The blind leading the blend?

Today I was asked to speak to a group of management trainers about blended learning. Originally I'd been asked only about what elearning templates we could use, but I tried to open it up to a different view of blended learning.

I started by challenging the assumption that blended means online pre-course work (that usually doesn't get done).

I then suggested that given what we know now about the importance of 'little and often' and of repetition, both to get a message over and to build expertise, that the emphasis should shift from blended as means of preparation for the 'big day' to a view that the face to face bit sets the scene for a programme of workplace based activities as well as followup learning.

The role of the trainer is more like a salesperson or at least sales aftercare, promoting, supporting and keeping in touch after the event. I suggested it might be easier to motivate a group of people who have 'stormed, formed and normed' in a face to face event to continue online than to ask individuals to put time in for pre-work which may or may not be necessary. By putting the focus on followup they could be helping to embed the learning in the workplace. Or so the theory goes - I'm not talking from experience.

This opened up much discussion of forums, blogs and wikis (none of which we have in the company yet) and the trainers' experience of them on development courses they'd taken themselves. Most said they liked the idea but they hadn't worked in their experience. A minority said 'I just don't feel comfortable with using technology that way' but alluded to their kids taking it for granted at school.

At the end of my half hour I felt like I'd clarified for myself what I thought blended learning is about, and had a sympathetic hearing which might support my team's efforts to jump start the introduction of forums at least.

Comments

[Mark Berthelemy]

Hi Norman,

My comment got too long, so I've made it into a post on my blog:

http://www.learningconversations.co.uk/main/index.php/2009/09/30/the-blind-leading-the-blend-a-response?blog=5

Mark

[Dan R]

Norman

Great post that touches on something that I've suspected for quite a while - the role of the trainer is sometimes not so much to impart information as to sell the proposition that a subject is worth investing time in. A classic example is Excel training where, in my limited experience, the trainer often is simply demoing useful tricks and tips that the learners never new existed (so their performance gap was simply a lack of understanding of the art of the possible). So enthused, the learners head off to find other things that Excel can do for them, ie self-directed learning that was always a potential, but just needed unlocking (and is perhaps legitimised by having attended a "course").

But I'm especially interested in your main point as I work for a training provider that runs "big day" training and my remit is to unpick the idea and replace it with something better. Their first perception was summed up by your first picture, but what you move on to outline will provide a neat model to sell my personal take on what needs to be done, closer to where you end up, to colleagues.

Cheers.

[Dan R]

Oh yeah - the reason I started that comment was I wanted to ask if the advert for the Job Aids book by Alison Rossett was a personal recomendation, or just a random Google-placed ad? If it's the former, would it help me in the context of being a third-party training provider, or is it more pitched at internal providers? Thanks in advance.

[Norman]

Hi Dan. It's a book I own and have dipped into a good few times. It gets to grips with what should be learning and what should be a job aid, and also distinguishes between different types of job aid. If part of your job is to advise your customers about what elearning is and isn't, then I'd recommend it to you.