people need?

Sometimes blended learning includes just two modalities, like self-paced online learning along with virtual classroom for discussion and interaction. Sometimes a face-to-face component is central, with synchronous and asynchronous instruction, mentoring, or community of practice used for review, collaboration, and support.

Increasingly, employers struggle to attract and retain the best talent. Enter Human Capital Management. Organizations need the ability to seamlessly assess worker competencies and to provide employees with learning experiences that will close knowledge gaps and enhance job performance. Learning doesn’t stand by itself any longer — it’s integral to the other components of human capital management (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. The Four Pillars Of Strategic Human Capital Management

But unified learning and talent management systems don’t necessarily integrate. Many organizations have embedded legacy point solutions for learning, performance, and compensation. These solutions do not integrate well, and this inhibits seamless movement of information. For example, once a manager conducting a performance review identifies one or more employee competency gaps, the manager should then have the ability (through integrated applications) to assign learning directly to an employee learning plan that will help close the gap.

Learning 2.0 is a trend in which employees take more control of their learning and knowledge gathering. They decide what they need, where to go, and how to find information from a variety of resources both inside and outside of their corporate intranet (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Employees Drive Their Own Learning

To facilitate this, workers must have robust tools like expertise location, search, and instant messaging (IM) available to them, and they must know how to make the best use of these tools. A new mind set is required for Learning 2.0 to succeed. Many business leaders (and indeed HR departments) think of learning as classroom courses, even though most are beginning to grudgingly accepted e-learning as appropriate for certain kinds of training. Many people – especially those from a traditionalist or pre-digital era - are still skeptical about the place of informal tools in the work environment. The thinking goes:

Dollars allocated to learning are for formal courses, even though learning after formal college education takes place informally and non-formally.

Worse again, in certain “toxic” workplace environments individual or small group engage in the unsavory activity of empire building - where they attempt to gain control over key projects and initiatives in order to maximize their job security and promotability.

Empire builders hoard credit and prestige for projects, and knowledge-sharing is anathema to them. This approach prevents other people in the organization from contributing in a meaningful manner, and alternative or competing projects to address the project's goals are destroyed regardless of their merit. The outcome of empire building is, inevitably, that the organization suffers as a whole, projects fail, and organizational goals are achieved only partially, inadequately, or not at all. This sort of behavior is very common.

The tender shoots of non-formal learning will inevitably be destroyed by the weeds of empire building. For non- and informal learning initiatives to be implemented successfully, environment of sharing, where employees are expected to share rather than hoard information must be formed.

More...

_________________

References:

Schooley, C. (2008) Informal Methods Challenge Corporate Learning [Internet] Available from: http://www.forrester.com Accessed 12 March 2009

Irish Government to tax learners with "failure fee"

The Irish Government is set to tax learners with a "failure fee" in the budget next week.

Today, a source close to the ‘Grandpa Simpson of Irish Politics’ Minister for Education Batt O'Keeffe TD (yes, that really is his name) announced that the Department intends to tax the corporate sector through a levy on incorrectly answered questions in e-learning evaluations in an effort to generate money for the public purse in response to the deepening global economic crisis.

When questioned further the government source - who did not want to be named for national security reasons - elaborated on this plan, by saying that:

The e-learning sector in Ireland is doing really well, despite the downturn. There are lots of people out there using courseware over and over again, basically for free once they pay their initial fee for the content. We are looking for a way to continue to generate revenue from people every time they use a piece of e-learning. After consulting with experts, we have developed a bold and innovative approach to do this: we are going to charge learners a fee when they answer test questions incorrectly.

The government have already cut primary teacher numbers (making the student-to-teacher ratio the highest in Western Europe), and re-introduced third-level fees for the less well-off.

We are working with a number of prominent Irish e-learning providers to mandate that an extra piece of code called Reactive User Scoring Evaluations (RUSE) will be embedded in all e-learning content that will require the learner - or their company - to sign up with PayPal and the Department of Revenue so that they can be automatically charged a "failure fee" of one cent every time they answer a question wrong.

We are also collaborating with organizations like ADL/SCORM to add a new field to IMS manifest files to help us track this levy, so that when a user submits their test, the data is sent to our database. There seems to be a concern at EU level that this affects Irish citizens' privacy and human rights, but in these tough times we have to put aside such selfish ideas and think of the greater good of the nation.

The source continued:

This has been incorrectly called a stealth tax. It's not. We want everyone to know about it. We see this as an opportunity to monetize a previously untouched area of education, and a great way to motivate people to study even harder and answer correctly on training courses.

Frankly, if people are too stupid to get the answers right, they're too thick to be in a job. We think that we're doing companies a favor by letting them know how many eejits they have in their midst, which is keeping people with real skills out of employment. Based on current worker fail rates, this scheme will also net us about €6 million in the first year, which is a real sweet deal.

An opposition party spokesman stated that

this is typical of the gombeen-man ignorance in this government: everyone knows that this will fall flat on its face, much like the e-voting debacle a few years ago. I don't know, sometimes I just despair of this crowd of wasters. They are truly unfit to hold public office in a modern democracy.

Industry insiders speculate that a move by the government to implement this program, called the Finance Act for Knowledge and Education - or FAKE - will lead to an increase in ‘unsupervised education’ and dangerous 'free-form learning' taking place 'off the grid.'

One particularly gloomy respondent considered that Ireland would see a resurgence of the 'hedge-schools' which emerged during the Penal Laws in the 19th Century. What's worse, it’s the kind of "innovation" that governments internationally will see as a legitimate source of tax revenue in tough times ahead.

If you want to help me stop this disaster before it’s too late, please e-mail the Secretary of the Department of Education, a Ms. Avril O'Fol at afool@deptofed.gov.ie with the e-mail header "Think of the children - stop the madness."

It’s important that you do this today, the first of April 2009, or it will be too late.

Thank you.

______________________

Notes:

A Gombeen Man is a pejorative Hiberno-English term used in Ireland for a shady, small-time "wheeler-dealer" or businessman who is always looking to make a quick profit, often at someone else's expense or through the acceptance of bribes.

An eejit is similarly an offensive term used in Ireland that deliberately insults somebody's intelligence or foresight. An idiot.

--

Informal workplace learning – influences and change factors

Many commentators, including Stern and Sommerlad (1999) assert that informal and non-formal learning

…have acquired visibility and saliency [because they] sit at the juncture of new thinking concerning the nature of learning about new forms of knowledge, about the transformation of the nature of work and about the modern enterprise in a globalized economy

(cited in Fuller & Unwin, 2002, p. 95).

As a concept and set of practices, ‘workplace learning’ has entered a period of political, economic and social transformation. Advances in technology, the demise of manufacturing industries and the growth of service sector industries, have led to changes in the meaning of the ‘workplace’ (for example, home-working (Felstead et al, 2000), working on-the-move (Felstead et al, 2005), ‘flexible’ working (Felstead et al, 1999); concomitantly, the shift towards new, post-industrial style workplace structures and practices,

have led to a new set of concept and practices surrounding ‘workplace learning.’ These include:

• different workplace contexts
• different workplace knowledge-sets
• different workers

to those of the past.

Workplace learning used to occur in the classroom or via online ‘e-training courses.’ While this style of learning is still important for regulatory or compliance training, a strong need is emerging for informal learning that is more closely integrated with employee work. Examples include:

• Some categories of business and technical training
• Procedural learning
• Deeper learning that requires concept development and interaction

Here are some reasons why this shift is happening:

Information / cognitive overload is affecting all workers. We can’t store all the facts, details, and data we need to do our jobs today, and more information is created every year.1 Thus, an important new skill is the ability to search effectively to find the information you need when you need it. It might even be information presented in a course that you took online a year ago.

Immediacy of information is critical in today’s workforce. With today’s fast business pace and emphasis on speed to market, employees may need to access a particular 5-minute piece of learning that will get them to the next step fast.2 This means that learning must come in smaller chunks that are only a click away. It also means that information and learning tend to blur in the work environment.

The Internet generation brings a different work style. The computer-savvy, 20-something ‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2000) are very good at using technology to find what they want. They are impatient and want to access information resources quickly, and they assimilate and connect this information to their work. This workers prefers to drive personal learning, rather than simply receive information from an instructor.

Learning and development professionals need to begin working with lines of business outside of the traditional HR / Training orbit to ensure that the organizations provide a variety of formal and informal learning opportunities for employees. In some cases, the training department within HR organizes both formal and informal learning. In other contexts, HR handles formal learning, and individual lines of business handle the informal learning related to their specific activities (with consultation from learning professionals).

As well as these organizational changes, learning professionals must understand five key emerging trends:

1. Blended learning
2. Talent management
3. Web / Learning 2.0
4. Knowledge centers
5. Immersive learning simulations (serious gaming).

More...

_____________________

References:

Felstead, A. and Jewson, N. (2000) In Work, At Home: Towards an Understanding of Homeworking, London: Routledge.

Felstead, A., Jewson, N. and Walters, S. (2005) Changing Places of Work, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fuller, A. and Unwin, L. (2003) Learning as apprentices in the contemporary UK workplace: creating and managing expansive and restrictive participation, Journal of Education and Work, 16:4, pp. 407-426.

Lee, T. Fuller, A., Ashton, D., Butler, P., Felstead, A., Unwin, L., & Walters, S. (2004) Learning as Work: Teaching and Learning Processes in the Contemporary Work Organisation,
Workplace Learning: Main Themes & Perspectives Learning as Work Research Paper, No. 2.

Prensky, M. (200) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. [Internet] Available from:http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf Accessed 21 October 2007

Stern, A. and Sommerlad, E. (1999) Workplace Learning, Culture and Performance. Institute of personnel and Development, London.

--

Informal and Non-formal Workplace Learning 2

Looking specifically at learning in the workplace, Michael Eraut in Non-formal learning, implicit learning and tacit knowledge (2000) makes a clear distinction between his interpretation of the term ‘non-formal learning’ and what others including Scribner (1988), Conner (2002) and Cross (2003) would call ‘informal learning’ – what Eraut terms ‘incidental learning’ or

the acquisition of knowledge independently of conscious attempts to learn and the absence of explicit knowledge about what was learned’

(Reber, 1993, quoted by Eraut 2000, p.12)

This is, he argues, because most workplace learning takes place outside formal learning contexts, and informal learning carries with it connotations of

so many other features of a situation, such as dress, discourse, behavior, diminution of social differences – that its colloquial application as a descriptor of learning contexts may have little to do with learning per se.

(p.12)

Not only does the term carry unwanted and confusing implications, but it is too vague to be of any real utility. For Eraut, an analysis of learning must focus on activities and the outcomes that that contribute to significant changes in capability or understanding. In a sense, Eraut does not define non-formal learning; rather, he defines the characteristics of formal learning (p.12) as:

1. A prescribed learning framework
2. An organized learning event or package
3. The presence of a designated teacher or trainer
4. The award of a qualification or credit
5. The external specification of outcomes.

The implication of this categorization is that any learning that does not exhibit all of these characteristics should be classed as non-formal. Some reviewers (Colley, Hodkinson & Malcolm, 2002) make the point that Eraut does not make clear what the status is of learning in situations that meet some, but not all, of his ‘formal’ criteria. My interpretation of his characterization is that the very nature of a formal activity -

following or according with established form, custom, or rule

(Merriam-Webster Online, 2007)

validates Eraut’s description.

More…

____________

References:
Colley, Hodkinson, Malcolm (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]
Eraut, M. (2000) Non-formal learning, implicit learning and tacit knowledge, in F. Coffield (Ed) The Necessity of Informal Learning: Policy Press. Bristol

Informal and Non-Formal Workplace Learning

One of the central components of the impact of learning (and specifically the development of information workers’ expertise in organizations) is the context within which the learning takes place. A central pillar of this discussion is the type or format of the learning taking place. In the literature, it is apparent that a dichotomy exists between the paradigms of formal, goal-directed training programs and informal – “learning at the watercooler” (Grebow, 2002) or what Michael Eraut (2000) describes as incidental learning that takes place almost as a side effect of work:

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).

Another complexity in the discussion is where is non-formal learning located in relation to the diametric opposites? For much of the forty years since the term ‘non-formal learning’ was first coined (Coombs, 1968, p.1.) there has been a great deal of debate in the literature as to the nature of formal, informal and non-formal learning; the components of each of the paradigms, their boundaries and their overlaps. The locus of this debate is centered on arguments for “the inherent superiority of one or the other” (Colley, Hodkinson & Malcolm, 2002, p.2).

I support Alan Rogers’ (2004) 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 (see Figure 1) . “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).

Figure 1 the Learning Continuum

Similarly, Hodkinson & Hodkinson argue that focusing on the extent to which learning is planned and intentional may be a way of by-passing the distinction between formal, non-formal and informal altogether.” (Colley, Hodkinson & Malcolm, 2002).

More to follow…

__________

References:
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 F. Coffield (Ed) The Necessity of Informal Learning: Policy Press. Bristol

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.

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]

--

Characteristics of Informal Learning

Changes in the world economy are forcing corporations to rethink how workers learn and to perform effectively. How do people learn? Why? What accounts for the upswing in interest in less formal learning? Does it work?

In the corporate context, learning is about mastering technical and social skills, and product knowledge. The focus is on attaining the skills. knowledge, and expertise required to meet the promise made to the customer.

In an interview in 2005, the estimable Jay Cross articulated a concept that many (including myself) felt was an emerging trend in corporate learning and development:

Well, I had to redefine all learning …because the world is changing so fast. The concepts we had when knowledge was fixed in place, like something you could put in a library, don’t work anymore. So I look at all learning as adaptation to the communities that matter to you, to your ecosystems, if you will. Informal Learning is simply that, which is not directed by an organization or somebody in a control position.

(Interview with Jay Cross: Informal Learning)

The year 2005 heralded the recovery from the Dot-Com Crash in 2001, a year Kevin Kruse has described as one that

...brought the harsh, steep slope of unfulfilled promises. Several high-profile [e-learning] providers shut their doors while many more announced large-scale layoffs in the face of missed revenue targets and crashing stock prices. E-learning advocates retreated to the more defensible ground of "blended learning. This year [went] down as the Trough of Despair.

As a result of this turn-of-the-century disillusionment, a key document on lifelong learning published by the European Commission in the same year went unnoticed by many training professionals. In their 2001 document Communication on Lifelong Learning, the authors Holford, Patulny & Sturgis defined the terms formal, non-formal and informal learning (p.9):

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 formalized 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].

More next time...

___________

References:

Cross, J. (2004) An informal history of eLearning. On the Horizon [Internet] 12(3). pp.103-110. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewPDF.jsp?Filename=html/Output/Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Pdf/2740120301.pdf (Subscription required) Accessed 20th February, 2007

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://farmweb.jrc.cec.eu.int/CRELL/active_citizenship.htm Accessed 25th October, 2006

Kruse, K. (2002) The State of e-Learning: Looking at History with the Technology Hype Cycle. [Internet] Available from: http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/hype1_1.htm [Accessed 12th February 2008]

--

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.

--

Top 10 Tools for Learning: Is Workplace Learning Really Still 1.0?

A fascinating debate has developed around Jane Hart's Top 100 Tools for Learning: The Bamboo Project has responded with a commentary called Looks Like Workplace Learning is Still Web 1.0.

First of all I want to congratulate Jane on the effort she has put in to creating this fantastic resource for learning professionals. Her analysis provides a useful overview of the 'state of the art' in tool use in the learning industry and I would suggest highlights the different, maybe even contrasting demands of workplace learning and learning in formal institutions.

Moreover, Jane has provoked a lively conversation about the two approaches taken by commercial organisations and educational/academic institutions; it's not often that we hear people post phrases like "I'm... frankly bothered" (Michele Martin at The Bamboo Project) in the 'learning professions blogosphere' - maybe not often enough.

I've reproduced the two lists of Top Ten Tools (see Table 1) from C4PT for comparison here.

Table 1 Side-by-side comparison of Top Ten Tools

For workplace learning	For formal education
1. PowerPoint	1. YouTube
2. Audacity	2. flickr
3. Articulate	3. PowerPoint
4. Moodle	4. Wikispaces
5. Snagit	5. Slideshare
6. Captivate	6. Voicethread (Free version I'm guessing)
7. Slideshare	7. Audacity
8. Word	8. Moodle
9. Flash	9. Ning
10. Camtasia	10. Jing

The debate that these lists have provoked can be summarised in these key points:

• Workplaces still use a predominantly Learning 1.0 paradigm
• Jane Hart asserts that her analysis demonstrates that

[content] is formal, traditional (Learning 1.0) approaches (i.e. content-based courses, tutorials, etc).

• This manifests itself through what Michele Martin calls the use of a

"push" mode of learning, pushing content to learners, and are focused on creating more structured, formal learning experiences.

This leads to a more "solitary" learning experience for users in the workplace environment. At an organisational level she maintains, this approach reinforces the notion that this is an objective activity imposed upon passive users, rather than a process of active, ongoing engagement that learners have in terms of their personal development and the knowledge and skills enhancement of their colleagues and organisation.

Interestingly Jane notes that workplace learning professionals, while focusing heavily on commercial tools for the development of formal learning solutions - "seem to be using free tools for their [...] personal use."

Educators and academic institutions,

on the other hand, are making use of more Web 2.0 tools, like YouTube, Flickr, Wikispaces, Ning and Voicethread, all of which invite commenting, content co-creation and interactivity.

• By "embracing" Web 2.0 tools, institution-based educators are "creat[ing] more social, collaborative and informal approaches to learning."

What a great discussion!
Before commenting on any of the above, I have to declare an interest in that I am a workplace learning professional, but I have just completed an MSc in Education & Technology and am familiar (as of 2007) with the use of learning technologies and tools in third level institutions. I also contributed to the C4PT survey in March 2008, and my Top Ten list is a 60:40 split between commercial and open source tools: I use both.

In my view, the debate that I have just briefly summarised represents a number of talking points in the learning community:

1. The differing demands of workplace and formal institution-based learning
2. The resources available to commercial and academic organisations
3. Learners' needs in the workplace and in formal learning institutions
4. Personal philosophy applied to learning

1. The differing demands of workplace and formal institution-based learning

Upon reviewing the two lists, the first thing that struck me was the broad equivalency of functionality across the tools represented in the lists (see Table 2):

Table 2 Equivalency among tools

For workplace learning	For formal education
Audacity -	Audacity
Moodle -	Moodle
Slideshare –	Slideshare
Techsmith Camtasia -	Techsmith Jing (a time-limited and feature "lite" version of Camtasia)
Articulate/Captivate	- Voicethread
Both sets of tools enable the facility to share slideshows through audio, images, videos, or text with others online. Voicethread Free enables a degree of limited commenting.
Articulate/Captivate -	YouTube
Both sets of tools enable the facility to share slideshows through audio, images, videos, or text with others online.

That leaves us with Word, Flash, Ning, Wikispaces, Flickr. Back to these later.

Now read on...

Based on the evidence that 75% of the tools in the two categories enable learning professionals to undertake the same activities, but using different technologies (or in the case of tools like Jing, the same technology, just a "lite" version of a commercially available tool), we can say that learning professionals have more in common than they have separating them.

In this context, the development of training programmes and learning initiatives using commercially available (can I say 'industrial strength'?) authoring tools enables learning professionals to deliver content (hosted on an LMS like Moodle for example) to learners in an efficient and effective manner. Based upon my own experience and the observations of others in this field, I would assert that while there is a element of organisational "push" in delivering content to workers, once learners are aware that content is available for them asynchronously, they will integrate these resources into their own personal development patterns.

From the learning professional's perspective, tools like Flash, Captivate, and Articulate have a number of advantages: they are mature, stable products. They enable the development of content across a range of pedagogical methodologies and production processes. Product licensing ensures that learning and support resources are available if needed.

Similarly, organisations require that content be stored on a LMS/LCMS platform, which means that the content must be interoperable with other learning resources, which means that content adheres to learning specifications like SCORM and AICC. Open source products may or may not adhere to these specifications as closely as commercial products. Certainly platforms like Ning, Wikispaces and Flickr do not meet these requirements; what's interesting is that Moodle does, and it is represented in both Top Ten lists (actually higher in the workplace list). Moodle supports blogs, wikis, and discussion forums - all the aspects of a social-constructivist approach to learning. Again from experience I know that these functions are used in the workplace to support learning as well as to enable workers to interact with each other, share knowledge and develop skills. The popularity of Moodle in both lists also suggests to me is that learning professionals in both camps (as it were) desire a stable, integrated platform to host their learning programmes.

Both Michele and Jane are powerful advocates for lifelong learning using social media tools. However, the reality of the commercial environment is that organisations develop products using proprietary technologies, processes and knowledge. Working in such an environment I will tell you straight that there is no way on God's green earth that I would publish corporate learning content, demos or courseware on anything as unsecure as Ning, YouTube, Flickr or Wikispaces where competitors could, by accident or design, access such content. As an alternative, such materials, as well as blogging, knowledge-sharing and social interaction activities take place 'behind the firewall' using tools like Moodle, SharePoint, Lotus Notes or equivalent enterprise solutions. The reality is that commercial organisations charge customers for learning resources and they are not going to sacrifice being an 'earning organisation' to become a purely 'learning organisation.'

As this is the case, I have to dispute the position that social, collaborative and informal approaches to learning only take place in more academic environments; I would certainly say that such activities are more visible and accessible.

2. The resources available to commercial and academic organisations

Another key differentiator between the commercial and academic environments is that broadly speaking, commercial organisations tend to have more resources (i.e. in-house expertise, large ICT departments, money) at their disposal. Certainly if a company has enough employees to merit implementing network-based learning solutions, they can afford to licence enterprise-level solutions that integrate with their HRM and/or CRM solutions. I would suggest that these systems would not necessarily be in the list of nominations submitted by workplace-based learning professionals in the C4PT survey. I know that when I submitted my top ten, I was conscious of the fact that not everyone reading the list would have access to some of the tools I could have mentioned, so in some cases I omitted choices that would have been there in other circumstances. So, for example, I chose to include Audacity rather than SoundForge - both do the same job equally effectively, but the former is open source while the latter will set you back about $300.

3. Learners' needs in the workplace and in formal learning institutions

The learning needs of knowledge workers are different to those of students in formal learning institutions. Knowledge workers' roles and responsibilities direct the way they plan their activities, execute their tasks, and how they reflect upon their actions once tasks (or components of larger-scale tasks) are complete. Further, knowledge workers (unlike academics, for example) are typically required to apply their skill- and experience assets in real-world situations which exhibit degrees of uncertainty about both the situation itself and the desired outcomes. Much of the real-world job of the knowledge worker is more concerned with problem setting, then problem solving. To move from a problematic situation to an actual problem, the practitioner must “frame the problem: …determine the features to which they will attend, the order they will attempt to impose on the situation, the directions in which they will try to change it. In this process, they identify both the ends to be sought and the means to be employed” (Argyris, C. and Schön, D., Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness 1974, p.165). This requirement plays a role in how learning professionals strategise and implement learning solutions for knowledge workers.

Learners in formal learning institutions acquire knowledge for different purposes and in a different way. The purpose of studying and learning in an academic environment is to explore current knowledge, to research, to explore, to be involved in discursive activities. The goal requires either using a different set of learning methodologies and approaches, and commensurately a different set of tools and technologies, or using the same tools in a different way. I think that both options are represented on the Top Ten List: I have illustrated the equivalencies in the toolset above. But given the purpose of learning in this environment, we can say that there are good reasons why tools including Ning and Wikispaces are represented on the formal educational institution list, as these tools facilitate the types of discourse I have just described.

4. Personal philosophy applied to learning

This category is perhaps the most interesting of all: for this is the heart of the debate. And I chose the word "heart" deliberately. I think that it's fair to say that most people involved in learning care passionately about communicating ideas, concepts, knowledge to others.

What is important is that so many people care enough about how we mediate knowledge and ideas to be motivated spend time and effort to discuss this topic in this forum. In my view, that is the most positive outcome of using these technologies to share ideas.

--

Non-formal Learning in the Workplace

Looking specifically at learning in the workplace, Michael Eraut in Non-formal learning, implicit learning and tacit knowledge (2000) makes a clear distinction between his interpretation of the term ‘non-formal learning’ and what others including Scribner (1988), Conner (2002) and Cross (2003) would call ‘informal learning’ – what Eraut terms ‘incidental learning’ or ‘the acquisition of knowledge independently of conscious attempts to learn and the absence of explicit knowledge about what was learned’ (Reber, 1993, quoted by Eraut 2000, p.12) This is, he argues, because most workplace learning takes place outside formal learning contexts, and informal learning carries with it connotations of “so many other features of a situation, such as dress, discourse, behaviour, diminution of social differences – that its colloquial application as a descriptor of learning contexts may have little to do with learning per se” (p.12). Not only does the term carry unwanted and confusing implications, but it is too vague to be of any real utility. For Eraut, an analysis of learning must focus on activities and the outcomes that that contribute to significant changes in capability or understanding. In a sense, Eraut does not define non-formal learning; rather, he defines the characteristics of formal learning (p.12) as:

1. A prescribed learning framework
2. An organised learning event or package
3. The presence of a designated teacher or trainer
4. The award of a qualification or credit
5. The external specification of outcomes.

The implication of this categorisation is that any learning that does not exhibit all of these characteristics should be classed as non-formal. Some reviewers (Colley, Hodkinson & Malcolm, 2002) make the point that Eraut does not make clear what the status is of learning in situations that meet some, but not all, of his ‘formal’ criteria. My interpretation of his characterisation is that the very nature of a formal activity - “following or according with established form, custom, or rule” (Merriam-Webster Online, 2007) validates Eraut’s description.

Tomorrow: Michael Eraut’s typology of non-formal learning

References:

Colley, Hodkinson, Malcolm (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 2008]

Eraut, M. (2000) Non-formal learning, implicit learning and tacit knowledge, in F. Coffield (Ed) The Necessity of Informal Learning: Policy Press. Bristol

--