Working the Web 2.0 to Learning 2.0 Angle

As anyone scanning our blog has noticed, there is a bit of a frenzy of Web 2.0 exploration going on at Allen and in the e-learning community at large. I got back last week from Gartner’s “Portals, Content & Collaboration Summit 2008” and wanted to share some first impressions that don’t really relate to the actual practical implementation question.

While some aspects of the Web 2.0 world offer paradigms around collaborative work flow, the chaotic growth of social networks may be offering a new paradigm of informal learning as we know it. Most of the Web 2.0 applications I have been able to review treat the blog, wiki or Facebook page as a familiar route for information dissemination—just one more way to communicate with the corporate work force. We apply some level of control to the information and monitor its veracity and compliance within the norms of our organization. In the social network paradigm, the regulator is the social network itself. The members of the community itself become the arbiters if what is right or wrong, what is acceptable or not. Familiar terms we’re used to such as subject matter experts (SMEs) are traded in for virtual characters with high post rates and positive reviews by fellow community members. Not only is the individual subsumed in this process but the team becomes irrelevant as the focus becomes the community and the rules and norms that evolve over time. Individual knowledge and expertise are not the criteria of worth but what one is willing to share with the social network they are part of.

When considering how to deal with this world of social networks, look for a small area in your company of like minded people that can be expected to share and support each other not based on a specific corporate goal but a common sharing of value and interests. As an example, as one of our directors and I head out to Learning 2008 next month, it is no surprise that the most active community of practice for the event at this point is the discussion on the nightspots and restaurants in the Orlando area.

Starting small around some non-business critical areas in your company will shed light on the dynamics that will evolve in your company. This will flesh out the paradigm for your organization and can become a blue print for a larger implementation.

Some of the ideas and their interpretation by yours truly came from an enlightening presentation by a Gartner analyst by the name of Anthony Bradley, and he can be googled for his comments on this and other topics tied to social networks.

Keep it Simple

I'm at the Fall CLO Symposium in Coronado today, where Allen just received a Learning in Practice Award for Excellence in E-Learning for a recent OJD initiative we helped Toyota with. Truly, it's been an honor to receive the recognition and be counted amongst the best in the business. More so, we at Allen feel honored to work with so many great clients and top notch companies, like Toyota.

Tomorrow morning, Paul Zackrison, our COO/CFO, and I will be at the symposium's "Winners Circle" to talk about the Toyota project. Truth be told, neither Paul nor I were directly involved with the project. But we've been well briefed by our CLO, Michael Noble, and the Project Manager, Anna Sargsyan. During those briefings, I particularly took note of the story where the Toyota team showed some real commitment to quality design. Of course, at Allen, that's what we've built our reputation on. We love working with clients that are just as committed, as Toyota was and is.

In that vein, I thought you all might enjoy a little clip that pokes fun of when "design" goes overboard. I think I like it because I'm on the marketing side of things, and well, when it comes down to it, this video is poking fun of me and my cohorts (hopefully, I'm not as bad!):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwqPYeTSYng

Fortunately, we don't deal with this often. But maybe you do? Maybe you have all sorts of stakeholders that want to blow past the simple and obvious designs that work. If so, what do you do?

Thoughts on "Change 2.0: How Does e-Learning 2.0 Affect Organization Culture?"

(NOTE: Requires membership with the Guild to access PDF of the article)

Mark Oehlert’s recent essay found in the eLearning Guild’s publication Learning Solutions is a thorough reference for where Web 2.0 impacts organizational learning. Highly recommended for those looking to get their feet wet or to get a better understanding of the whole 2.0 buzz.

High points of the article:

• The inevitability of 2.0 technologies and collaborative approaches/philosophies
• The necessity of rethinking how we create and deploy learning within the parameters of 2.0
• When selling benefits of 2.0, move beyond buzz and product/service names (i.e. “Twitter,” “Flickr” etc.) to talk about the learning benefits resulting from these collaborative technologies
  

Low points:

• Perhaps too much time spent on introductory exposition of the 2.0 world (this may be a bias of mine, whereas other “newbie” to the issue may find it invaluable)
• The essay, when all is said and done, leaves a dissatisfying conclusion for me. It’s another in a long line of treatises pointing to the inevitable (if not obvious) emergence of web and collaborative technologies and approaches (“2.0”), which then proclaim that we better jump on board or risk being left behind. Good advice indeed, but what’s more crucial at this junction, is a discussion of tangible, realistic approaches and methods to successfully implementing 2.0 in our learning, i.e. the how.
  

Overall, though, this is a good—albeit lengthy—article that can jumpstart the conversation. As such, I’ve invited several colleague bloggers here at Allen to read the article and comment on it. Look for those in upcoming days.

In the meantime, I invite you to post your thoughts and reactions to the article and the whole concept itself.

Are Cultural References Stupid?

Last week, I was teaching students about introductory paragraphs—about the hook—to get readers interested in what they have to say. These are students at DeVry—students who work full time, attend classes both on site and online, and have some resemblance of a social life. I brought in an article I had recently finished—“Is Google Making Us Stupid?” by Nicholas Carr for an example of using popular culture and making the connection between a well known movie/book/star/etc. with a point you want to make. Carr uses HAL, the supercomputer from 2001: A Space Odyssey. As I read the first two paragraphs, I realized I was glancing at a sea of blank faces. They didn’t get it.

Well, actually, they got the idea about the method Carr used, but not the actual reference. Not one student had heard of or seen the movie. I was stunned.

The next day, I receive an email with Tom Kuhlman’s latest posting from his Rapid e-Learning Blog. He titled his post “Is Google Making Our E-Learning Stupid?” and discusses Carr’s notion that we are thinking and reading differently due to the Internet and extended it to e-learning. Kuhlman states that “If these reports are correct, and we’re developing a new way of reading (or retrieving information), then this needs to be a consideration as we design our e-learning courses.” He goes on to give five ways to accomplish this, from pulling main ideas into focus to leveraging all forms of media.

It’s this last suggestion I wonder about. I agree that we should “incorporate graphics, video, audio, interactivity, and web-based technologies” into our e-learning, but it should be for a reason—to make a connection, to illustrate a difficult concept, to make a point poignant, to add relevance—not just to get learners’ attention. We need them to process. My question is that while using these technological tools, won’t we indirectly or directly make references to business culture, films, fashion, etc.?

Does this mean that unless we can connect to our audience and know what they feel is relevant, we may lose them? I am only ten years older than my students at DeVry. But in those ten years, a reference to a supercomputer taking over was lost. It made me wonder if the courses we are building for clients also have lost references in them. Do we need to make allusions to the latest Call of Duty game or add those features in our training so learners connect?

Building courses that are more interactive and engaging is something we should strive to better. But we still have to use those forms of media we understand and are comfortable with. Ever heard an older person try to use a “hip” word? It isn’t pretty.

Maybe referencing mediums you understand when you build courses gets your point across better than something you are unfamiliar with because you explain it well enough. Don’t forget, my students understood what Carr was trying to do in his article because he did it well, and they liked it even more once they understood the reference. In fact, use it to your advantage. I did. When my students didn’t get the reference, I told them to Google it right there and then so we could all discover what they could pull up by browsing.

Can we offer a similar kind of organic environment in training?

Fixing a broken lock and the Web 2.0 dilemma?

Looking for the next wave in training “Web 2.0?”

So time has passed and the Web marches on…Before being hit by Web 3.0 just around the corner perhaps the big 2. 0 can alleviate some anxiety and possibly solve the major training challenges we all face. Will it be faster, better, cheaper and address a new generation of learners? What is the critical path training organizations need to follow to use Web 2.0 to positively impact organizational performance…and really how does a broken lock enter the equation?

Those familiar with the many attractions Utah has to offer (and yes, not just skiing) may have encountered the Shakespeare festival in Cedar City Utah, just a short 3.5 hour drive from Salt Lake it can offer a pleasant respite from the day and day out. So, between the mountains and through the arid plains one can find a town where the “Bard” can transport one through the depths of Othello’s despair and the biting tong of the Shrew in one short visit. My Web 2.0 on this trip started with a visit to Trip Advisor. After reading the reviews of others, seeing pictures and mapping out the perfect placement for the hotel we would sojourn to, I showed my age by picking up a phone and reserving a room. The main attraction for me was that the hotel has opened a short three months ago and I was looking forward to missing that hotel smell and feel that is familiar to all frequent travelers. Alas, after hours of driving and arriving at the spanking new lobby of the hotel, we met our first training challenge. Being a new hotel, the kinks still needed to be worked out and our electronic lock of the last room available in the hotel refused to cooperate. With some reprogramming by our erstwhile front desk clerk the problem was solved.

A positive attitude from all the staff we met left me impressed, yet with a nagging suspicion that many challenges still faced the staff. Not being able to resist my natural inclinations, I approached the desk clerk and asked to the training they had received as this was hotel part of a large national chain. Immediately, I was told of the E-learning curriculum offered to the staff. Joy! But with a short pause the young man made sure to update me that no one has time for e learning since I must have noticed they were short staffed and solidly booked!

Time to train and general issues with Web-based training should not be new to anyone in our field. Dare we hope that new technologies and a generation hooked on Facebook, Google, wikis and blogs will be training differently.

Okay, okay, back to Web 2.0. Have we failed our learners with Web 1.0? Is the panacea of last summer outdated? Will this be the last time that a learner has no time to learn what is offered? Would a blog, wiki or portal offer the right information at the right time for a staff that has no time to take the anytime, anywhere training offered to them?

Before we write off some tried and tested training methodology, I was determined to get some kind of conceptual handle on a term that in its moniker didn’t tell me much.

An article by the ORielly group as well as recent reports by Forrester research and others offer many categorizations, and please, if inclined, follow the links provided. Gathering our technical team and our CLO together, we asked each to take us on a visit to a website that defined for them Web 2.0. It became apparent that Web 2.0 meant different things for all of us. With some aggregation and license we defined three Web 2.0’s.

I want my own Web
Google and others have made the Web our own. At our fingertips, just a few clicks away, we create our personal portal. Our interests are nurtured by multiple feeds of information or streams. We pull in our personal e-mails, instant messages and other forms of communication, while willfully enabling others to track, and categorize our interests and future needs (yes, someone will make money off this valuable service). So, out with the old portal designed by someone else. Web 2.0 transfers control to the learner to create his personal space (we will get to MySpace later). The richness of our personal portal is free by the labor of others who will create the information and services we crave all updated rapidly so we don’t have to go searching.

Can any one help me NOW?
The 2nd manifestation of the new Web connects us to people we know and those we might want to know with a velocity only measured by the new Web 2.0 currency. How many people are tied to your Facebook or how many posts have you made to your community? Who clicks on your blog and dares to comment? We build and join communities of interest, those that share some level of mutual interest. Web 2.0 makes e-mail and IM the new snail mail. We enter worlds were our reference to reality is made up of thousands of cyber entities that as us can be our SME…as long as they have access to a keyboard on a device. “You’ve got mail” is dead. Long live the ping and ringtone. The timid among us look for the opinions of others on what we buy, were to travel to and even what hotel we will stay in.

Lets do it together
Who does not know what a wiki is? Much less cumbersome then the Britannica of old, format has fallen to form. Knowledge and expertise is diffused and reconstituted back, policed by a community that of its self interest provides all with concise up-to-date information.

As we take our blogs, wikis and portals, we begin to treat information and the knowledge it can impart to us differently. Yet, Web 2.0 also defines some of the products we are using today. Software is created by communities that themselves become the applications driving our online community. We look to others to help us create applications and products that themselves are given back to the community free and clear. Open source software communities flourish under a new business model yet to unfold.

So how does this apply to training? For many learners training has nothing do with it. Web 2.0 is a new reference point in their personal lives and a conduit of information and opinions that the employer has no control over.

Whenever in doubt about any new training technology, I fall back on my own criteria for training effectiveness

Is the content directly relevant to the ability of the learner to perform?
Is the content easily accessible in consideration of the actual work environment?
Have we dealt with any motivational aspects that can impact acceptance and transfer of the content?

Going back to my choice of hotel on this trip, I was amazed by the contribution of strangers who had posted reviews of the hotel we picked. While I do participate on discussion groups around my own hobbies, for sites such as this I am what is called a lurker—one that reads and enjoys, but does not contribute.

The first point on our critical path to Web 2.0 adoption must be an understanding of the efforts it will take to keep the content fresh and relevant on our blog, wiki or community page. Relevance and freshness of content is king in our Web 2.0 scenario. We often know nothing of the person posting on the site. The date and relevancy of the content to our needs takes precedence of the veracity of the poster.

Accessibility both in ease and in navigation seems to be a Web 2.0 strength. We can clip, link and comment on most anything. The 2nd point in our critical path must be a decision on how or if we must police any of the content or use of such content across our organization. Anonymity is a powerful force for contributors in a Web 2.0 community. We adopt “user names” that free us from the mundane and give us license to express our selves freely.

The last critical point (and I am sure I have missed many in-between at this juncture) is the powerful motivational forces that can be unleashed with a Web 2.0 scenario. The explosive growth of communities of practice on this, that or anything is amazing. Knowledge, expertise and best practice is the innate asset of any organization. Can we unleash the acumen of our organization without designating and paying someone to be our subject matter expert? Can we motivate people to contribute when the motivation will rest on a feeling that they are “giving to get” and that the more you post or the more your post is valued by your co workers you are recognized and rewarded by your peers?

The motivational tools we can harness with Web 2.0 are exciting. I am off soon to the Gartner summit on Portals, Content and Collaboration and can’t wait to see what is out there for our company and our clients

A couple of links you may find valuable:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=70

http://www.jivesoftware.com/resources/pdf/McKinsey-Web-20.pdf

Upcoming Events

We've got a number of events we'll be participating in in one way or another:

CLO Symposium - 9/24-26, San Diego
We're receiving a "Learning in Practice Award" for our On the Job Training simulation project for Toyota

Innovations in Learning - 9/25-26, San Jose
Our CLO, Michael Noble, will be presenting "After the Blend: Strategies for Remixing Instructional Design"

Learning 2008 (Masie) - 10/26-29, Orlando
Allen will be sponsoring the event again. CEO Ron Zamir and 25 year industry veteran, Marty Newey, will man our presentation in the "Learning Gallery."


If you're attending any of these events, make sure to catch our team members. Feel free to drop us a line, and we'll set up a time to touch bases at the events.

UPDATE (9/16/08)
Central Ohio ASTD Conference - 10/14, Columbus, Ohio
Bob Martin, our Director of Learning Solutions for the MidWest, will be attending this event, and Allen will be sponsoring. Drop by and say "hi" to Bob!

Allen Finalist for 2008 CLO Learning in Practice Award

We recently got word that Chief Learning Officer magazine has picked Allen as a finalist for its 2008 Learning in Practice Provider Award. Needless to say, we're very excited for the recognition.

The "Gold" winners will be announced in a couple of weeks at the CLO Symposium in San Deigo. Paul Zackrison, our COO/CFO and Anna Sargasyan, the Project Manager on the award-winning Toyota project, will be attending the event to accept the award and talk about the project. If you're heading to the symposium, let us know and we'll arrange a time for you to meet with Paul and Anna.

More details on the event here.

New Kid on the Same Learning Block

I recently joined Allen’s team, bringing my background of collegiate instruction and professional editing with me. I have quickly discovered that many of the principles in solid instruction are the same, whether they are applied to a university student or to a web-based learner. As an instructor, I routinely taught various rhetoric and composition courses. My students were very aware of my two-tiered mantra: Know your audience, and once you know your audience, write to them. At Allen, this translates to, know your audience and then design the instruction they need.

Any person in the writing profession knows that audience assessment is essential to effective communication. Anyone in education knows that clear instruction begins with solid content and an honest audience analysis. Of course, audience analysis is only a starting point; you can’t neglect the content and presentation. You can have the best ideas out there, but if you don’t present them in a way your audience will understand and relate to then you will have no substantive impact. Additionally, even the most glitzy presentations can only distract learners from poorly written content for a short period of time. One of the most important qualities I’ve seen at Allen is the desire and ability to capture solid ideas and clearly present them to various types and levels of learners.

I’ve been reminded of this design process in my current project, which is an instructor-led course that needs to capture the specific voice of the client while being general enough to reach the various types of instructors who will be trained on the material. It must then effectively instruct the learners of the course about the client and its products. The challenge is seamlessly meeting the needs of all three groups: the company, the instructors, and the learners. The known audience base of the company is easiest to assess since I have direct access to their employees and materials. The unknown audience of individual instructors is a little harder access, and the unknown learners are the hardest to access because they aren’t all on board yet.

The fun part is learning everything I can about the company and their specific voice and presentation style and then working up a typical demographic for their instructors and learners. That process is under way, which means the best part of the process is as well—creating the learning atmosphere that meets the style of the clients while effectively instructing the learners. And, at the end of the day, that is what good learning is all about—producing the best instruction possible for specified discourse communities.