Last week, we looked at seven predictions for how technology will affect training and development in 2015. This week, we’ll look more broadly at a handful of corporate training trends—still mostly technology driven—that organizations can no longer afford to ignore. Business-centric learning The idea of business-centric learning came onto many people’s radar last year, after the Brandon Hall Group did a survey showing that about 40% of businesses were developing their learning strategy in alignment with business needs, while the other 60% were focusing on the learners and the content. David Grebow of the Brandon Hall Group offers these characterizations of the three types of learning: Just-in-case learning is content-centric. This is the one-size-fits-all model that made up the training landscape for many years, particularly with the widespread implementation of e-learning. As Grebow notes: "We took the instructor completely out of the picture, and ended up with nothing but content." Just-in-time learning is learner-centric. Here the learners’ needs are the focus of course development, and learners can access the information when, where, and how they need it. Just-for-me learning is business-centric. Grebow writes: "There is no point in focusing on just-in-case learning when the business case for the learning has not been made. No need to get that content out there just in time if the learner has no time to waste finding an answer to a question with no relationship to the business needs. What makes the most sense strategically, as well as operationally, is to provide the exact information that is just for me, when and where I need it, as long as it supports the business needs of the company." Business-centric learning isn’t in opposition to a learner-centric mode. Instead, it involves aligning the learners’ needs with the business needs. There are two major factors necessary for effective business-centric learning. First, the business goals of the training must be clearly defined. Second, the relationship between the business goals and the training must be measureable. New technologies that enable advanced data collection and analytics can provide support for companies making the switch to business-centric learning. Video-based learning Massive open online courses (MOOCs) and other forms of online training have ushered in the era of video. Research has shown that more than 80% of learning takes place visually and that a combination of video and audio demonstrations are effective ways to learn tasks. Today, all it takes is a computer to produce a training video. As a result, video-based learning is being used more and more, not just in online courses but in traditional and blended courses as well. Multiple learning formats In addition to more video, we are seeing much more variety and flexibility in the use of learning formats. In the past, training was usually delivered either one way or another—either instructor-led training or elearning, in a seminar or as a tutorial. But thanks to both the BYOD (bring your own device) movement, in which employees use their personal smartphones and tablets for business purposes, and new multimedia technologies (from screencasting software to simulations), training formats can be tailored both to the content and to the needs of the learners. Blended courses, responsive design (i.e., content that works on any device or operating system), and mobile learning are three of the ways this trend is currently manifesting. More social media The use of social media in training has been somewhat controversial, as organizations are understandably concerned about the privacy of their proprietary information. However, not all social media tools necessarily need to be public, and companies have much to gain by using communication and collaboration tools beyond the discussion forum. In a recent article on the future of L&D, David Wentworth and Mollie Lombardi of the Brandon Hall Group wrote that "companies still lack the knowledge and insight around how to use [social] tools for learning and development." In a study, they found that while almost 60% of companies were using social for learning, fewer than one-quarter thought it was effective. The authors say that one reason is the limited scope of the tools the firms are using, which aren’t the ones that are best for learning. "Companies are using document sharing, discussion forums, and blogs, but they aren’t generally using video or micro-blogs—which our research shows are more effective—to improve their learning functions." Competency-based training Finally, the competency-based education model is making huge waves at all levels of education, and companies are also realizing that what is really important is not that employees sit through training, but that they can do something useful at the end of it. Competency-based training requires reorganizing training programs around demonstrable skills, which requires clearly articulating the desired learning outcomes and developing assessments that validly measure those outcomes. Organizations that adopt a competency-based approach will find themselves much better able to cope with the skills gaps currently affecting many industries. Mirroring what is happening in higher education, the training landscape is in a bit of an upheaval, which is being fueled by new technology-enabled learning tools and by new ideas about the best ways to educate today’s workforce. These five trends have largely emerged over the past few years. Smart innovative companies are already embracing them, and organizations that choose to ignore these trends will soon find themselves left behind. Copyright 2015 Bryant Nielson. All Rights Reserved. Bryant Nielson - Managing Director of CapitalWave Inc.- Being a big believer in Technology Enabled Learning, Bryant seeks to create awareness, motivate adoption and engage organizations and people in the changing business of education. Bryant is a entrepreneur, trainer, and strategic training adviser for many organizations. Bryant’s business career has been based on his results-oriented style of empowering the individual. Learn more about Bryant at LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/bryantnielson Related Posts:MOOCs at the 5 Moments of Learning NeedTechnology-Enabled Learning: What Will 2015 Bring?Training in an Ad-Hoc, BYOD Environment13 Megatrends in MOOCsWhy Your Existing E-Learning is Failing, and How MOOCs Can…(Visited 404 times, 1 visits today)

This is the first in a series of articles that will tackle common objections to and arguments against using massive open online courses (MOOCs) for training. Have you seen how people use public libraries these days? They pick up books, skim through them, and then put them back on the shelf without reading them. Sometimes they even check out books and don’t read them. Sometimes they just photocopy a few pages or a chapter, or look up a reference. Sometimes they don’t use the books at all, but instead participate in a discussion group or even watch a film! In fact, a 2012 study found that only a bare majority of people who go to a public library actually borrow printed books. Since people who go to libraries aren’t all borrowing books—and even when they are borrowing books they probably aren’t all reading them—public libraries are failures. By now, I expect you are rolling your eyes. And for very good reason—the assertion that public libraries are failures is ridiculous. But these are the very same arguments often used to suggest that MOOCs are failures. The fact that only between 5 and 10% of people who sign up for MOOCs actually complete them has led some to conclude that MOOCs are not engaging, that people don’t like them, and that they are not effective forms of instruction. However, the research that has been done on MOOCs shows that this argument is not valid, because completion rates are not useful measures of what really happens in a MOOC. Let’s take a closer look at what the completion rates of MOOCs really mean. The completion rates usually reported for MOOCs are straightforward: divide the number of people who complete the MOOC (e.g., 5,000) by the number who sign up (e.g., 100,000). Regardless of the fact that 5,000 people is still a huge number in the context of most courses, 5% just doesn’t look very good. The problem with this calculation is that it doesn’t take into account learner intention. Those 100,000 people who enroll may never intend to finish in the first place. Many of them don’t even show up for the first class. Like people who sign up for a free library card, the people who enroll in MOOCs do so with a variety of intentions in mind—maybe they want to see what it’s like (taking a book off of the shelf and skimming through it), maybe they are only interested in one or two modules (photocopying a chapter or two), or maybe they just want to be reminded when the MOOC will start and plan to make their decision at that time (putting their name on the waiting list for a popular book). The more informative calculation isn’t based on the number of people who enroll, but the number who enroll intending to complete the course. For a study released last month, Harvard’s Justin Reich examined exactly that, and the results look much different. Reich surveyed students from nine HarvardX courses about their intentions to complete their MOOCs. What they found was that, depending on the course, only 40 to 78% (average: 58%) of respondents intended to complete the course at all, and of those, 9 to 36% (average: 22%) actually did. Another interesting finding was that among those who didn’t intend to complete the course, between 6% and 10% went on to earn a certificate, showing that learners’ intentions can change—in both directions. Finally, the study showed that attrition happens early in the course: if learners are engaged early, they are more likely to see it through to the end. Admittedly, these numbers are not high, but there is still more to the story. Reich’s study looked at a range of academic courses, most of which learners probably weren’t taking to improve their job skills (for example, courses on ancient Greek heroes and the letters of Paul). So let’s look more closely at courses that learners are taking for professional development. One way to measure this is by exploring the completion rate for people who sign up for verified certificates, which cost around $50 each and are starting to be considered as valid credentials in the workplace. In an interview at Disrupt SF 2014, Coursera co-founder Daphne Koller said that among learners who embark on the verified certificate track, the completion rate is between 80 and 90%. That looks a heck of a lot better than 5 to 10%! What does all of this mean? It means that completion rates aren’t valid measurements of MOOC success. We can’t measure the success of a public library based only on the number of people who go into the library and then, regardless of their intentions, leave with a book which they then read cover to cover. That would be silly. It is equally silly to judge the success of a MOOC based on the overall percentage of people who complete the course. For corporate trainers, the more relevant metric is the 80-to-90% completion rate of those who enroll in the verified certificate track. Different learners have different needs, and that’s something we should embrace, not fight against. Some learners need a whole course, some need a module or two, and some just want to skim. As I’ve written before on this blog, MOOCs can accommodate different learners’ needs in ways that instructor-led training and traditional elearning simply can’t. Public libraries aren’t failures, and neither are MOOCs. They are both ways of providing personalized learning and engagement opportunities for a diverse group of people. There may not yet be an agreed-upon metric for measuring MOOC success, but until there is one, let us not condemn them on the basis of something as meaningless as low completion rates. Copyright 2015 Bryant Nielson. All Rights Reserved. Bryant Nielson - Managing Director of CapitalWave Inc.- Being a big believer in Technology Enabled Learning, Bryant seeks to create awareness, motivate adoption and engage organizations and people in the changing business of education. Bryant is a entrepreneur, trainer, and strategic training adviser for many organizations. Bryant’s business career has been based on his results-oriented style of empowering the individual. Learn more about Bryant at LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/bryantnielson Related Posts:Face-to-Face Learning has FAILEDMeasuring Success (ROI) of a Training MOOC, Part 1How Much Learning Really Occurs in MOOCs?By the Numbers: Learning from MOOCsKey Factors in MOOC Success, Part 1(Visited 198 times, 1 visits today)

This is the second post in a series of articles that tackle common objections to and arguments against using massive open online courses (MOOCs) for training. Read the previous article: Public Libraries Are Failures (and So Are MOOCs). I’ve heard all of the benefits of online learning. Learners can access the course materials anytime, from anywhere. They can schedule their courses around their life, rather than their life around their courses. Companies can offer the same amount of training in less time and with considerably less expense. I know all of that. But when it comes down to it, people just don’t learn as well online. They don’t put in the time or they get distracted by their email. They can’t easily ask questions. And besides, there is just something magical about an instructor standing in front of a class that simply can’t be replicated in or replaced by the online experience. Right? The myth that people don’t learn as well online-that there is indeed something magical about face-to-face instruction-is as pervasive as the myth that teaching to individual learning styles affects learning outcomes (it doesn’t). The idea that people don’t learn as well online is usually the first argument made against massive open online courses and in defense of instructor-led training (ILT). But it isn’t true. Let’s explore the research behind this idea. How does online learning compare to face-to-face learning? First, let’s briefly return to the idea of completion rates, which were the focus of the previous post in this series. In all (or close to all) of the studies that have been done comparing online and F2F learning, the completion rate is higher for F2F. However, while the fact that more people drop out of online courses may mean many things, it doesn’t mean that overall people don’t learn as well online. The data we need to examine is the comparison between online and in-person learners who could reasonably be expected to learn the same amount (i.e., those who actually complete their courses). Teasing apart the research on online versus F2F courses isn’t easy, because the courses are rarely directly comparable and because of the many different types of students who take the courses. Here, I’ll focus on the results that are most relevant to training formats. Studies showing online learning doesn’t work There are, indeed, plenty of studies showing that students in online courses don’t learn as well as students in F2F courses. For example, this study by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) found "modest evidence" that in-person instruction is superior to online, and this study out of Columbia University found that online students were more likely to fail than traditional students. However, while results like these may be important in academic environments, they are less relevant for corporate training. The reason is that many of the studies that show online learning to be inferior focus on remedial courses or students who are already at a disadvantage. In the NBER study, the biggest differences between online and F2F learning were found among students who were relatively low-achieving to start with. Even the highly publicized failure of the partnership between San Jose State University and MOOC provider Udacity focused on introductory and remedial courses for students who had graduated from high school, but didn’t have the skills to succeed in college. This caveat is important to keep in mind as it helps explain the different results we see when larger datasets and more high-achieving students are considered. Studies showing online learning does work Probably the most widely cited study in favor of online learning was conducted by the U.S. Department of Education on data from K-12 classes. They performed a meta-analysis of studies, most of which took place between 2004 and 2008, and concluded that on average, online students perform better than face-to-face learners. Other studies have also found either an advantage of online learning or no difference between learning formats. For example, this study analyzed learning outcomes in students taking continuing education courses and found that they were "essentially the same" for both the fully online and the in-person formats. What conclusion can we draw? Although the results from remedial courses may be disheartening for colleges and universities, the evidence largely supports the idea that online learning is at least equivalent to F2F learning for the demographics most relevant to corporate training. For high-achieving, motivated learners, the format doesn’t appear to have much of an effect on learning outcomes at all. Other factors, such as the effectiveness of the instructor, likely have a much greater influence. In addition, we must consider that the most relevant studies haven’t yet been done. For example, on this blog, I’ve highlighted many new technologies, like LectureScape, which have the power to lift digital learning to a whole new level. No research has yet been examined how these new technologies impact learning. In addition, while mobile learning is starting to come into its own, there haven’t yet been any large-scale studies showing learning outcomes of mobile courses. In terms of comparing learning in MOOCs to learning in person, these studies will likely have to be done by companies, which have more control over their learners and what happens in their courses than the colleges and universities that are currently offering free courses for all. The take-home message here for corporate trainers is that people can, and do, learn just as well online as they do in person. I would even argue that they learn better, for many reasons I’ve discussed before, such as they can re-watch videos and access the information at the moment they need it. These are the kinds of things that will eventually differentiate new forms of online learning, like MOOCs, from anything that has come before. Copyright 2015 Bryant Nielson. All Rights Reserved. Bryant Nielson - Managing Director of CapitalWave Inc.- Being a big believer in Technology Enabled Learning, Bryant seeks to create awareness, motivate adoption and engage organizations and people in the changing business of education. Bryant is a entrepreneur, trainer, and strategic training adviser for many organizations. Bryant’s business career has been based on his results-oriented style of empowering the individual. Learn more about Bryant at LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/bryantnielson Related Posts:Key Factors in MOOC Success, Part 1Public Libraries Are Failures (and So Are MOOCs)MOOCs Treat All Learners the SameHow Much Learning Really Occurs in MOOCs?Megatrends in MOOCs: #9 Flipping the MOOC(Visited 291 times, 1 visits today)

This is the third in a series of articles that tackle common objections to and arguments against using massive open online courses (MOOCs) for training. Read the previous article: Face-to-Face learning had FAILED. All learners are different. They come from different backgrounds and have different levels of prior knowledge. They have different learning styles and preferences, different needs and different questions. For education to be effective and engaging, it needs to be adaptable for the needs of individual learners. MOOCs treat all learners the same, and a one-size-fits-all approach works just as well for education as it does for clothing, which is not well at all. This is probably my favorite objection to MOOCs, perhaps because it is the one (aside from low completion rates) that has gotten the most attention. The basis of this argument is that "massive" courses can never work because they don’t take into account the needs of individuals. In fact, I (and many others) believe that MOOCs are able to support individual learners even better than traditional instructional formats. To address this issue, let’s start by taking a trip back in time…way back to 2008, when George Siemens and Stephen Downes offered the very first MOOC, a course called "Connectivism and Connected Knowledge." The course was based on the theory of connectivism, which Downes has defined as "the thesis that knowledge is distributed across a network of connections, and therefore that learning consists of the ability to construct and traverse those networks." The MOOC, which attracted 2,200 students, was completely different from the traditional idea of a course. There was no assigned content and no formal assessments. Instead, Siemens and Downes provided a large supply of recommended content as a starting point and then encouraged learners to explore the content, repurpose and remix the content, contribute content of their own, and share what they’d created and learned, via blogs, online discussions, social media, and so on. The content of the course was fluid—it changed as learners discovered and shared their discoveries with one another. The goal of the first MOOC was not for participants to memorize anything or answer multiple choice questions correctly. It was for them to approach the content based on their own interests and objectives, build networks of people with shared interests, and thus actively create their own knowledge and knowledge networks. Far from being one-size-fits-all, this was personalized learning at its best—learners chose not only when and where they participated in the course, but also what materials they engaged with and who they collaborated with, if they chose to engage or collaborate at all. The MOOCs that started to appear in 2012, from Coursera and Udacity, were much more formally structured, more like a regular college course than an experimental collaborative knowledge-creation environment. There was a set schedule and weekly modules with required content and formal assessments. All students were expected to progress through the course at least somewhat linearly—though they could skip around within modules, the modules were released in a set order on set dates. There was also the possibility of participating in online discussions, but, not surprisingly, many found it difficult to hold a meaningful conversation with tens of thousands of other people. Many of the MOOCs we see today fall somewhere between the two extremes, allowing learners to choose how they participate in the course, but within a more structured framework. For example, Coursera has started offering many of its courses on-demand, so learners can start anytime and work at their own pace. Many courses use collaborative project-based learning rather than online quizzes and tests, so learners can choose their projects and their teams according to their interests. And many courses now incorporate social media, blogs, and other communication tools, so learners can choose if and how they want to interact with others. The take-home message is that a MOOC is not a pedagogy, it is a framework, and within that framework many things can happen, including learner-centered instruction. As Stanford professor John C. Mitchell wrote in 2013, "Perhaps the most important lesson thus far is that ‘online education’ cannot be thought of in rigid, monolithic terms—as if all online education looks the same, or requires giving up all aspects of the classroom experience…educational technology does not require a cookie-cutter approach. Quite the contrary: Online education, as it develops, should allow us to customize and personalize the student educational experience to a greater extent than ever before." For corporate trainers, this means that MOOCs can be selected, designed, and facilitated according to the needs of the organization as well as individual learners. For example, a course where consistency is paramount and all learners need to acquire certain knowledge by a specific date may be more rigid in terms of schedule and requirements. In contrast, a course that is optional or serves primarily as performance support may be more flexible to allow just-in-time learning. Assessments in any course may include a combination of formal tests and project-based learning. Discussions may or may not be required. The possibilities are bounded only by our imagination and the limits of the available technologies, which are improving all of the time. Can your company’s instructor-led training or traditional elearning programs do that? Just because mailboxes in the United States are blue doesn’t mean mailboxes must be blue. In Canada they are red. Similarly, just because some MOOCs have been designed according to a rigid, or one-size-fits-all, approach doesn’t mean they all must be. The MOOC framework is flexible, and it is this flexibility that allows MOOCs to be powerful digital learning environments able to meet today’s complex training needs. Copyright 2015 Bryant Nielson. All Rights Reserved. Bryant Nielson - Managing Director of CapitalWave Inc.- Being a big believer in Technology Enabled Learning, Bryant seeks to create awareness, motivate adoption and engage organizations and people in the changing business of education. Bryant is a entrepreneur, trainer, and strategic training adviser for many organizations. Bryant’s business career has been based on his results-oriented style of empowering the individual. Learn more about Bryant at LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/bryantnielson Related Posts:MOOCs Aren’t Interactive, So There’s No Real Learning…What Style of MOOC is Right for You?MOOCs Are Too Uncontrollable - People Could Do Anything!Megatrends in MOOCs: #6 More Social, More CollaborativeLearner-Centered Instruction in MOOCs(Visited 144 times, 1 visits today)

This is the fourth in a series of articles that tackle common objections to and arguments against using massive open online courses (MOOCs) for training. Read the previous article: MOOCs Treat All Learners the Same. MOOCs aren’t interactive. They don’t provide opportunities for active learning or engagement. Learners just sit in front of a computer and watch video lectures (they probably aren’t even paying attention) and take multiple choice tests. There is no learner-learner interaction, no instructor-learner interaction, and only a minimal amount of learner-content interaction. This isn’t meaningful learning—one could hardly call it "learning" at all. This would be a very convincing argument, if it were true. In the previous post, we saw that the widely held perception of MOOCs as a one-size-fits-all solution is inaccurate. While some MOOCs do take a "cookie-cutter approach" (which isn’t always a bad thing—think compliance training), this is not a trait inherent to the courses themselves. The same idea applies to active learning and interactivity. Yes, some MOOCs are designed as more passive experiences, where all learners do is watch videos and take multiple-choice tests (again, think compliance training), but many MOOCs are highly active, and interactive, digital learning environments. In fact, in a study about interaction in MOOCs presented at the EdMedia2013 World Conference on Educational Media and Technology, 65% of MOOC students reported being "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the level of interaction in their courses. Since then, the development of new technologies has only enhanced the active learning opportunities available in MOOCs. Here are 12 ways to make MOOCs more interactive: Make interactive video. That is not an oxymoron—with the technologies available today, online video can be used to create rich, interactive experiences. At a basic level, comprehension and reflection questions can be inserted into video segments and videos can contain direct links to course discussion boards. At only a slightly higher level of complexity, choose-your-own-adventure-type simulations can be created using a series of related video clips. Another option is to use LectureScape, an enhanced video technology that incorporates data-driven video interaction techniques, including keyword search, interactive transcripts, personal bookmarks, and more. Use discussion boards and social media. Many MOOCs take advantage of online communication technologies, including class discussion boards and both public and private social media platforms, to spur learner-learner interaction. Have a facilitator lead class discussions. MOOCs can be facilitated by subject matter experts, who supply discussion prompts, answer questions, and otherwise moderate class discussions. Hold virtual office hours. To encourage instructor-learner interaction, hold virtual office hours in an online chatroom for an hour or two each week. Use surveys and polls. Surveys and polls can be used in many ways in MOOCs. For example, as an introduction to a particular learning activity, take a poll to gauge what learners already know or how they feel about the topic. Incorporate projects and other real-world problem solving. Corporate training often suffers from a lack of meaningful assessment. Use case studies, simulations, and other forms of real-world problem solving to get learners to interact with the content, and with one another. Assign learners to groups. To facilitate cooperation in a large class, assign learners to smaller groups for discussions and projects. Learners can be grouped based on department, geographical location, or any other variable that is relevant for the training and for your organization. Use a variety of exercise types. Even when all you really need is for learners to read and understand the content, you are not limited to multiple choice questions. Digital learning environments allow you to create a variety of exercises, such as matching, drag-and-drop, identification, and so on, which provide a higher level of interaction. Set up knowledge sharing environments. Set up a course wiki or another collaboration area where learners can ask questions and share their knowledge with one another. Incorporate simulations. The MOOC framework can accommodate any type of digital activity, including complex simulations and scenario-based learning. Gamify. Gamification can boost learner engagement and encourage interaction. Here are four strategies for effectively implementing gamification in training MOOCs. Go mobile. Here are 20 strategies for increasing learner interactions in mobile MOOCs from Inge Ingatia de Waard. This is not an exhaustive list, but it does represent the myriad ways MOOCs can be interactive, from content delivery to assessment, and beyond. What makes these opportunities possible is the new web-based technologies that have been developed over the past few years, and I expect we will continue to see new learning technologies being developed, which will further expand the idea of what is possible for technology-enabled learning. Just like MOOCs can be designed so that they meet the unique needs of individual learners, they can also be designed to be interactive. That’s the real power of the MOOC platform—it can be used to deliver the training your learners and your organization require, whatever that training may be. Featured image by Bin im Garten Copyright 2015 Bryant Nielson. All Rights Reserved. Bryant Nielson - Managing Director of CapitalWave Inc.- Being a big believer in Technology Enabled Learning, Bryant seeks to create awareness, motivate adoption and engage organizations and people in the changing business of education. Bryant is a entrepreneur, trainer, and strategic training adviser for many organizations. Bryant’s business career has been based on his results-oriented style of empowering the individual. Learn more about Bryant at LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/bryantnielson Related Posts:Why Your Existing E-Learning is Failing, and How MOOCs Can…New Technologies Making MOOCs Even BetterKey Factors in MOOC Success, Part 2MOOCs Are Too Uncontrollable - People Could Do Anything!Instructor Led Training…Is It Still the Gold Standard?(Visited 370 times, 1 visits today)

This is the fifth in a series of articles that tackle common objections to and arguments against using massive open online courses (MOOCs) for training. Read the previous article: MOOCs Aren’t Interactive, So There’s No Real Learning Taking Place. I understand the benefits of digital learning environments, but the problem remains that MOOCs are not very well controlled. How will we know what learners are doing? They could say they are taking the course, but really just be watching YouTube. And what about our intellectual property and other proprietary information? We can’t have employees holding Twitter chats about our business. Retaining control over employees’ training is a very real concern for many organizations. Not only is training time paid time, but training often involves the communication of sensitive business information that companies do not want publicly disseminated. In addition, many courses are mandatory and training departments are often held responsible for tying training efforts to performance metrics, so the idea that learners could engage with their courses according to their own schedule and using their own devices can be a bit scary. I have two major responses to this objection: MOOCs used for corporate training don’t need to take place publicly. The lack of tight control found in MOOCs can actually be an advantage for organizations. Let’s look at both of these in more detail. Corporate training MOOCs are usually run privately. Despite the words massive and open in the acronym, most MOOCs for corporate training are neither. They are usually run on password-protected intranets or closed learning management systems, so they are open only to approved learners and discussions take place within the system, not on public platforms. Even corporate MOOCs that incorporate social media don’t necessarily use Twitter—Yammer is a popular private social network that businesses can use to ensure the privacy of employee communications. There are other acronyms frequently used to describe these types of courses, such as MPOC (massive private online course) and SPOC (small private online course), but they are all variants of MOOCs, so it is easiest just to include them under the MOOC umbrella. They point to remember is that a MOOC is a flexible framework that can be built upon and altered to meet the needs of any organization. A lack of tight control can actually be beneficial. It is true that learners in MOOCs have much more freedom than they do in instructor-led training (ILT) or traditional elearning. They can participate on their own time. They can engage with the content in different ways according to their needs. And they can interact with one another, even if they are in different departments. Even if they are on different continents! Rather than being a disadvantage, this can lead to a much more powerful learner-centered, and user-generated, experience. Stephen Downes, who along with George Siemans ran the very first MOOC, describes what he calls "emergent properties" of MOOCs. In exploring what it means for a MOOC to be a success, Downes wrote on his blog: "…the MOOC should exhibit network properties on a macro scale…This is to treat the MOOC as an entity which perceives, or which learns, as a whole. These things are emergent properties, for example, emergent knowledge or emergent learning. Did the MOOC as a whole produce some new insight, or recognize some new phenomena in its area of study? MOOC success, in other words, is not individual success…It is not a combination or a sum of [individual] experiences…but rather a result of how those experiences combined or meshed together." Here are some ways MOOCs can benefit companies as a result of emergent properties: Empowering employees to take control of their own learning and professional development Enabling communication and collaboration among individuals and teams that are normally siloed Facilitating the development of learning organizations by demonstrating that the organization values independent learning Integrating learning into everyday activities Fostering innovation by encouraging employees to create knowledge resources (e.g., contribute to a wiki) and share those resources with others These are not benefits normally associated with ILT or traditional elearning. In MOOCs, they emerge as a result of creating a learner-centered, collaborative learning space. The whole becomes more than the sum of its parts. Of course, I’m not suggesting MOOCs are, or should be, a free-for-all. They do have a structure, and they can be tightly controlled when it counts. For example, because they use video-based content delivery, MOOCs are excellent when consistency is essential—the core content is guaranteed to be delivered in exactly the same way every time. In addition, because of the large amount of data and analytics available, engagement and performance can be measured much more precisely than it can for ILT. But by empowering learners and providing opportunities for them to interact with one another, MOOCs create the conditions necessary for these "macro" benefits to emerge. As Downes writes, MOOC success is not just individual success. In this case, it is also the success of the team, the department, the training program, and the organization as a whole. It may be a challenge for firms to embrace the uncertainty that comes along with new technology-driven digital learning environments, but for those that do, the payoff will be huge. Featured image by Faramarz Hashemi Copyright 2015 Bryant Nielson. All Rights Reserved. Bryant Nielson - Managing Director of CapitalWave Inc.- Being a big believer in Technology Enabled Learning, Bryant seeks to create awareness, motivate adoption and engage organizations and people in the changing business of education. Bryant is a entrepreneur, trainer, and strategic training adviser for many organizations. Bryant’s business career has been based on his results-oriented style of empowering the individual. Learn more about Bryant at LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/bryantnielson Related Posts:Are MOOCs Too Risky for Your Corporate Training Program?MOOCs Aren’t Interactive, So There’s No Real Learning…MOOCs Treat All Learners the SameLearner-Centered Instruction in MOOCsTraining Reboot: Assessing Your Company’s MOOC Readiness(Visited 89 times, 1 visits today)

In the five previous articles, we have addressed common objections to using massive open online courses (MOOCs) in corporate training. Here, we take a step back to tackle a more fundamental objection—the objection to using technology at all. Here’s a sentiment commonly heard in training departments and conference rooms: We’ve always done instructor-led training. Our entire training program is based on face-to-face interaction, and I don’t think learning technologies can offer us much of an advantage. Using learning technologies just isn’t right for me or for my company. "We’ve always done it this way" syndrome is rampant in companies, especially regarding adopting new technology, and it can be difficult to overcome. This objection usually stems from an unwillingness to learn something new. But while adopting a new way of doing things can be painful for some, it must happen for businesses to survive and grow into the future. Customer Interaction Solutions magazine editorial director Tracey Schelmetic wrote: "When an unwillingness to learn about, let alone adopt, new technologies begins holding businesses back, it’s time for education. It’s time to learn the what, why, how, and where of new methods….Companies are standing on a precipice, and the deadline is fast approaching when they must make the decision to go forward or dissolve into rust." That was in 2005 and she was talking about adopting new telecommunications technologies. It was before everyone had a cellphone, and only a lucky few had a Palm Pilot or a Blackberry. It was five years before the iPad. Facebook was in its very early stages, and Twitter wasn’t even on the radar. How many companies can you name that have refused to adopt these new telecommunications technologies and managed to survive? My guess is: not many. Ten years from now, we will be saying the same things about MOOCs and other forms of technology-enabled learning. The arguments about whether or not to use new online tools, social media, and so on will seem silly, because by then they will be the new way we’ve always done things. If your company is standing on a precipice, here are three major reasons your corporate training program should fall on the side of using technology: Technology is in the process of revolutionizing the corporate training industry. This may sound like jumping on the bandwagon, but it is more accurately described as keeping up with current trends, which is essential for companies looking to attract tomorrow’s best and brightest. A new report from Visiongain predicts that the MOOC market will grow immensely in the next five years, especially for "companies looking to implement effective training programs for employees." A huge driver of this revolution is Millennials, who at latest count spend almost 18 hours every day consuming some sort of media and 14.5 hours per week on their smartphones. To these hyper-connected individuals, training that doesn’t incorporate some sort of technology seems antiquated. Employees expect and need more training than they are getting. Are you experiencing a skills shortage in your company? Do you have too many vacancies you can’t find qualified people to fill? This skills gap is happening in all sectors, and while many have laid the blame at the door of colleges and universities, but Wharton’s Peter Capelli suggests that the real problem is a training shortage. An Accenture study last year found that 80% of 2014 graduates expected formal training at their first job, which is more than 30% higher than number of 2012 and 2013 graduates who received training at theirs. To reconcile these numbers, employers would need to nearly double the amount of training they offer—and that’s just for entry-level employees. Most companies are not in the place to double their T&D staff, but they can use technology to scale their training efforts. Technology-enabled learning is simply more effective for training. Finally, though many trainers like to argue otherwise, technology-enabled learning is simply a more effective way to train employees. Here are a few elearning statistics that I’ve noted before, but are worth revisiting: Technology-enabled learning tools and strategies can increase employee productivity by up to 50%. Technology-enabled learning can increase retention by up to 60%. Companies that use technology-enabled learning are 46% more likely to be industry leaders, 34% better able to respond to their customers’ needs, and 17% more likely to be market share leaders. These three reasons each represent a major way organizations that don’t actively pursue new learning technologies will soon find themselves trailing behind. They will be unable to attract and keep top talent, they will be unable to bridge their skills gaps, and they will be unable to keep up with their competitors who are using technology-enabled learning. No company wants to look toward its future and see a pile of rust. For organizations that want to get the most out of their training programs, now is the time to stop saying "we’ve always done it this way" and instead to start exploring better ways of doing it. Copyright 2015 Bryant Nielson. All Rights Reserved. Bryant Nielson - Managing Director of CapitalWave Inc.- Being a big believer in Technology Enabled Learning, Bryant seeks to create awareness, motivate adoption and engage organizations and people in the changing business of education. Bryant is a entrepreneur, trainer, and strategic training adviser for many organizations. Bryant’s business career has been based on his results-oriented style of empowering the individual. Learn more about Bryant at LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/bryantnielson Related Posts:What You Risk by NOT Using MOOCsHow to MOOC: Social Media in the Corporate Classroom, Part 1How to MOOC: Social Media in the Corporate Classroom, Part 1How to MOOC: Social Media in the Corporate Classroom, Part 13 Reasons You Need to Reinvent Your Corporate Training…(Visited 137 times, 1 visits today)

For the past month, this blog has focused on common objections to using massive open online courses (MOOCs) and other technology-enabled learning tools in corporate training programs. We’ve explored the arguments that MOOCs aren’t interactive, that they are a one-size-fits-all solution to a many-sided problem, and that people don’t learn very well in them. This article finishes up the series by addressing the idea that MOOCs are simply too risky on which to bank something as important as corporate training success. What are the risks of MOOCs? In addition to the issues explored earlier in this series, here are some perceived risks of using MOOCs in particular and technology-enabled learning in general. The technology could break down or become obsolete. Well, yes it could. But so could any other technology your company uses, whether it be an iPad or a cloud-based software application. These risks are inherent to technology, but they are not reasonable arguments against using technology. Instructor-led training (ILT) doesn’t always work either—sometimes the trainer gets sick, sometimes flights are delayed, sometimes there is a power outage at the venue. ILT can also quickly become obsolete as technological and other advances are made in a field. In fact, it’s easier to revise a MOOC to reflect current practice by adjusting the module content than it is to redeliver an entire ILT training course. Content could leak into public sources. Training consultant David Kelly has an excellent response to this idea: "Some dismiss the idea of a Corporate MOOC based solely on the open aspect. The idea of corporate knowledge being shared with the population at large is seen as a risk. In some rare cases that might be true, though I’m struggling to think of what corporate secrets are baked into the average leadership or communications course." The fact is that the content of most corporate training courses isn’t classified, so there is often little to lose by embracing the open aspect. If that approach doesn’t fit with your company objectives, you can still use the MOOC framework to run a private course. Kelly notes that open doesn’t have to mean "open to the public"; it can just as easily mean "open to all employees." Business plans could be revealed due to public awareness of the training being delivered. First, see the previous point—most corporate MOOCs don’t involve classified information, and those that do don’t have to be truly open. Second, some companies are actually using MOOCs to solve business problems, to spur innovation and collaboration, and to drum up excitement for new initiatives, both within and outside of the company. While you certainly don’t want all of your business plans revealed to the public, running MOOCs that inform learners about your business could actually be part of your marketing campaign. The truth is, if your content is ultra-sensitive, it’s likely that a MOOC isn’t the best choice for delivering it in the first place. Read this post on when to use common training formats for more suggestions on how to decide between ILT, traditional elearning, and a MOOC. A compliance risk may exist from not having your inter-staff communication monitored. Companies in the financial services sector (and other sectors as well) are facing increased regulations in many areas. Today, compliance programs require that firms monitor and archive all electronic communications, including email, blog posts, and even social media. How can organizations run MOOCs—which take advantage of a variety of online communication tools—and still maintain compliance? The answer is: technology. While the amount of communication data generated by MOOCs can be immense, various technologies are available to help you keep track of it. One solution is to have employees limit their MOOC discussions to certain tools, such as the course discussion forums, a private social network, or a new communication platform like Slack. If your MOOC will be run on the web at large, there are many tools available that will provide surveillance and archiving of communications including emails, mobile messages, social networks, and more. These tools have very powerful search capabilities, and many are available as cloud-based software applications. Even if you aren’t running MOOCs, monitoring employee communications in this way is still recommended to ensure that you keep on the right side of compliance regulations. This report by PricewaterhouseCoopers provides best practices for how to integrate technology into a compliance program. So, are MOOCs too risky? While it may appear that MOOCs have a few extra risks, they also have a lot of benefits that other training formats simply don’t. In addition, all of the risks can be easily managed. Setting procedures in place to mitigate potential risks such as information leakage and compliance breaches, is simply good practice, and something you should be doing anyway, whether you use MOOCs for training or not. As with anything, if you worry too much about the potential risks of MOOCs, you will lose the opportunity to gain the benefits. In the next article, we’ll look at the flip side of this issue: what you risk by not using MOOCs in your training and development programs. Copyright 2015 Bryant Nielson. All Rights Reserved. Bryant Nielson - Managing Director of CapitalWave Inc.- Being a big believer in Technology Enabled Learning, Bryant seeks to create awareness, motivate adoption and engage organizations and people in the changing business of education. Bryant is a entrepreneur, trainer, and strategic training adviser for many organizations. Bryant’s business career has been based on his results-oriented style of empowering the individual. Learn more about Bryant at LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/bryantnielson Related Posts:What You Risk by NOT Using MOOCsMOOCs Are Too Uncontrollable - People Could Do Anything!MOOCs Aren’t Interactive, So There’s No Real Learning…Training Reboot: Assessing Your Company’s MOOC ReadinessCorporate MOOCs: Getting Buy-In from Executives and Managers(Visited 103 times, 1 visits today)

To wrap up our series exploring arguments against massive open online courses (MOOCs) and potential risks associated with the courses, in this final post we’ll turn the tables and look at some risks of NOT adopting MOOCs and other technology-enabled learning initiatives in corporate training programs. MOOCs and other forms of technology-enabled learning signal a shift in our thinking about training. Today, learning isn’t just something we do in class; it’s something we do all of the time. Companies that choose not to move their training programs into the 21st century using technology face three main risks: Not being able to provide enough training Not providing training that is as effective as it could be Being perceived as out of touch More training The Association for Talent Development defines the term skills gap as "a significant gap between an organization’s skills needs and the current capabilities of its workforce that occurs at the point at which an organization can no longer grow or remain competitive because they don’t have the right skills to drive business results and support the firm’s strategies and goals." Though there is a lot of debate surrounding the nature of the current skills gaps (and particularly over who to blame), companies in many areas are reporting trouble finding employees with the skills they need. In this environment, the only way for companies to ensure their workforce is able to "drive business results and support [their] strategies and goals" is to provide more training. A defining feature of MOOCs is that they are infinitely scalable, enabling companies to provide all of the training required to develop their workforce. Big problems require big solutions. Organizations that limit their training programs to small instructor-led courses risk facing a much more pressing problem down the road. Better training I’ve written extensively about the failure of ILT as a training format. While there may be theoretical benefits to in-person interactions with the instructor and other learners, in reality this doesn’t happen very often in corporate training. Most ILT is still based on the extended lecture format, where learners are expected to listen attentively to someone speaking for four or eight (or forty) hours and then go back to their desks and do their jobs better. Is that realistic? Not really. This post on The Rapid E-Learning Blog identifies four ways e-learning supports learner development. These benefits do a good job of summarizing the main reasons MOOCs are so effective: Real-time access. ILT is just-in-case; MOOCs are just-in-time. While a course may follow a schedule, learners have access to the resources long after the course is over, which means they can review the content anytime they need to. In this way, MOOCs provide both the initial training and continuing performance support. Freedom to fail. No one likes to mess up, but that is how we learn best. Digital learning environments, especially interactive ones like simulations, provide learners with the ability to practice by working through real-life problems and scenarios. This allows learners to fail, and to learn from their failures, in low-stakes situations before they find themselves in high-stakes ones. Improved retention. Bite-sized learning, multimedia, interactivity, the ability to rewind and review—these factors all contribute to increased retention in digital learning environments. Personalized learning. Unlike ILT and traditional elearning, MOOCs are not linear. Learners can work at their own pace and move back and forth between modules, designing their own personalized training program based on their individual needs. U.S. companies spend billions of dollars on training every year. Do you want to risk that kind of investment on ineffective training methods? Positive perception How a company is perceived can affect its ability to attract and retain talent, especially workers in younger generations. Increasingly, the willingness to embrace technology plays a large role in that perception: companies that use new technologies are seen as innovative and forward-thinking, while companies that resist technology are seen as out of touch. In a study last year, Millennials reported being more likely to apply to a company that offered MOOCs, more likely to participate in MOOC-based training, and more likely to stay at a company that used MOOCs for professional development. These findings signal an overall trend in how the younger generations view the importance of technology in the workplace. As technology becomes even more woven into the fabric of our lives, any company that doesn’t embrace trends such as BYOD, mobile learning, and MOOCs risks being perceived as out of touch. The perceptual risks aren’t limited to potential employees. Many companies run external MOOCs to connect with potential customers. In fact, brand awareness is one of the top reasons many colleges and universities have started offering the courses. As a result, local and regional schools have been able to attract a much wider range of students than they previously could. If your competitors are running MOOCs, but you aren’t, your company risks losing out on the brand awareness and positive perceptions that come along with being seen as an innovative and forward-thinking organization. These three risks are not small. The ability to attract top talent and to have access to a qualified workforce are the cornerstones of any company’s success. Don’t just roll the dice. Embracing technology-enabled learning today so you can mitigate these risks in the future. Copyright 2015 Bryant Nielson. All Rights Reserved. Bryant Nielson - Managing Director of CapitalWave Inc.- Being a big believer in Technology Enabled Learning, Bryant seeks to create awareness, motivate adoption and engage organizations and people in the changing business of education. Bryant is a entrepreneur, trainer, and strategic training adviser for many organizations. Bryant’s business career has been based on his results-oriented style of empowering the individual. Learn more about Bryant at LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/bryantnielson Related Posts:Are MOOCs Too Risky for Your Corporate Training Program?Training in an Ad-Hoc, BYOD EnvironmentMegatrends in MOOCs: #12 Training for MillennialsUsing MOOCs: Self-Directed Development and Workforce…Why Your Existing E-Learning is Failing, and How MOOCs Can…(Visited 130 times, 1 visits today)

Spending on corporate training is rising rapidly. According to Bersin by Deloitte, corporate training spending increased 10% in 2011, 12% in 2012, and 15% in 2013. The numbers for 2014 aren’t out yet, but they were probably even higher. Wouldn’t you hate to find out that you are wasting your money or your time, or both? It isn’t much talked about in anything more than a whisper, but corporate training fails quite a lot of the time. It fails to engage; it fails to enhance employees’ knowledge and skills; it fails to provide meaningful learning experiences. There are many, many reasons corporate training fails. Here are some of the most common: There are no defined learning objectives, or the learning objectives aren’t aligned with your business goals. Employees do not have the opportunity to apply what they learn to real-world problems and situations. Training effectiveness is not being measured in a valid way (happy sheets are not a valid measurement of training effectiveness). It’s boring! Whatever the reason your training isn’t effective isn’t important (well, it is, but that is for another article). What is important is that you fix it. If you’ve been dragging your feet about revamping your training, now is the time to get going. With the pace of change in business today, companies that don’t move forward will quickly find themselves far behind. Here are three reasons you need to reinvent your training programs. You need to provide more training than you currently are. Employees today simply need more training—more than they have ever needed before and more than they are currently getting. If your organization is facing a skills gap, you know this to be true. The catch is that it isn’t going to get any better. Because of advances in technology and increasing complexity in organizations, the jobs that are in demand are changing quickly as well as becoming more specialized. Take data science as an example. Just a few years ago, there was no such thing as a data scientist because there was no such thing as big data. Now, the idea of a general data scientist is nearly obsolete—companies today are looking for business intelligence analysts, data preparation analysts, and analytics programmers. Gary Beach of CIO.com wrote that the "IT skills gap is really an education gap." This sentiment is just as true in every other industry facing a shortage of qualified staff. Traditional educational institutions (i.e., colleges and universities) can’t keep up with the pace of change. If companies want well-trained business intelligence analysts and analytics programmers, they are going to have to provide the necessary job training themselves. Your training program is obsolete. Are you taking advantage of the technology-enabled learning tools available today, or is your training program stuck in the 20th century? If a three-hour PowerPoint lecture is still your content delivery method of choice, you are way overdue for an update. Current learning trends and technologies, like massive open online courses (MOOCs) and mobile learning, are helping training programs move from being time sinks with few discernible benefits to being learning experiences that provide employees with valuable knowledge and skills to improve their job performance. Twenty-first century technology-enabled training is "pull" rather than "push"; it incorporates learning into the daily work routine by allowing learners to access and use course content where, when, and how they want to; and it’s flexible so that it can be adapted to the needs of individual learners. Of course, as Laura Vanderkam wrote for CBS MoneyWatch, there is a downside to modern training practices: "Perhaps there are some folks who really like being away from their families for long periods of time and making small talk with slightly sloshed colleagues at receptions after a full day of corporate training." However, she also notes that "if those are the only folks you think of as managerial material, you’ve got deeper problems than an iPad can solve." Your training programs don’t serve any higher purpose. MOOCs have impacted corporate training in many ways, but one of the big ones has been to expand the idea of what training can do. Previously, the only reason to provide corporate training was to train employees. This sounds reasonable until you hear about the ways innovative companies are using training courses like MOOCs to serve a wider purpose, such as internally to create an organizational culture of learning, and externally for recruiting new talent and building relationships with partners and customers. We’ve moved past a knowledge economy and into a learning economy, where learning is the most important thing we do every day. In this economy, training isn’t just about delivering content to boost your company’s collective knowledge; it’s about engaging and providing inspiration for stakeholders both inside and outside of your organization. Too many companies are still providing only minimal training, not using technology, and treating training as nothing more than a content dump. This type of training might have been adequate in the past, but it will not empower companies to grow and achieve their objectives into the future. And the future is now. Stop wasting your time and money on training programs designed for yesterday. Contact me for more information about how to provide high-quality, effective training solutions for the modern workforce. Copyright 2015 Bryant Nielson. All Rights Reserved. Bryant Nielson - Managing Director of CapitalWave Inc.- Being a big believer in Technology Enabled Learning, Bryant seeks to create awareness, motivate adoption and engage organizations and people in the changing business of education. Bryant is a entrepreneur, trainer, and strategic training adviser for many organizations. Bryant’s business career has been based on his results-oriented style of empowering the individual. Learn more about Bryant at LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/bryantnielson Related Posts:How MOOCs Address the Needs of Today’s Corporate LearnersWhat You Risk by NOT Using MOOCsTechnology-Enabled Learning: What Will 2015 Bring?Megatrends in MOOCs: #1 Adoption at Corporate UniversitiesMegatrends in MOOCs: #2 Facilitating Learning Organizations(Visited 187 times, 3 visits today)