eel-learning

Starting a Community of Practice

I've been working on a Community of Practice for all those involved in any way with online learning across my organisation. Last week saw the startup event, which was very encouraging.

Why a CoP?

We've just been through one of the biggest mergers in UK corporate history. During this we found that there were lots of people with an interest in online learning who didn't know each other.  Some were creators, others regular purchasers from external suppliers. Some relied on 'e' for their formal learning programmes, others were L&D people who wanted - and needed - to understand better the range of media encompassed by 'e'.  I was particularly keen to get talking with the people who regularly buy from outside suppliers as I had a suspicion they could only visualise what they'd seen before - page turning tutorials - and the suppliers would be only too happy to provide the staple diet. Not only were there no standards across the organisation about 'e' but there was no common language even about what online learning was.

My managers and I also realised that we'd only understand social learning by doing, and that this was a golden opportunity to learn about how to set up a CoP by actually doing it.

What form does it take?

There's an online element and a face to face element. The online element consists of a forum, a resources page (with links to top bloggers like Tom Kuhlmann, Charles Jennings and Clive Shepherd) and an internal blog platform. The forum and blog are hosted on our server, external to the firewall. That way we're not forced to use the over-controlled corporate  Sharepoint.  Even then we still have quite strict limitations on the kinds of software we can use, and the ones we've chosen are just enough to get us using these facilities. If the idea catches light, then we'll be in a better position later to discuss better, more dedicated platforms like Yammer. We launched the forum first, with a 'Who Are You?' topic, as part of the build up to last Thursday's launch event, where we attracted over 50 to our conference centre.

There we had a keynote talk from the Director of Learning, who is an iconoclast and a great enthusiast for this sort of thing, from Charles Jennings, opening our minds to the end of the separation of work and learning, and an after-lunch rant from me about the things that set my teeth on edge in elearning. The most important part of the day was a 'knowledge cafe' style discussion, first in small groups then in the larger group on the theme of 'what are we going to do about it, then?'.  To kick this off we had very short introductory statements from three of us (along the lines of 'scrap formal and compliance training', ' don't throw the baby out with the bathwater', ' conversations are more powerful than training ').

I'd been very particular about calling this C of P 'online learning' rather than 'elearning' and the day certainly spent a lot of time talking about knowledge sharing, user generated content and performance support as well as 'traditional' elearning.

The large group conversation brought up a lot of the expected barriers - Group IT and Group Brand being the main ones - but also the encouragement of the Director of Learning to try new ideas, to be willing to experiment and learn from failure, and to enlist his support in the bigger internal battles that we'll meet when we try to extend our role beyond order-taking to consultancy.

I was delighted by the response - both in terms of the numbers that came and the enthusiasm with which they threw themselves into the discussions. And the main objective - that they should simply get to know each other - seemed to have been met. We're now in the crucial phase of not letting it all get beaten by the Return to the Inbox. I'll report back after some time on how it's gone.

 

 

 

A virtual conversation overheard

This is by Gary Platt. It's funny and makes a good argument, but do you think the robot voice helps or hinders the case? Do you listen despite it, because you like the dialogue, or does it make you want to switch off?I've played with this Xtranormal software and while I really like it I can't see it being taken seriously in the workplace. Or maybe I'm underestimating our corporate culture.

Blended Learning - more

I wrote a post on blended learning a month or so ago. Clive Shepherd invited me to speak at last Friday's Elearning Network meeting on blended learning, which I did. As a personal challenge it was quite a step forward as I've never spoken at an elearning conference before, so I proved to myself I could do that.

The gist was much like my previous post - the traditional 'front-loading' of self-study before a face to face event is one way to do it, and the 'traditional' way to many trainers, but it's not the only way. Seeing the face to face event as the launch pad for work using different media is another way (familiar to, for example, OU students) with much to recommend it, but it requires a different role for the trainer.

On the way to the event, however, I was reading a book about the early 20th century shaman Gurdjieff talking about attention, and it prompted me to realise that the asynchronous part of any programme makes a very substantial demand on a person's intention (to follow through over a period of time) and attention (not to be distracted), in ways that are less of a threat in a face to face session. All the more so nowadays, when there seems to be a wide acceptance of the idea of multitasking, despite recent rebuttals, and where we are actively encouraged to have bits of information flying at us all the time from RSS, Twitter, SMS, email etc etc.

So while we can use the online domain in new and creative ways, the competition for the learner's attention is fiercer by virtue of it being online, and the learner may have little idea of the personal discipline needed to manage all this and sustain an aim or good intention over time. It may fall to the trainer to keep it all going with regular prompts, reminders, challenges and tasks, and to the line manager also, with whatever carrots and sticks they can deploy.  It was simpler when you just went on a course and that was that, wasn't it?

My thanks to Clive and the Network for the opportunity to speak and to learn from the other speakers.

My original post
Mark Barthelemy's followup post
Presentations (including mine) from the Elearning Network day

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.

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!

Not taking the plunge: some micro research into 2.0

In my last entry I described a face to face course I went on. At the end everyone was keen on setting up a forum - a facility that's completely new in our organisation, not even 'officially' rolled out. It's Sharepoint 2007. I set one up with three topics:

1. How to use this forum

2. General reflections on the course - what did you think?

3. Your action points - share them and share your progress.

There were ten delegates apart from me. Since the forum was set up, three have shared action points and nobody has posted to any of the other discussions (apart from me venturing some instructions in 1 and opinions in 2). Nobody has set up new topics.

E-Learning Alliance Conference 2008 (1) - changing methods and media

This was a successful event, held at Scottish Widows in Edinburgh. Here are accounts of some of the presentations:

 

Clive Shepherd gave the opening presentation, about the pressures for change in corporate learning. He started by making a distinction between methods and media: methods - role-play, q&a, lecture, reading, coaching etc- haven't really changed since the earliest days of schools. We use the same methods regardless of whether we're online or in the classroom. Media, however, are changing rapidly. In the last five years there have been more choices to make in media than in the last three thousand years. Blended learning in Clive's definition is selecting methods for their effectiveness - will they help learning? - and media for their efficiency - speed, economies of scale etc.

 

Clive then outlined the forces for change in methods - new science, particularly neuroscience (taking a potshot at pop psychology such as learning styles and NLP on the way), new expectations (those of Generations X and Y), cost pressures, time pressures ( a 2005 report said those surveyed suggested 72% of training interventions were time-critical) and environmental pressures, particularly the call to reduce business travel.

 

As for the pressures for change in media, there were new tools:

• the explosion of open source, free and cheap tools and equipment such as broadcast quality digital video recorders
• web 2.0 and the ability to have user-generated content and collaborative working ('Content is no longer king', said Clive, 'Collaboration is.')
• virtual worlds enabling realistic meetings, collaboration and simulation

There are also opportunities afforded by new mobile devices and increased bandwidth.

The biggest barrier to progress in most companies was not finance or IT but L&D departments who cling to old theories of learning, pop psychology and 'the course' as the main paradigm.

Online forum: implementing learning2.0 technologies part 1

I said I'd report on how my questions and reservations were met by this and so I shall.

First a general note about the experience of the forum. This is the third one I've done. The quality of the speakers and presentations has always been pretty good and yesterday's more than kept up the standard. But it's very tiring - although it's morning for the presenters, here it starts at 4:30pm and towards the end of the evening I was wilting, having been sat in front of my screen since 8 in the morning. Nevertheless a lot of things fell into place and and I was given a whole lot of new ideas. During the last talk I even ducked out to create an iGoogle home page for myself (a mixed blessing I think, which I'll write about another time).

Now the talks. I can't do justice to everything they said, just pick out a few points from each that struck home for me.

Creating roleplay scenarios (2) scripting

This is part 2 of my description of the first e-learning scenarios I've worked on.

This is best done face to face with more than one SME, and possibly recent trainees who know the likely mistakes all too well. You have to allow a couple of hours at least for the first one. Later ones may not be so difficult.

The output from this stage is a Word script that shows each question, numbered. For each choice in the question, there will be the number of the question or screen that choice leads to. There will also be a note of any tracking that needs to be done.

Creating roleplay scenarios (1) planning

These two posts are an outline of the procedure I used for creating my first e-learning roleplay scenarios for an internal client.

It’s not the last word on the subject, just a summary of what I’ve learned so far. If it's useful for anyone else, great. If anyone wants to debate any of it, that could be helpful too.

There were three clear stages:

1. planning
2. scripting
3. coding      and prototyping

This isn't about the authoring tool - we used in-house templates consisting of simple HTML and Javascript.