Storm in a teacup

About a year ago, I was facilitating a workshop on e-learning strategy, and I suggested we “brainstormed” the benefits of e-learning. I was surprised when a delegate tut-tutted that I was being politically incorrect – she wasn’t actually offended, she just thought others might regard it as offensive. I vaguely remembered this issue arising before, so I made a point of looking it up after the workshop – first on Google, then on Wikipedia (the first result a Google search yields, as with so many things).

The Wikipedia entry basically slammed the criticism as political correctness gone wild, which pleased me so much, I emailed the info to all the workshop delegates.

This summer, I had a sense of déjà vu when I was facilitating a session for a corporate client, and somebody mentioned brainstorming ...

When I looked up the entry on Wikipedia to send my conclusive (!) email after the session, I was surprised to find a much more balanced consideration of the topic. Basically, the page had been ‘cleaned up’. Now there was a summary of both sides of the debate over whether it was politically correct or not, and a series of references at the end, supporting both cases.

On looking it up for this post, I find the entry has changed again, and once more leans heavily on the side of the pro-brainstormers. “It is an urban myth that the term ‘brainstorm’ is offensive to those people with epilepsy”. References support this conclusion.

This seems to me a good example of how an entry on Wikipedia evolves, and gradually becomes more authoritative. Which is not to say the current version is the definitive one, but then, that’s what the real world is like – the debate moves on, and attitudes change over time. Try picking something controversial and monitoring it over a period of a few months or more – see for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming

Don't be evil

Last night I went to see a stand-up comedian - Frank Skinner - at the Clyde Auditorium in Glasgow. He was talking about Googling words, and stopped to wonder "how do you Google Google?" Not an original piece of comedy, granted, but it prompted me to try it today. Of course, if you Google Google, it just points you to the search engine, although my search yielded 3.4 billion returns, which shows how much we're talking about this phenomenon.

Then I remembered a conversation I had with a client last week (he'll be reading this, so hi, Steven!) when we agreed that the first place we both go to look up stuff now is Wikipedia. So I looked up Google on Wikipedia, and of course, that was much more helpful. For example, I didn't know what the Google slogan was, but I do now (it's the title of this post). Of course, there's always the possibility the Wikipedia entry is wrong ...

The thing is, as Wikipedia gets more sophisticated, you can recognise more authoritative content - where there are sources and citations. And more and more entries are populated with this more reliable content. I also like the way it keeps me constantly thinking "is that right?" or "why would they say that?". This is the sort of enquiring but sceptical approach we should take to everything, from every source. I've got a good example of this, but I'm going to save it for another post, as now I'm starting to ramble on a bit.

The illustrations of this post will be meaningless to anyone who hasn't seen Frank Skinner on his current tour. Anyone who has should hopefully recognise the spirit in which it is intended.

Bad jargon

Web 2.0 is a widely-used term for the significant new developments in Web design and use that mean greater user input and more participation, through the likes of social networking, Wikis and blogs. It seems a reasonable tag to me, with its play on second generation software, suggesting it’s a whole new version of the Web. Of course, it’s really a bit of clever promotion, since many of these ‘new’ technological developments have actually been around all along, and it’s just their widespread adoption that’s new. See this WikipediaLink.

But I draw the line at “E-learning 2.0”. At best this is bandwagon jumping. WikipediaLink. The same criticism as for the use of Web 2.0 applies, but I would go further. I’d call it techno-babble, a piece of mystification of learning, when what we should really be doing is making e-learning more accessible for all.

To someone who’s not familiar with the use of numerical suffixes denoting technical upgrades or new versions (not everyone’s a digital native!), the term is not meaningful. Indeed, it might prompt investigation into what was “E-learning 1.0”, and there would be nothing to find, as there’s no shared definition of what’s new about 2.0. It’s like an in-joke, except not a funny one. It’s just not helpful.

The failures of e-learning have been so widespread and frequent, and negative opinions based on bad experiences are so common, that e-learning advocates have repeatedly sought ways to distance new, better, e-learning from the bad old stuff. This tag is just the latest attempt. But it’s better to acknowledge what, explicitly, went wrong in the past, and to specify what’s better now, rather than hide behind a label that doesn’t offer an explanation.

I welcome improvements in e-learning, but you won’t find me using bad jargon like E-learning 2.0 (not even in the heading of this post). And I’m looking for ways to drop as much technological jargon from e-learning as possible – I’d welcome any further suggestions.

The right blends

I’m working with a client right now where we’re offering a range of new classroom-based courses, which we’re linking to on-the-job training via online learning resources. The online stuff includes course notes, facts, figures and formulae, plus animated diagrams (models of engineering products). This means the learners can refer back to coursework while they’re learning on-the-job. It’s a blend that works well, and it prompted me to consider what other models are effective.

The sandwich
The course sandwich is one classic blend, where pre- and post-course work is offered online. This is online learning with a ‘traditional’ course as the sandwich filling.

The milestone
Another classic model is to start with an online course and add on face-to-face training events (group-work or one-to-one) as milestones, which help to pace the programme.

Knowledge-and-skill
A third is to use the online part of the blend for underpinning knowledge, while using a face-to-face approach for skill development.

But there must be countless others!

Offering learning resources for self-managed learning is a flexible option that can complement almost any learning programme, but the clever thing is to integrate the online learning seamlessly. I’d be interested to hear from anyone who has experience of running another model successfully.

The digital classroom

Earlier this year, I was very impressed by how one of my client’s classrooms was equipped with some of the latest gadgetry.

I’m still getting to grips with what are generic terms for commodities, and what are brand names – in the world of new technology, the two are often confused, such as when people say “google” instead of “search”, or when we talk of PowerPoint as though it was the only presentational software available.

But the piece of kit that particularly impressed me was the Smartboard. Electronic whiteboards have been around for years, and I frequently used one in the company I was with in the early ‘90s. But this is a step beyond. The Smartboard combines a screen for displaying presentations, or digital video clips, or documents the tutor wants to share with the group (Word docs, spreadsheets, etc), with a “whiteboard” using special pens and yielding content that can then be saved or printed as needed. And it’s touch-sensitive.

When you combine this with a network of terminals in the classroom, you have all the digital technology you need to lift even the dullest subject to a new level, to make the classroom experience exhilarating – even for digital natives.

And no, the guys at Smartboard (insert TM or C symbol or whatever) aren’t paying me to say this!

http://smartboard.co.uk/sbsoftware/index.asp

Training digital natives

My granddaughter, at three years old, was more accomplished in her use of a mouse than several older family members – “click and drag, Granny”, she’d instruct her more technologically-challenged forebear. And not long ago, I was introduced to a group of nursery children, who were working on a project where they were in email correspondence with members of the Scottish Government. Many of us have similar stories – the fact is, if you have been brought up surrounded by digital technology, there’s nothing ‘new’ about it. And the use of it is as intuitive as, say, the telephone for us auld yins.

New entrants to the workplace today use digital technology in all aspects of their lives – for personal development, for communicating with friends and acquaintances, for games and leisure pursuits. They have been using computers since they were tots, they have sophisticated mobile phones with all sorts of add-on features, they participate in online communities, and they have their own Web space. They expect computers to support their work activities, and they have similar expectations about vocational learning.

When we design learning interventions, we need to take account of these people. They are not a minority who can be ignored: increasingly, they represent the norm in many organisations, and will be even more so in the future. It is not enough to offer traditional training events – we need to offer more.

Does this contradict my last post? No, the mix I’ll be implementing with that client will be mainly off-the-job, classroom-based, to accompany planned and recorded on-the-job training, with a ‘bridge’ comprising complementary learning resources made available online. This won’t be enough to satisfy the digital natives, but it’s a start.

(I assume the term ‘digital natives’ is now common currency, meaning those who have always inhabited a land of digital technology, as opposed to we ‘digital immigrants’ who have found our way to this land – there’s an interesting link here: http://www.digitalnative.org/Main_Page)

When e-learning is not appropriate

I firmly believe that e-learning can offer something to suit every learning style preference – the notion that it is only useful for factual, information-based learning is based on a limited understanding of the scope of e-learning (see my previous posts on different e-learning models). However, there’s no denying that passionate advocates of a new approach – in any field – can get a bit carried away. When dealing with specific situations, there are bound to be many where e-learning is not the best option.

A work-based approach is often best. And classroom-based learning, face-to-face, may not be very fashionable, but it can still be one of the most powerful approaches to learning. For example, when you need to get people out of the workplace, away from the day-to-day pressures, but also need to get them involved in a collective discussion.

I’ve recently been working with a client where learning has taken place predominantly on-the-job, and they are anxious to develop a culture of off-the-job training. E-learning should have its place in the mix, but the imperative is to have some highly-visible training activity, and that means classroom-based. Am I missing an opportunity to by-pass the traditional approach and advocate going straight to online? I don’t think so. Advocates of e-learning from ten years ago would have been keen to replace the classroom with the digital alternative, but I think most of us now see the benefits of deploying a range of approaches, including the tatty old classroom.

In the situation I’m handling, the client expects to have lots of face-to-face training. Why divert them from that, when the company will glean enormous cultural benefits? E-learning can wait until the time is right.