eel-learning

The Big Question: How do you spend your time?

This is a response to the question at The Learning Circuits Blog:

What is your typical day like? How do you do all you do with elearning learning, elearning technology, techempower, work literacy and all the consulting and still remain profitable while having a LIFE? Ok, so that is more than one question, but hopefully you get the drift. What are your thoughts here?

Most of the respondents are independent consultants. My position, as a corporate employee, is slightly different. But I’m fortunate enough to be a corporate employee who works at home and one whose role includes R&D and promoting innovation.

The main thing I have to manage is balancing this part of the role with BAU (‘business as usual’) which can include consultancy for elearning projects, script work, coding or, a lot of the time, designing and building websites.  I work across three PCs – my ‘home’ one, a development server for working on, and a locked-down corporate standard issue for getting corporate email.

What I tend to do in a typical day is allow the period 8:30 – 9:30 for reading private email, blogs related to my music and blogs related to elearning. It’s during this time that I’ll blog myself, if I do. I subscribe to a lot of blogs in Google Reader, grouped as elearning, music, ideas, friends and fun.  Some days I let the current carry me more to one, other days to others. If I find something I want to spend more time on – usually something from an elearning blog -  I switch to Google Calendar and look for  half hour slot not too far away to check it out.

No later than 9:30 I boot up the two ‘work’ machines and their separate inboxes (we’re expressly forbidden from amalgamating inboxes or forwarding, so I have to maintain three inboxes, one hidden behind no less than three passwords!). Then it’s into the day which tends to be either development or teleconferences. Being a corpo I feel the ‘duty’ to be available to my colleagues in normal office hours.

At lunchtime I often fit in some exercise, reading, guitar practice or domestic duties, but sometimes it’s just a case of getting a break from the computer seat and returning as quickly as possible.

I rarely allow corporate work to intrude on my evening or weekend (I’m unusual in my team for this and and if any senior management read this I’ll probably be marked down as showing insufficient commitment – tough!) although elearning or software  R&D will sometimes take my curiosity. Evenings I’m often back on the same seat in front of the same desk working on music or idly browsing.

As for the rest of the 2.0 world, I visit Facebook and LinkedIn maybe twice a week at most, and Twitter has pretty much disappeared from my radar.

Hook or hangman?

I’ve been working for the last few weeks on a piece of elearning related to performance management. Although it seemed like the project from Hell when it started – a dozen people to sign it off, certain issues and terminology to be avoided at all costs, no process just the principles and, by the way, here’s the script – it’s turned out to be quite collaborative and my suggestions have been taken seriously throughout.

The first suggestion I made, which has shaped the piece, was to turn it from ‘At the end of this xxxx you will be able to yyyy, now let’s begin with the background’ into a story with four characters whose misguided or informed efforts illustrate the principles being put forward. Not much, but quite a step forward for elearning in this company.

One aspect of it, however, has proved contentious. I chose to begin it with a picture of an unhappy employee, disgruntled because he’d just come out of his annual review being rated down when he thought he’d been doing just fine. Cue principles about regular communication, no surprises etc. The principle being to hook people in with some conflict, some emotional content, before you turn them off with corporate learning blather.

It was reviewed by teams of HR people and ‘ordinary’ people. Several of the HR people protested that it was ‘negative’ to begin with someone looking unhappy. Some wanted him to be balanced by another employee buzzing with delight at having been managed well; others wanted to revert to ‘objectives, then benefits, then overview of the principles’ THEN the story begins. I resisted but in the end had to insert one page of ‘our approach is fantastic’ before ol’ grumpy makes an appearance.

While I can’t be sure, I strongly suspect all the ‘no negatives please’ came from the HR people.  Their background and training, with lots of pop psychology may be combining with a paternalistic attitude to protect the poor staff from anything that might not confirm that they’re working in the best ever business on the face of God’s earth. Maybe I’m being unfair.

The politics involved here have been interesting, but I do feel I’ve made some steps toward reforming the view of elearning here; if the post implementation feedback suggests the users don’t want a negative beginning, then I was wrong. If it’s only HR people, well what do they know? ;-)

While I’m on a rant, when is someone going to make a fortune in istockphoto.com by putting up pictures of the same people with different expressions in different situations, but NOT grinning round a computer or showing off their new dentures in other cringingly staged scenes? Look up ‘angry’ and you get caricature – they’ve almost got steam coming out their ears. We ended up taking our own photos of people in the office. Stock photos look so embarrassingly false, but why do they need to?

The SME test

Another slideshow, this time born out of the experience of working with subject matter experts.  Hope you like it.

The SME Test

View more presentations from normanlamont.

Scroll or paginate?

Having a debate with a colleague about scrolling or pagination, specifically in elearning modules.  I’m a fan of the styles of Cathy Moore or Presentation Zen – as few words as possible making as strong a message as possible. When you’re dealing with subject experts it’s a struggle but one I enjoy engaging in.  When I approached colleagues for their wish list for a new template I’m designing (for page-turners) he said what he wanted was ‘more space to display content’. When I queried it he said there was research – in Australia, he thinks – that concluded users prefer to scroll down to read information than page through many pages of short texts.  I’m wondering if this was specifically research on tutorial-style elearning or was it for reference information (in which case I agree.)

Can anyone point me to the actual research report, or to any useful writing on the subject?

Confused training

I have been drafted into a ‘learning’ project that spans two organisations in our group. Originally I was told my role was just to develop (i.e. code) a finished script for our delivery platform, to match the way it was being developed for the other organisation’s platform, consistency etc etc. When I saw it, I thought it was the brief from hell:

We’re working on the basis of about 6000 words or 45 minutes. The aim is to embed the corporate values in the xxx process without actually training about the process itself – we don’t want anything too specific as process and procedure training will be done separately.

That’s a slight exaggeration but only slight. I tried to do some Action Mapping on what I’d read, but without any details on the process the business goal seemed to be nothing but raising awareness. Well ok, raising awareness it is. But it’s very political – there seem to be about five signoff authorities, at three or four different levels, the top being one person whose mind is reportedly apt to change from day to day. I felt a long holiday coming on. There’s a marketing agency involved? Good, that’ll help. They’re involved AFTER the script has been signed off. Eh? The first draft of the content came to me - ‘At the end of this module you’ll be able to state …’  Sniff, sniff, where’s my cave?

But wait. I got to speak to the person making the script, who turned out to be very open to a different way of looking at it, although nervous about upsetting the signoff tree. I suggested a more dramatic approach, beginning with a character who was angry and rewinding to see how the situation could have been handled differently. We managed to get the marketing agency to meet us earlier, and now have a prototype first section in Powerpoint and the opportunity to pitch this idea to the marketing agency and get their input. I somehow think they’ll be more likely to run with this than ‘At the end of this module …’ and will be able to supply more stories and memorable language. And if an expensive marketing agency likes it the signoff tree might be more willing to support it than if it’s just an idealistic developer?

Generations

I’ve just come across something Brandon Hall researcher Janet Clarey blogged the other week about research into the new ‘received wisdom’ about the different generations and their attitudes to learning, and in particular about how learning should be designed for them,

She concludes that there’s no solid research supporting the contention that learning has to be designed differently for ‘boomers’ and ‘Gen X or Y’; that the digital immigrant/native distinction, while it opened a new window on the situation, shouldn’t be allowed to set up a false dichotomy, and that there are too many factors at work to allow us to say there are ‘generational learning styles’ – factors like workplace culture, one’s stage in life, one’s exposure to technology and other socio-cultural differences.

 

Interactivity - when do we need it?

I've been coaching some trainers who are starting to script elearning and the question has come up about when to include interactivity and when it's not necessary.

First we had to agree on how we'd use the word; I've had people talking about modules saying "we'll include some audio because people like the learning to be interactive." Eh? So I'd say that in this context interactivity doesn't include:

• clicking menus
• clicking headings or images to reveal blocks of text in the order you want them (e.g. click each of the three customers to see their comments)
• click 'next' to continue.

To me these come under 'user control' rather than interactivity. So the 'interactions' that come with Articulate Engage, and many of those that come with Raptivity, aren't interactivity but user control. That's not a criticism of them, but just a distinction I find useful.

Interactivity is activity aimed at processing the information presented in order to

• help chunk it for memory management
• allow self-assessment - have I grasped this?
• keep interest and motivation, for example, by asking questions in the context of a game.

Coming from Computer-Based Training I used to dogmatically think 'interactivity good, simple presentation baaaad', but things like Shift Happens and Cathy Moore's Dump the Drone and Action Mapping show  that a compelling presentation doesn't need - and would be compromised by - gratuitious questions and clicktivities (hey I invented a word!).

So a tentative statement about when it should be used would be:
Is the aim of the learning (a) to raise awareness or (b) to change behaviour?
If it's clearly (a) then interactivity isn't necessary. As with the examples above, good script and good presentation are what's needed.

If it's clearly (b) then some interactivity will help transfer the message to long term memory or changed behaviour (if it's relevant, targetted etc ).

Where it's not clear you could ask the question - will awareness (a) itself lead to behaviour change (b)?  So for example I would expect that in a motivated learner who is hungry for new ideas (like me when I came across Dump the Drone) the awareness was enough of a spark to move toward changes in my behaviour with the subject experts I worked with. If you're sure enough of your audience and of the message, and the message is concise enough not to need further chunking then maybe interactivity isn't necessary. If you're not, then good interactivity (not just user control) will help.

Am I right?

New technology – the threat to our information

I’ve heard it said so many times that social networking is a terrible compliance risk that, well, I finally accept it.

To mark my conversion and try to persuade you, I’ve put together a short presentation:

New technology - the threat to our information

View more presentations from normanlamont. (tags: compliance information)

Sitepoint book offer helps Australian fire victims

A quickie for anyone interested in web design, development and graphics: Sitepoint are offering a PDF download of five books for $29.95 (US), that's about £21. I've used a couple of their books before and they're excellent. The range covers HTML, Javascript, Flash, Photoshop, CSS, PHP, SQL, DOM and lots more, at beginner, intermediate and advanced levels. Five books would normally cost $150.

And they say 100% of the funds will go to help victims of the Australian bush fires.  The offer closes tomorrow (Friday).  It's at http://sale.sitepoint.com

Not taking the plunge (2) - reporting back

I'd written here earlier about the disappointing uptake of the followup forum for a face to face course I'd been on. I set up a poll to find out why it had failed, with not much hope of a response, and said I'd report back on the findings. I say 'findings' as if it's very scientific. Only five of the twelve delegates responded and one of them was me! Here they are for what they're worth. I'll then say what conclusions I draw from the experience and invite you to correct me or add your own observations.

1. Did you intend at the end of the course to take part in any online post-course discussion?
            4 yes 1 no

2. Did you visit the forum in response to the initial invitation?
        5 yes  (so the ones who didn't visit also didn't respond)

3. Did you post anything - action points or just comments - to the forum?
        3 yes 2 no  (I was one of the 3)

4. What were the main things that worked against you taking part in the forum?
        - each of these was a 1-5 scale with 5 being high

        I didn't know how to find it: 3 x 1 (low), 1 x 3 (mid) 1 n/a
        I found it difficult to use: 4 x 1 to 3, 1 n/a
        I don't like online communication: 2 x 1 to 3, 1x 4, 2 n/a
        I don't have time for this kind of followup: 1 x 1, 3 x 3, 1 x 5
        I don't have time for any kind of course followup: same

5. Do you use any of these forms of social learning or networking outside work?
        only two responded, one being me. The other said s/he had used Facebook and Google and had looked up, but not contributed to, Wikipedia. So 3 out of 5 hadn't.

6. An open question:
Finally, what scope do you think there is for this type of forum to be useful in this organisation? What would have made you more likely to use it? What need would a good forum meet for you?

The answers:

I have never used any type of forum. I understand how they could be useful, but tend to contact people direct rather than at an open forum. think it needs to be something people either really need or are really interested in. Although agree that follow up after training is good, it still seems a bit like work - rather than a catch up over coffee when it may come up more naturally.

I think this kind of forum has loads of scope - we are all just not in the habit of using them. As an organisation we always seem to only ever use about 40% of any tools actual functionality. Time pressure is always an issue. If people felt they got something out of it they would do it .... but for that to happen everyone has to be involved and play - so it ends up a catch 22. If I knew that if I had an issue / problem and I posted it on a forum and 3 thought provoking ideas that I had not already considered came back to me - then I would use it. 

1) Great scope as we are all time poor 2) Greater use as a facilitator to team activity in achieving objectives i.e. if we had been set something on the course that we had to achieve as a team 3) Team training & support where team is geographically dispersed 

My conclusions:
Although everyone thought it was a good idea, sharing action points after the course wasn't a good starting topic. Too much exposure and fear of held to account. The other two topics, though, which I seeded with general reflections on the course and questioning the NLP element, didn't receive any comments. Three people did put their action points.

One suggestion that someone outside of this made was that the forum for a course should be for all groups who've ever done the course, not just one, and for the trainer (in this case the trainer was external so that wouldn't have happened.)

If people came to a forum where they could see evidence of discussion going on and questions being answered they'd be more likely to be engaged. It's like nobody wants to be the first, understandably. But how to start it off ?

My suspicion is that the way Sharepoint presents the forum didn't help - it doesn't look anything like the kind of PHP forum people may be used to. For example, the name beside the topic is that of the person who started it, not the last person who posted.

Finally, I think it confirms a lot of the critical opinions you find in elearning circles about face to face training and its poor carry-over into work afterwards. I'm sure the majority of the delegates probably didn't follow up in any way and the extensive folders of handouts are gathering dust. I'm not sure for myself I've reached even the 10% transfer that critics say is normal with formal training. 
        

I hope this is useful to someone and if you think I've missed the point anywhere please point it out. This is definitely part of my learning!