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.
0 Comment to "Learning online learning - what's in a name?"
Post a Comment