Learning online learning - what's in a name?

A few weeks back, Nick Shackleton-Jones set out to clarify The Difference between Online learning, E-learning & Blended learning. Actually he did not clarify these terms to my satisfaction, as you will see if you read the comments history. However, he made the distinction between e-learning and blended learning as essentially ways of delivering courses, whereas online learning was more about learners accessing resources in a more informal way. Actually my definition of blended learning freely crosses between formal and informal - in fact that is one of the ways in which it blends - but that is not my point here.

A week or so after Nick�s post I was discussing with my Onlignment colleagues about what we should call the field in which we work and Barry Sampson was quite clear that he didn�t like the term �online learning�. Why not? Because, for him, it implies a course, whereas �learning online� is more about what learners do for themselves. Nick and Barry were both looking to distinguish push from pull, formal from informal, but had very different perceptions about what these terms mean.

So what does that prove? Well, firstly, that terminology is a quagmire. There simply isn�t a term that doesn�t carry some baggage for some people.

It also proves just how strongly people (at least Nick and Barry) feel about the shift in emphasis from courses to resources. Neither wants to be associated with terminology that implies the former. And both are looking for words that describe the latter. I�m not so bothered. I�m quite comfortable about the idea of a course, just not how so many of them turn out in practice. For me it is perfectly legitimate for an organisation to want to set up learning interventions that they feel will improve employee performance. Top-down, yes, but what�s the problem with that? As long as there is a balance. Employees also have the desire to improve their performance through learning and they will seek out resources that help them to do that, more often than not online.

Learning online is not good because online learning is bad. Top-down and bottom-up learning can co-exist quite happily in a way that suits both the organisation and its employees. Helping to achieve that balance is the task of the learning architect.

Fresh thinking in learning and development - for members only

I have been moaning for years about the quality of training for new workplace learning professionals and the over-reliance that is placed on out-dated pop-psychology and pseudo-science - not least learning styles and NLP. Well, the Chartered Institute of Learning and Development (CIPD), which should be taking the lead in developing its 130,000 predominantly UK-based members, has taken on the responsibility for doing something about this and has set about instilling some of what it calls 'fresh thinking in learning and development'. About time.

Dr John McGurk, CIPD's Adviser on Learning and Talent Development, has commissioned three reports from UK academics:

1. Neuroscience and learning - explores how learning can be informed by neuroscience
2. Cognition, decision and expertise - addresses cognition, decision-making and the role of expertise and professional judgement
3. Insight and intuition - addresses intuition and insight, linking them to the behaviours of creativity and innovation

I've only spent any serious time on the first paper on neuroscience. Now I like to think I'm reasonably well informed on this subject, but there was plenty here to keep me interested:

• How sharing ideas can help us be more creative
• The negative effects of caffeine and late-night game-playing on sleep and, indirectly, learning
• How computer-based training programmes can improve the capacity of our working memory
• How off-the-shelf computer games can develop cognitive skills, with evidence from pilots and surgeons

So, perhaps you're interested in reading these reports. Well, you can, but only if you're a CIPD member. Sorry, but CIPD - you cannot be serious!

How online education could mean a very few attain stardom

I was fascinated to read an article in this week's Economist on Massive Open Online Forces, looking at some of the economic effects of the rise of online education. In particular the following caught my eye:

The market for instructors will also be transformed. The best teachers will be fabulously productive, reaching hundreds of thousands of students. There may therefore be far fewer of them, each compensated like superstars in the entertainment industry.

It brought to mind a posting I made back in 2009, called How online media helps to create ever brighter stars. I thought I'd bring it back to life here:

September 22, 2009

Webinars, video recordings and podcasts provide the opportunity for experts to share their thoughts and experiences with a wide audience. Of course they can also do this through face-to-face events such as conferences, but are limited in their reach by geography. The cost of flying an expert over and then putting them up while they recover from the jet lag and do a little sightseeing is usually prohibitive. The result is that the vacuum becomes filled by lots of second division experts (and I don�t mean to be derogatory here � these can be fine people), who live more locally, filling in to deliver similar expertise but at a much lower cost.

Online, of course, the situation is quite different. The limitations on using the first division expert are much reduced. You're paying for a couple of hours at most, rather than a week away and all those expenses. Even if the top expert has an extortionate hourly rate (and if you're one of them then why not?) then their services are likely to become affordable.

So, what was once a very localised business could become centralised and a star system could begin to operate, as in films, TV, books and sports. The top players get most of the business (or at least most of the money) and attract celebrity status. Those in division two pick up the scraps.

Given the choice, here�s what I would select in order of preference:

1. The very best speakers and experts in the world, seen live. Why live? Because you want a piece of that special magic you only get up close and face-to-face. Above all, from that point on you can boast how you saw them live.
2. The very best speakers live and online or recorded delivering a live event. You�re still getting great content, but without the hassle of travelling and the high ticket prices.
3. The second division of speakers live and online or recorded. Here the utility of not having to leave home to see them is not outweighed by the risk of missing a lifetime opportunity.
4. The second division speakers live. Not so good because you�re committed to all that hassle of getting to the event. In these cases it�s the other benefits of a live event, such as the networking, which is going to assume the top priority.

The same dynamics could be seen to apply to training events as well as webinars, but here there is a moderating factor. Whereas you can run a webinar for practically any size audience, a training event is likely to run for 16 people or less, and division one teachers and trainers only have so many hours in the day, leaving plenty of scope for others. So, to summarise, where the star system could operate most noticeably is with presentations, whether live or recorded. The world is becoming a much smaller place, and that makes it easier for the powerful to become more so.

Designs on learning: An interview with Vikesh Taylor

This video is the fourth in a series of interviews that I have been conducting with leading e-learning designers in the UK, in conjunction with e.learning age magazine. This one appears in this February's issue.

See previous interviews with Mark Bennett, Stephanie Dedhar and Lisa Minogue-White.

Why scenarios are the future of e-learning

I hate to say it, after so many years of trying to reverse the trend, but it seems that far too many people (finance directors excepted) really dislike e-learning. First let me be clear, I am using a narrow definition of e-learning here. I'm referring to those interactive self-study materials which employees sit and complete on their own (if they can't get someone else to do it for them). I'm not referring to virtual classrooms, online content such as web articles and videos, or any form of social media. Just those things that we used to call CBT - computer-based training - and which we've been trying to get right since about 1975.

People don't dislike all e-learning. What annoys them is instructional e-learning, particularly that sort that aims to provide knowledge, normally in the form of a tutorial. Tutorials could and should be fun - interactive, challenging, engaging, thought-provoking - but I'm close to giving up on us realising those aims, at least on a routine basis. Particularly galling is that the standard is actually dropping as we increasingly force learners to wade through endless slides full of irrelevant abstractions and patronising interactions.

Instructional e-learning is not a great way to convey information. We have much simpler media at our disposal which just about everyone on the planet uses day-to-day without difficulty and without coercion - web pages (or PDFs if you like them pretty and printable) and videos. Given the fuss currently about HTML 5 and mobile learning, we can sometimes forget that these media already work just fine on any device going. Instructional e-learning tries to provide knowledge in one hit and this is rarely going to be a successful strategy. What most people need is information you can go back to when you need it - and no-one does that with e-learning.

If you in any way make your living from e-learning, then this may sound like a bleak situation, but there is hope. My experience over the past three years of awards judging has demonstrated to me that for everyone who hates instructional e-learning there is someone who loves doing scenarios.

Scenarios can be used in an instructional context, as a form of practice, but they are most productively used as a form of guided discovery. The learner is placed into a situation in which they have to make decisions. The scenario progresses on the basis of these decisions, for better or for worse. With any luck (and careful design) this process will provide the learner with insights which they can take forward and test in the real world. If they are realistic and challenging, they will emotionally engage the learner and increase the chances of lasting learning. This is laboratory learning in a safe environment - not as powerful as real-life decision making but a whole lot safer.

At their simplest, scenarios are just case studies with questions on which the learner can reflect. At their most sophisticated, they can be thought of as simulations. Whatever the terminology, they represent a useful resource in a whole range of situations, particularly in the context of a blend. Scenarios are the future of e-learning.

Guided discovery is a great strategy for selling the big ideas and influencing attitudes, but when you're tasked with building knowledge or increasing skills then instruction can still be the best approach. So has e-learning got any role to play in the future of instruction? I think so, but not as the provider of information - as I've said before, there are much simpler content formats that do the job better. What e-learning can do is provide the means for practice - for drilling must-know information and for rehearsing skills (think language learning, solving quadratic equations, learning to type). Just don't use it as a form of information dump. We've been trying it for 30 years and - as any learner will tell you - it simply doesn't work.

2014 is The Year of the Blend

At Learning Technologies 2014 in London this week I provided a first taster of my More Than Blended Learning project, which will comprise a book, case study videos, tools, interactive scenarios and possibly some form of course. A great deal of this work has already been completed but to get the whole project off the ground will take until September or October. Nevertheless, I'm confident enough to call this my Year of the Blend.

Don't expect too many postings from me over the next few months as I concentrate my efforts on the project alongside my work for clients. There should be a micro-site up and running sometime in March and I'm going to try and get my presentation from last week up on SlideShare in a form that makes sense without me being there.

Inspiration trumps information

At Learning Technologies 2014, Reed Learning were giving out copies of The Little Book of Inspiration. Here is my contribution:

You don�t have to be inspired to learn, but it certainly helps.

One of the principal goals of any sort of course is to inspire the learner about the subject - to make them care about leadership, health and safety, anti-money laundering, troubleshooting a piece of equipment, the company for whom they work, or whatever the subject is.

Without inspired learners, the best you can hope for is a grudging compliance, another tick in the box. And when it comes to effective performance in the workplace, it is doubtful whether this will be enough to achieve your objective.

In Daniel Pink�s book Drive, he talks about three intrinsic human motivators - a sense of autonomy, a desire for mastery and a sense of purpose, and inspiration is the result of all three of these motivators firing at once.

Teachers and trainers would do well to look at their priorities. Focus on imparting high volumes of abstract information and all you will achieve is a demotivated, befuddled group of learners. Concentrate on inspiring them, and they will go seek out the knowledge for themselves.

Inspirational teachers and trainers can change the world. In an age of ubiquitous internet access from mobile devices, those that are more intent on showing how much they know will soon be surplus to requirements.

Online version of the book

To get a printed copy