E-Learning Curve Blog

Workplace E-Learning Reaches Maturity

In their 2001 paper Powering the leap to maturity: The eLearning ecosystem, Pat Dillon and Chas Hallet rightly focus on the growing maturity of e-learning as a educational modality: it has been in use and development for long enough that most of its initial problems have been overcome.

Now read on…

In the context of e-learning, Dillon and Hallet define ‘maturity’ as

an enterprise-level application that exploits the capabilities of network computing and system integration to enable value-generating efficiencies and innovations across large and complex organizations.

(p.3)

In my view, the last decade has seen many advances in establishment of

• A stable communications and ICT infrastructure and computer hardware
• Great advances in e-learning authoring and delivery software
• The emergence of e-learning-specific instructional design methodologies
• Perhaps most significantly, a cultural shift to organizations who are accepting – albeit reluctantly in some cases – the value of e-learning as a means of workplace learning and development.

Dillon and Hallet continue:

The e-learning industry is at long last poised to cross the evolutionary threshold to maturity.

Klein and  Eseryel (2005) call this mature e-learning ecosystem a “framework” (p.8):

…an integrated mosaic of systems, tools, and processes facilitating individual and team learning, performance, and development.

(p.8)

As discussed previously, they assert the efficacy of educational “mental models” or (what I consider a more accurate description) a Social Constructivist approach to workplace learning; specifically using scaffolding to build employee competencies.

To function effectively, the workplace learning environment should enable knowledge workers to “stitch together” (p.10) information from multiple sources. This phrase is a poor attempt to describe the process of aggregating knowledge and information from diverse sources, but I do understand why the authors are using the lie-to-children to describe the process. More accurately, Klein and Eseryel also call it “knowledge assembly”

…in which people make sense of what is happening by assembling information into a coherent whole. Training must establish the base mental models on which a person can then learn subsequent knowledge through elaboration. Knowledge management techniques, such as reverse engineering and low fidelity simulations, can be designed to facilitate the development of mental models of complex devices. Documentation must provide structured information that enables the person to develop deeper models as they need to learn more details, and team development and coordination methods should be designed to support the building of shared mental models.

(p.10)

One of the most effective ways to immerse workers the tasks of knowledge- and skill-building is through the use of simulations or scenarios.

In the e-learning context, anyone who has used tools like Adobe Captivate and Techsmith Camtasia (among others) will testify as to the effectiveness of simulations and scenarios as teaching environments. More informally, we have all had a conversation with a more knowledgeable colleague where we’ve discussed solutions to a challenge we’ve encountered in work: usually such “learning at the watercooler” moments start with the earnest supplicant saying something like “What would I do if I wanted to… [insert query here]”

How best, then, to elicit such tacit knowledge and expertise in the formal and non-formal corporate context?

I will continue to investigate this next time…

___________

References:

Dillon, P. & Hallett, C. (2001). Powering the leap to maturity: The eLearning ecosystem. Cisco Systems white paper.

Klein, J. Eseryel, D. (2005). The Corporate Learning Environment. [Internet] Available from: http://www.igi-pub.com/downloads/excerpts/159140505XCh1.pdf [Accessed 18 February 2010]

Pratchett, T., Stewart, I., & Cohen, J.S. (1999). The Science of Discworld (2nd Ed.). Ebury Press.

–

March 04 2010 | e-learning | 3 Comments »

A Holistic Approach to Workplace Competencies

So far in this series on e-learning ecosystems and approaches to workplace learning, so far I have discussed:

• E-learning Ecosystem in Organizations
• E-Learning along the curve: adapting to knowledge workers learning needs
• Knowledge Workers and Corporate Learning Environments
• A Model for Corporate Learning Environments
• Workplace Learning Paradigms Characterized

According to Klein and Eseryel (2005) “traditional” workplace learning environments have focused on developing technical competence and domain-specific skills. Other skills, including effective communication, teamwork, and diversity awareness, often referred to as “soft skills” are usually assigned a lower priority.

The authors continue :

The new development paradigms and work processes have moved these “soft skills” up the list of priorities. The roles of the staff have changed. Consequently, the learning environment must reflect these changes.

(p.7)

For example, the “animosity” between marketing/ sales and engineering, which seems to be a tradition in most organizations reduces knowledge-sharing, collaboration, and (ultimately) productivity and revenue generation. Using a multi-dimensional or holistic approach (if implemented sympathetically) enables sales staff, motivated by closing the deal, and engineers and developers, motivated by creating elegant solutions to workplace or customer needs, can work to “reconcile their perspectives” (p.7) and collaborate.

Staff must work together across functional entities within the organization and learn to work with a variety of people as they deal with customers, colleagues, partners, and vendors spread across the globe. People are now required to have the skills, talents, and traits that will enable them to cohesively work together and deal with ambiguity in performing the most basic tasks.

(p.7)

Klein and Eseryel  identify “four areas of competence” that a 21st Century workplace learning ecosystem should support (see Table 1):

Table 1. Areas of Competence

The authors assert that all four the “dimensions of competence can be defined, developed, and supported.” They cite Kelly & Caplan’s 1993 HBR article How Bell Labs creates star performers describing how the product development division at Bell Labs’ Network Systems identified the  instrumental skills and traits that are necessary to be a “star performer.” These skills included

1. organizational know-how
2. networking
3. perspective
4. self-management
5. teamwork effectiveness

According to Kelly and Caplan, simply defining and publishing a checklist of the skills made a significant difference in staff performance.

This holistic approach to workplace learning is counter to the culture in most organizations. Serious efforts and commitment must be made to establish and maintain an effective corporate learning environment.

However, the emergence of Web 2.0 technology has changed the focus of learning systems from task-based, procedural training to knowledge-intensive problem-solving that actually supports deep conceptual learning. I would assert that the deployment of more open collaboration and social network solutions and distributing processing, as well as the development of more non- and informal approaches to learning (not to mention the rise of our old friends, the Digital Natives) are adding new stresses and pressures to learning systems that can barely keep pace with the current rate of change as it is.

Work today not only requires technical knowledge, but the “instrumental skills” that enable people to work cohesively across disciplines and geographies. I will begin to investigate these emerging challenges next time.

__________

References:

Kelly, R., & Caplan, J. (1993). How Bell Labs creates star performers. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 128-139.

Klein, J. Eseryel, D. (2005). The Corporate Learning Environment. [Internet] Available from: http://www.igi-pub.com/downloads/excerpts/159140505XCh1.pdf [Accessed February 18th 2010]

–

March 03 2010 | e-learning | Add a Comment »

Workplace Learning Paradigms Characterized

In the field of education, instructional design has traditionally been applied using established models, typically using a top-down approach, that focus on explicit definitions of audience, environment, strategies, activities and outcomes. However, when different traditions of design are considered, more creative and organic elements are emphasised, which also embrace a ‘bottom-up’ strategy.

Kays, E, & Sims, R. (2006).

All phases of product development — from initial conceptualization to finished product or service, and on to deployment and support — require workers to have both depth and breadth of knowledge. The primary method to meet these needs is through the use of teams that traverse domains of expertise, organizational functions, and geographical distance.

We can say that three design paradigms are generally used – with notable exceptions) in today’s corporations and institutions:

1. automating the traditional top-down systems approach
2. incremental development
3. customer creation environments

The systems approach to development is well-documented and (I assume) familiar to the learning professionals (see my overview of ISD here). The central tenet of the systems approach is to make the core development processes work more effectively by automating and improving each step in the process by the use of templates, “cookie cutter” learning and assessment objects, and so on. This can assist in enabling organizations’ training departments to efficiently output content in a regularized and consistent manner.

Incremental development represents a “marked departure” (Klein & Eseryel, p.5) from the traditional systems approach and goes under a variety of names including agile development, adaptive development, rapid prototyping, and spiral development. While the approach is primarily currently used for developing software, it can be applied to a variety of contexts, including workplace training and development.

According to Ambler (2003) and Larman (2001) the key distinctions between the two approaches can be summarized as follows:

• Design and development is incremental and iterative. Traditional development uses a waterfall or sequential lifecycle in which all requirements are first defined, then followed by development, integration, and testing. In the iterative approach, development is organized into small mini-projects of short time periods, each of which produces a tested, integrated, and functioning system. Overall product development consists of successive enlargement and refinement of the system through multiple iterations.
• Feedback drives the process rather than full and complete specifications. In traditional development methods, requirements are specified and frozen — then development begins. Any change in requirements creates havoc in subsequent development phases. In the iterative paradigm, change is expected and embraced. Consequently, the product’s architecture and the development environment are designed to support change, rapid development, and testing.
• Close customer involvement during development. The traditional approach normally organizes people by function. One organization does the front-end phase of meeting with customers and developing requirements, which are then passed along to the development organization.Iterative development staff, on the other hand, works directly with customers as they design and develop the product as they have the main responsibility for both deriving requirements and developing the solution.The rationale is that:
  i. written specifications do not communicate very well,
  ii. customers are not sure what it is they want and are poor at articulating requirements,
  iii. translations and intermediaries between the customer and those designing the product often result in confusion, and
  iv. one can leverage the expertise of the development staff, since they are the people most familiar with the technology.

Iterative development focuses on high-risk, high-value features first. The most difficult features are tackled first in the incremental development approach. The basic idea is that if one cannot solve the most complex and critical problems, then one should not continue. Larman (2001) illustrates this point with the following adage:

If I want Web pages to be green and the system to handle 5,000 simultaneous user transactions, green can wait.

(p. 37)

Rod Sims has devised the Three-Phase Design (3PD) approach to leverage the concept of iterative development. As illustrated in Figure 1, the 3PD process is supported by a “team” (p.8) consisting of an academic (A), a developer (D), and an educational designer (ED) who all contribute to each part of a learning program’s iterative progression through the model. The authors’ consider that the  “ultimate goal” of the model is to disintermediate the Developer and the Educational Designer, enabling the Academic to function as an independent Developer and Educational Designer over time.

Figure 1. The 3PD model including ADDIE components (after Sims & Jones, 2002)

I would assert that in its stated goal, and to a certain extent in it’s execution, that the 3PD model is a direct-line antecedent of the Rapid E-Learning approach to courseware design, development and delivery. It’s important to point out thought that Sims and Jones themselves view online course creation

…not as a short-term development process, but rather as a long-term collaborative process which would “generate and evolve into focused communities of practice with shared understanding and a philosophy of continuous improvement” the value of 3PD would be realised through a three-step process of develop functionality, evaluate/elaborate/enhance and maintain rather than the more traditional sequence of design, develop, implement, evaluate.

(2003, p. 18)

Three-Phase Design also integrates the three “essential competency sets for unit or course development” (Sims, in press)  – design, subject matter exposition, and production, in a cohesive rather than disparate fashion. Here, development is not driven by a an overarching and inflexible process, but rather it is the context of the learning materials  which determines the development in a targeted and effective manner. The approach is based upon the assumption that learning takes place in an online an collaborative environment. Sims and Jones state that 3PD “proposes four critical factors:”

1. Instructional design must align with institutional expectation, contemporary pedagogies, and available resources and skills
2. Skills building is facilitated through the scaffolding process to enable those less proficient in design and development to develop the appropriate competencies.
3. A team-based approach is used to develop communication and collaboration among group members. Sims and Jones (2002) point out that the growth in social media reinforces the importance of this factor.
4. Scaffolded support is incorporated into content design-time to enable instructors and staff to confront new and learning paradigms.

More…

__________

References:

Ambler, S.W. (2003). The principles of agile modeling. [Internet] Available from: http:/www.agilemodeling.com/principles.htm [Accessed 26 February 2010]

Klein, J. Eseryel, D. (2005). The Corporate Learning Environment. [Internet] Available from: http://www.igi-pub.com/downloads/excerpts/159140505XCh1.pdf [Accessed February 18th 2010]

Larman, C. (2001). Applying UML and patterns: An introduction to object-oriented analysis and design and the unified process (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sims, R. (2006). Beyond instructional design: Making learning design a reality. Journal of Learning Design, 1(2), 1-7. [Internet] Available from: http://www.jld.qut.edu.au/ [Accessed 3 June 2009]

Sims, R. (in press). From three-phase to proactive learning design: Creating effective online teaching and learning environments, in J. Willis (Ed), Constructivist Instructional Design (C-ID): Foundations, Models, and Practical Examples.

Sims, R., & Jones, D. (2002). Continuous Improvement Through Shared Understanding: Reconceptualising Instructional Design for Online Learning. Proceedings of the 2002 ascilite conference: winds of change in the sea of learning: charting the course of digital education. [Internet] Available from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland02/proceedings/papers/162.pdf [Accessed 3 June 2009]

–

March 02 2010 | e-learning | Add a Comment »