Seeing beyond the classroom

When formal learning solutions are necessary (and, if you read this blog regularly, you'll know that I believe there is an important role for formal learning, alongside more non-formal approaches, performance support and experiential learning) then I'd prefer not to rely on a single element, whether that be self-study e-learning, or a classroom session (virtual or face-to-face). Why? Because it's extremely hard to bring about any lasting behavioural change without a variety of elements, typically activities which involve reflection, application to the real job, personalised feedback, sharing with peers, some line manager involvement, as well as on-going access to resources. In my experience this works, which is more than can be said for most formal learning.

Trouble is, this sort of arrangement is not what learners have come to expect. Those with an interest in their self-development, or whose managers are obliged to send them on some training, are usually happy enough to have a day or two off work. Who knows, they may even come away with some interesting ideas. But that's as far as it goes. Taking a course is no more a commitment to change than participating in a webinar or reading an article in a magazine. Fair enough maybe, but it is far more expensive to run a course than to put on a webinar or provide a magazine. And sometimes change really is necessary, whether that's from the learner's perspective or the organisation's. 

Neither is an elaborate blended solution what managers expect. The long-standing 'deal' with the learning and development department, as described so well by Charles Jennings, is that l&d take the problem off the manager's hands. The employee is submitted to some sort of 'treatment' which may or may not work, and everyone can tick a few boxes and continue to collect their salaries. Not a very motivating basis on which to carry out training, and certainly not doing any good. 

And come to think of it, blended solutions are not what learning professionals expect either. Their role has typically been to turn up on the day, deliver a good performance, collect their happy sheets and then run like hell. To become a genuine agent of change is a much more frightening possibility.

So, what's my solution? I am still looking for answers but here are some starters:

• Run courses only when learners and their managers agree that a change is necessary which cannot be easily brought about through everyday work experience and coaching. Ideally get them to commit to this through some form of learning contract.
• Where this commitment cannot be made, but there is still a desire for exposure to new ideas, continue to provide access to simpler, non-formal development opportunities (conferences, webinars, e-learning materials, communities of practice, etc.).
• Make clear that it will not be acceptable for students or their managers to break their contracts without good cause. Students who fail to engage in activities outside the classroom shouldl not be allowed to continue with a course. If managers do not provide adequate support, their reports should be suspended from their courses until this support is forthcoming. I have seen a number of examples of weak management of blended courses and the result is that everyone retreats to past practice. Once participants realise that their learning contracts will not be enforced, only the most motivated will do more than the bare minimum.

Doesn't sound very learner-centred does it? But if you're spending a lot of your organisation's money on delivering courses, then it is reasonable that you should deliver a return. Any other ideas?

Consistency and surprise

To conclude my reflections on the sessions I chaired at Learning Technologies 2013, I would like to focus on a theme developed by Itiel Dror in his presentation - the power of surprise.

Itiel's point was that, when things become routine and commonplace, we start to ignore them. After all, we are programmed to be on the lookout for things that are changing in our environment, so we know whether to fight, run like hell, lick our lips anticipating a tasty meal or put on all our charms to entice a prospective mate - in other words, a typical day in the office.

The importance of surprise

When things around us become predictable, we can relax a little and take things at our own pace - there's no reason to get excited. But for deeper learning to take place, we need to be emotionally engaged - not stressed out, but up for it. One of the ways to raise the attention levels is with an element of surprise.

We are surprised when we encounter something we couldn't have predicted. Itiel is great at this: he conducts experiments with his audience which have surprising results; he's liable at any moment to reveal a real human brain in a jar. These moments are attention-grabbing, and memorable. He contrasts this with the typical opening to a course in which you go through the agenda and list the objectives. Worthy, perhaps necessary, but not that interesting and certainly not surprising.

Surprise in e-learning? Steady on

Hollywood can teach us a thing. Remember the last Bond film you went to. Chances are it opened with a dramatic, intense action sequence, getting you on the edge of your seats from the start. The titles came later. So, why not the same with, say, an e-learning course? Open with an engaging and challenging scenario. Leave the formalities until later, by which time, with some luck and a little skill, the learner should be on the hook.

But surely consistency is a good thing

In graphic design terms, consistency is a highly-important consideration. In fact, it's one of the factors that distinguishes professional design from the amateur. Consider the typical low-quality PowerPoint - chances are it freely mixes colours, fonts and layouts. On the other hand, when was the last time they changed the typography of your favourite newspaper - ten, twenty years ago? Consistency, particularly in terms of interface elements and general look and feel is because it provides a uniform backdrop against which more important elements - such as the content - can stand out. In fact you probably take the interface completely for granted, which is as it should be. If you doubt this point, think how difficult it must be to create a compelling ad that will command attention in Piccadilly Circus or Times Square. There simply is no backdrop - everything is screaming at you.

So why red?

So why the red opening paragraph? Because all of my previous 750 posts have been in black. Playing with the look and feel isn't ideal, but you don't have too many options on a blog like this. Switching to red wouldn't have had you jumping out of your seats, but it may at least have caught your eye. And somehow it kept you there until this final paragraph. I win.

The importance of synchronicity

Over the past couple of months, I have twice been fortunate enough to hear Professor Stephen Heppell speak, once at the 25th birthday party of the eLearning Network and again last week when I chaired his session at Learning Technologies.  On both occasions, the idea that most got me thinking was that 'synchronous is sovereign'. Stephen's point, based in particular on his extensive recent experience working with younger students, was that participating in some sort of live event (and not necessarily face-to-face - online will do) was valued very much more highly than viewing a recording.

I've had to work hard to buy into this idea, perhaps because I've been advising learning professionals for some time now to adopt asynchronous (self-paced) communication as their default, and to go synchronous (live) only when a strong argument can be made. My point is that live events, particularly those in the classroom, have for so long been the norm, even though getting people together at the same time is such a hassle, so inflexible for the learner, more stressful and tends to lead to too much learning in one go. I still believe that.

However, now I've had enough time to reflect on Stephen's assertion, I have shifted my viewpoint somewhat. While I would still look to provide the maximum flexibility for the learner by providing resources online and allowing collaboration to take place asynchronously (through email, forums, social networks, blogs, etc), I now understand that live events are going to add something really significant to the blend. These could be face-to-face (not just in classrooms but on the job - in fact just about anywhere), online (using tools like Skype or web conferencing) or even on the phone. Why? Because 'being there when it happens' is more exciting.

Having said that, I'm not convinced that synchronous events are all that exciting when the experience is no different from a recording. There must be an element of unpredictability, as the various players react to each other; a certain tension because the outcome is uncertain (think of how much more enjoyable it is to watch a sporting event live rather than viewing the edited highlights).

A lecture or webinar with no interaction doesn't do it - it's not taking adequate advantage of the opportunity provided by a gathering of real human beings with different experiences and perspectives. Far better to provide a video or narrated slide show.

I'm reminded of when I went to watch an old friend perform with his David Bowie tribute band. They played each Bowie song exactly like the recording. They were spot on in every detail. But that's not what you would have got if you'd been to see the real Bowie live. The emphasis would not have been on fidelity to an original but on responding to the situation with a performance that was truly unique. That's why people pay good money to go.

So, don't push the slider from all synchronous to all asynchronous - find the right balance. Incorporate live events but make sure they're exciting, memorable and different on each occasion. Don't fill them with expositions of endless facts, concepts, models and process. Use the fact that emotional engagement is high to develop the BIG IDEAS. Use the fact that every group of participants is unique to put those ideas into a meaningful context.