LMS and CMS are obviously both TLA (Three Letter Acronyms) — but is there any other similarity, and can we use one in place of the other? If you often find yourself pondering such philosophical questions, you’ve come to the right place. First, some examples so you know what we’re talking about: "TalentLMS", the product whose blog you’re reading, is a good, nay great, example of an LMS. As for CMS products, those are divided into Enterprise and Web oriented offerings. Microsoft’s "Sharepoint" is an example of the former. "WordPress" is the most popular example of the latter. LMS is, of course, a "Learning Management System" — a piece of software that lets you create, manage and present training content (which can be anything, from text and images, which is the most common case, to multimedia files). A CMS, short for "Content Management System", is a piece of software that lets you create, manage and present content (which can be anything, from text and images, which is the most common case, to multimedia files). Sound quite similar? They are — but only in the sense that an ambulance is similar to a fire engine. Sure, both are vehicles, both take a number of people from point A to point B, and both sound a siren while doing so. Still you’d look silly if you attempted to help put out a fire with an ambulance. And you’d look equally silly trying to handle your business training needs with a CMS. The key difference is of course specialization. While both an LMS and a CMS can store, organize and present documents of various kinds, an LMS has been designed from the start with training in mind and comes with lots of built-in features to that end that you won’t find in a CMS. Some you could imitate, albeit poorly. For others, you’ll need a genuine LMS. An LMS, for example, is modeled after a physical classroom, and offers you objects like "Courses", "Lessons", "Teachers" and "Students" to work with. An enterprise CMS, on the other hand, is modeled either on a document library or on a storage cabinet metaphor, and forces you to deal with your content in terms of "folders", "cabinets", "libraries", "documents" and so on. As for Web oriented content management systems, these organize their content as "Websites", "Pages", "Posts", "Categories" and so on. Again, not the most helpful metaphors for dealing with educational material. It’s not just a matter of terminology either… Whereas a CMS "document" is a dumb piece of text, an LMS "lesson" is a piece of text that belongs to a course, can contain tests, can be tied to a physical lesson or a webinar (in so-called Instructor-Led Training scenarios), can award points, etc. It also has an instructor or more that’s responsible for it. While in a pinch you could use a CMS for very simple training needs, e.g. by adding some sets of documents to be your "lessons" and treating the folders containing them as "courses", the whole thing quickly breaks apart as soon as you need something more advanced because the underlying CMS model works against you. That’s not to say that Content Management Systems don’t have their uses — they absolutely do. Just that they’re of a different nature than what you’d use a Learning Management System for. An Enterprise CMS for example is perfect for organizing large volumes of business documents — all these work related Word files, PDFs, PowerPoints, Excels and such. It offers easy upload and sharing of documents among the members of your team, access control options so that your confidential business files remain out of the reach of prying eyes, and fancy tagging and indexing so you can find what you want fast. Most importantly, it lets multiple people edit the same documents while avoiding conflicting changes. A Web CMS, on the other hand, is perfect for creating and managing a website. It allows multiple editors to create and edit web content, it lets you create menus, sidebars, pages, sections and feedback forms, it manages user comments, and it helps you setup web blogs and serve their posts in reverse chronological order. It can also load (and configure) themes that change how your website appears to your users. Those are the kinds of things Enterprise and Web Content Management Systems excel at, and, as you can see, there’s nothing eLearning specific about them. A Learning Management System, on the contrary, might not be an excellent "electronic filing cabinet" or "website management tool", but it can handle all kinds of training related items and tasks with aplomb. These include: - Using metaphors and conceptual models from the world of education (such as Courses, Classes, Lessons, etc), thus making the transition to online training easy and intuitive for experienced and inexperienced instructors alike. - Taking into account the specific division of labor inherent in training, and splitting users into administrators, instructors and learners, each with their own responsibilities and permissions. - Letting users (students) go beyond reading the content, e.g. having them answer quizzes on a specific lesson, allowing them to try examples and work with multimedia and interactive material, etc. - Helping automate the everyday activity of eLearning instructors and administrators, by sending scheduled reminders for important events (upcoming online classes, deadlines, etc.), automatically grading tests and quizzes, creating periodic reports, etc. - Emphasizing the reusability of eLearning content in different contexts (sharing content between classes and lessons, letting instructors manage pools of test questions that can be re-used to create random tests, etc.). This is obviously not a priority for a CMS system, where documents are supposed to be unique. - Offering detailed tracking and reporting for things such as student attendance, tests, grading, lesson popularity, acquired skills, etc, empowering instructors with real-time insights on the training progress. - Having support for Instructor-Led Training (ILT), letting you treat physical classes and webinars the same as online classes, and adding features and fields like "capacity", "location", "date and time" etc for an ILT class (fields that are obviously absent in a CMS program). Let’s get integrated There’s also the matter of integrations. While most CMS products also offer integration options (e.g. with Single Sign On systems), LMS platforms offer unique, eLearning related integrations. TalentLMS, for example, supports the TinCan and SCORM standards, letting users capture all of its learning activities to share them with third party systems. It also allows the importing and exporting of its Users, Courses, Categories and Branches in a simple, text-based, format. Then there’s selling courses, another option you won’t find in any CMS since it’s something totally outside their scope. For this you’ll need something like TalentLMS’ eCommerce options and its support for the PayPal and Stripe payment gateways. While LMS platforms have all these extra options we described, we’d trivialize Content Management Systems if we said that an LMS is a superset of a CMS. The truth is that while superficially similar in nature, CMSs and LMSs are quite distinct beasts, with feature sets that are shaped by their different priorities. That said, TalentLMS does feature some lightweight web CMS features — it lets you build simple web pages for your learning portal, such us an "About Us" page or a "Special Offers" page. It’s not meant to replace a full featured web CMS, but it’s flexible enough to handle simple informational pages. For anything more complex, TalentLMS can actually integrate with WordPress, giving you the best of both worlds. Conclusion By now you should be able to tell a CMS from an LMS — maybe even from a distance. It’s all in the name, actually: a CMS places emphasis on "content", whereas an LMS places emphasis on "learning".   If you want to train or teach people professionaly and test them, you should get an LMS. If you want a website/blog or to move around files/content, you need a CMS. Hope this helps. The post A comparison between LMS and CMS appeared first on TalentLMS Blog.

David Ausubel, a noted American psychologist who specialized in education and learning behaviors, introduced the Subsumption Theory back in 1963. It centers on the idea that learners can more effectively acquire new knowledge if it is tied to their existing knowledge base, and that only unique information that stands out within the lesson is committed to memory. In this article, I’ll delve into the basics of the Subsumption Theory, and I’ll share 4 tips on how you can use it in your eLearning course design. According to Ausubel’s Subsumption Theory, a learner absorbs new information by tying it to existing concepts and ideas that they have already acquired. Rather than building an entirely new cognitive structure, they are able to relate it to information that is already present within their minds. When an idea is forgotten, it is simply because the specific details and associated thoughts get lost in the crowd and can no longer be differentiated from other pieces of information. Based upon this theory, meaningful learning can only occur once the subsumed cognitive structures have been fully developed. The Subsumption Theory: Basic Principles To utilize the Subsumption Theory in eLearning, it is important to identify the two types of subsumption that exist: correlative and derivative. Both of these are forms of rote learning, which has the ability to gradually construct new cognitive behaviors and structures within the minds of your learners. After these cognitive structures are built, the learner then has the power to use them during meaningful learning activities and exercises. Here are the differences between the two types of subsumption, as suggested by Ausubel. Correlative A learner collects new information that extends from their existing knowledge base or elaborates upon previously acquired information. Derivative A learner derives new information directly from their cognitive structures, or identifies relationships between concepts within their existing knowledge base. This can be achieved in a variety of ways, from shifting information around in the hierarchal structure to linking ideas together to create new meanings. 4 Tips To Apply Subsumption Theory In eLearning 1) Lead off with the key takeaways Begin your eLearning course with a general overview that highlights everything the learners need to know by the end, and then, sequence online material from general to specific, a process that Ausubel calls "progressing differentiation". This will help the learner to automatically categorize the eLearning content and figure out where it belongs in their cognitive structure. For example, if you let them know that the eLearning course covers animal genus concepts, they can immediately access their animal classification knowledge in order to build upon it, and apply it when participating in the eLearning course. Offer greater detail as you progress through the eLearning module, so that your learners can begin to differentiate it from the other pieces of information they have already collected. Remember, the key to knowledge retention is connecting the concepts then making them stand out from the crowd so that they are not easily forgotten. 2) Encourage learners to apply previously acquired knowledge Speaking of connecting, the Subsumption Theory relies heavily on the idea that learners gather information most effectively when they tie new concepts to existing cognitive structures. This works both ways, however. They can also apply information they have already learned in order to improve comprehension and knowledge retention. In many respects, it’s a two-way street that gives learners the opportunity to acquire new knowledge while they are committing "old" knowledge to their long-term memory banks. Whenever possible, integrate eLearning scenarios and simulations that allow them to apply existing knowledge while discovering new concepts and ideas. Also, highlight how new and familiar ideas compare and contrast so that they can create that all-important cognitive connection. 3) Include both receptive and discovery-based activities Although Ausubel found no special advantages of discovery-learning, as he believed that it has the same effect on learning being more time-consuming, it is not a bad idea to include both receptive and discovery-based online activities into your eLearning course design, as each serves its own unique eLearning purpose. While receptive online activities help learners acquire and retain new information, discovery-based activities allow them to understand how information can be applied in different situations and contexts. In the real world, they won’t be taking written assessments to test their knowledge. Instead, they will have to apply it in a wide range of settings to overcome challenges and solve real-life problems. Thus, you need to ensure that they are not only learning the information, but that they can also apply it outside of the virtual classroom. 4) Make it meaningful! Despite the fact that The Subsumption Theory deals primarily with rote learning principles, its primary goal is to create meaningful learning experiences. Meaningful learning occurs when an individual is able to create connections between what they learned and what they already know within their cognitive structures of their minds. Essentially, they tie it into existing knowledge and commit it to memory, so that they can draw upon it at a later time. One of the most effective ways to make your eLearning course meaningful is to make it personal. Integrate problem-solving online activities that focus on past experiences, and integrate stories that trigger their emotions. Use real world examples that stress the benefits of learning the subject matter and help them relate to ideas or concepts. Knowing as much as possible about how your learners acquire and retain subject matter is an integral part of instructional design for any eLearning course. Ausubel’s Subsumption Theory gives you the ability to create a meaningful connection between new ideas and pre-existing knowledge, so that your learners gain the opportunity to remember the key takeaways and get the most benefit out of your eLearning course. Committing information to long-term memory is the goal of any eLearning experience. But how do you make the information stick in your learner’s mind? Read the article How To Create Memorable Online Training Courses: 6 Tips For eLearning Professionals to discover 6 tips to create memorable online training courses. References Ausubel, D.P. (2000). The Acquisition and Retention of Knowledge: A Cognitive View: Springer The post Applying The Subsumption Theory In eLearning appeared first on TalentLMS Blog.

The TalentLMS’ mobile app offers an exciting new way to consume your learning content. It also turns TalentLMS into an effective tool for delivering offline learning, micro-learning and micro-certifications. We have a grand vision for micro-learning[1] and we consider this app to be an important part of that process. The mobile app does not try to be everything the web-app is. It concentrates on a few important usage cases and content consumption like Videos, Presentations and Assessments. Still, it offers ample opportunities for delivering rich, multimedia courses while delivering a superb mobile optimized experience. In this post we shall see what you will be able to do with the mobile app, what content it can render efficiently and how it merges with the main tool. Offline Learning & Synchronization The most important feature of the mobile app is that it lets you continue learning while being offline. You can download a course, get on a plane (or on a train or in a submarine), complete your training and then synchronize with the server when you get online. By default, whenever you view a unit or synchronize a course, the mobile app downloads its assets and lets you continue offline. All units that are completed while being offline are synchronized with the server when you go online. Nothing special to do, it just works! User experience The second most important feature of the mobile app is that it offers a fresh way to consume content. The mobile app minimizes the interface around learning, turning it to a suitable medium for micro-learning and micro-certifications. Mobile and Offline compatibility Each unit created within TalentLMS is now characterized as mobile compatible and/or offline compatible. There is a convenient way to check a course for this compatibility info. Just below the course’s edit button there is a "mobile app compatibility" option that visualizes this information for all your units. Broadly, mobile compatible are the following types of content: HTML content, Video, Audio, Presentations, Documents and Assessments. The mobile app does not support SCORM or TinCan (mainly because we cannot control their UI characteristics), Surveys, ILT units and Flash. Offline compatible units have the additional requirement to provide content in a downloadable format. For example, a unit that is based on a video you uploaded to TalentLMS is Offline compatible. On the other hand, a Video unit that is based on a Youtube source is not Offline compatible. Being mobile compatible is a pre-requisite for offline compatibility. Note that as the content development tool of TalentLMS is "open-ended", all our compatibility tests were made assuming its default usage. Use the compatibility info as an indication, but we cannot guarantee a perfect fit for all cases. Assessments Assessments are both mobile and offline compatible. We support all major question types and most of the assessment customization characteristics (e.g., number of retries, allowed time or shuffling of questions order). There are a few assessment characteristics that are not supported in this first iteration though, for example randomized questions or storing a snapshot of the learner. Unit completion and course rules The mobile app supports all available unit completion methods. It also supports content traversal and course completion rules. Branches The mobile app is compatible with branches. For example, if you have a domain (say myportal) and it includes a branch (say mybranch) then you can login to a special domain named mybranch-myportal. Web-app link We have tried to keep the mobile app functionality only around learning delivery. However, within the mobile app you can easily access your fully equipped TalentLMS web account (via the Profile page). Handy for some administrative work, like getting new courses or seeing extended reports. Other things you need to know You can always turn off access to the mobile app for your domain from your account’s security settings. The mobile app is compatible with both iPhone and iPad devices running IOS 8+. The iPad version is specially crafted for that type of device and not simply a scaled-up iPhone version. Beta program - how to take part and how to send feedback The mobile app is currently in beta. You are welcome to take part in this process and provide your feedback so we can deliver a better product. If you are interested please send an email to iosbeta@talentlms.com. And if you are already part of the beta program, make sure you "shake" your mobile while working with the app to send bug reports and feedback. Have fun! [1] We have also recently launched a card-based microlearning mobile app called Snappico. Give it a try at snappico.com. The post Introducing the TalentLMS’ App for iPhone & iPad appeared first on TalentLMS Blog.

Perhaps the highest level of learning with the deepest cognitive impact is informal learning. It’s what we call those precious learning moments where passion and curiosity meet to break all motivation and knowledge barriers. It is the self-directed learning that is triggered by an intrinsic drive and continues until all objectives in performance and knowledge have been achieved. In this article, we’ll share with you the strategies to embed informal learning in your eLearning environment to capitalize on this excellent motivating learning style. eLearning and informal learning can go hand in hand, provided you include the design features that promote choice and flexibility over the content. Formal eLearning design prevents learns from "skipping chapters". It is like guided learning, where learners are forced to follow a strict chapter pathway and are tested periodically. Let us explore informal and formal learning further to determine the pros and cons of each. Informal learning is a great outlet for reflective practice or experiential learning. Learners enjoy the autonomy associated with informal learning. They gather knowledge from multiple sources, establish a pattern and choose what to believe and practice. In fact, many individuals, in this current age of knowledge and data, have resorted to informal means to educate themselves to make their mark. And informal learning is not limited to individuals without a formal training or background. Professionals fighting to climb the corporate ladder, continue to "secretly" upgrade their skills by working at short online courses and workshops. Informal learning leads to empowerment and self-efficacy. By contrast, what is formal learning? Formal learning is your regular college diploma, your standardized certifications and even course completion mandates set by an organization. A common factor in formal learning is that we barely have any choice of time or courses. Formal learning teaches skills "the expert" way. Managers still prefer a college graduate when selecting candidates for hiring than someone who claims to be "self-taught". While this fact motivates many of us to pursue multiple diplomas, very few continue a lifelong learning process in a formal setting. Why is informal learning so popular and easier for learners? It is because of the freedom to explore and the degree of knowledge to acquire and also the order in which knowledge is gained - all are determined by the learner. Consider these 6 benefits of informal learning too: 1. Gathering and collecting the desired knowledge is easier today owing to the exhaustive media and devices we have. Informal learning does not require any prior learning experiences or prerequisites. All you need is the willingness to complete your learning. 2. Learning informally is more relaxing and less threatening for most people. With no exams or projects to complete within limited schedules, many learners commit to learning a new skill or a concept readily. 3. In an informal setting, you will find SMEs willing to share more knowledge than ever! So if you have a group of experts in your organization, simply arrange an informal meeting and have them share their expertise. Better yet, make them leaders in the online community where employees post questions and they can answer them. A low-stake, no-hot-spot setting is ideal for this kind of knowledge sharing and knowledge management. 4. Informal learning is close to natural learning. People tend to follow the pathway that best suits their individual needs. Lifelong learning is a great example of informal learning. We acquire more knowledge informally than formally. 5. Resistance to learn new concepts and ideas is also lower when learning is presented informally. Adult learners strive on autonomy and self-direction. They readily complete self-generated tasks. 6. Boredom and procrastination are replaced by excitement and curiosity. Time and cost barriers are almost non-existent in informal learning environments. On the flip-side, formal learning is the very core of "qualification" - it creates credibility for the individual. Consider the following benefits of formal learning: · Your organization can teach large numbers of employees the same information at the same time. · The accuracy and currency of learning materials are of superior quality in formal learning environments. · Employees are able to transfer their learning into performance faster when they are in formal learning programs. · Formal learning programs can cater to a variety of learning needs and learning styles. There are instances where informal learning cannot replace formal learning. The good news is, formal methods of learning do not have to be a life-long learning strategy. A mix of both the formal and the informal approach is highly recommended by experts. For example, developing training programs that demonstrate the value of the content in the learner’s professional life before the learner begins the learning program. Also, when designing the content navigation of eLearning programs, provide the flexibility for learners to choose and learn about a topic in any order they desire. This places more control in the hands of the learner, bringing in the pleasant element of informal learning in a formal learning environment. Scenario-based eLearning content also creates an informal learning environment. Learners decide the conclusion of a story that is teaching them a learning goal. Regardless of the scenarios selected, the learner arrives to the correct solution in the last scene. Another element is the choice of avatars that will "guide through" the learning materials. A section for "good to know" content can also be made available for learners who would like to learn beyond the scope of the program. Creating a social media page of the eLearning course for casual chatting also creates a laid-back learning environment similar to informal learning. Providing the freedom to adopt and implement a strategy to work on a group or individual project also fosters informal learning instincts in learners. Selecting their unique roles in a group according to their strengths also removes the conforming rules found in most formal courses. Creative freedom in assignments leads to an enjoyable learning experience. Having the learners prepare the rubric for grading also instills the learning responsibility in the learner. Similarly, involving all learners to create common classroom rules in the eLearning environment places the locus of control for behavior and attitude on the learners. eLearning design features like these promote a customized learning environment that is similar to informal learning, yet retains the formal requirements. Other good examples of fostering informal learning in an online learning environment is the concept of mentoring, incidental learning, on-the-spot learning, reflective practice and experiential learning. Each of these concepts can be implemented using collaboration features of the learning management system. Informal learning is a great motivating strategy to continue the learning process. Successful organizations are learning organizations - that place a high value on learning regardless of the learning strategy. Informal learning yields greater learning pleasure and often leads to enhanced creativity and innovation. Analyze your learners before beginning the eLearning course development process to ensure that you provide the value in your course that your learners are looking for. Be mindful of the natural learning tendencies of adult learners when creating your next eLearning course. The post 6 Benefits of Informal Learning appeared first on TalentLMS Blog.

Last night I did a presentation for the San Diego chapter of ISPI titled ‘making sparks fly’. I used that concept to talk about a couple of my favorite topics: deeper instructional design, and social learning. In the former, it’s about two things: getting the real cognitive underpinning right, and the emotional content, both integrated in a natural and elegant way.  So you start with your objectives (at a high enough level, addressing real business needs). Then you immediately develop deep practice with core decisions embedded in meaningful contexts. You need sufficient practice to not get it wrong, as opposed to just getting it right. Then we elaborate with model-based concepts and story-based examples.  All introduced in ways that engage the emotions as well as the mind, and closing that process off similarly addressing the emotional as well as the cognitive.  The point being, if you’re going to do formal, do it right. From there, I segued off to talk about social: the power of the additional processing you get from social learning.  This includes sharing ideas, and collaborative work.  Then, systematically looking at tools like blogs, wikis, profiles, feeds, and more for both formal and informal learning.  The notion is that thinking and working ‘out loud’ are, in the right culture, better than not. Formal learning (and I didn’t discuss performance support, after all it was ISPI :) addresses the optimal execution that will be just be the cost of entry going forward, while continual innovation requires the creative friction, the interpersonal interaction that generates new ideas.  You need to have good learning and good performance support on those processes you can identify, but then you need to create the environment where folks are helping one another solve the new problems that arise, including new ideas.  Engaging the learner, and the interaction, are both sparks to take what we do to the next level. There’s more: culture, mindset, L&D role, and we touched on that, but in the broader picture, you want to start with social and performance support, only doing formal when you absolutely have to (as it’s dear). We need to stop doing formal only, and badly. We need to cover the spread, and do all well.  Or else…

I was reflecting on the benefits of travel, and recalled a ‘learning’ experience I underwent involuntarily more than 20 years ago. I’d gone to Moscow to speak at a conference, and determined to venture on my own to the Kremlin for a scheduled tour of the museum.  I had an underground map, and headed off to the station nearest me.  The route apparently had a change of train required. The ticket seller wasn’t very friendly, but I managed to somehow meet the necessary requirement to head down underground. The real event started when I got off the requisite number of stops along the line. It turns out that the map I had wasn’t in Cyrillic characters that the underground was labeled in, and apparently I hadn’t correctly identified the station I started from. (There was no Cyrillic - Latin mapping; it wasn’t a good guidebook.) So there I was, at some random point under Moscow, without any idea about what station I was at.  Worse, no one seemed (willing) to speak English. Somewhat concerned, I started looking for clues. This was a transfer station, in that there were two different lines coming together.  I went back and forth between the two lines, looking for further clues that I could use to determine where I was. Eventually I noticed that one line had a split at the end, and there was only one on the map, so I now knew one of the two lines. I recall that I counted the number of stops to determine which station I was at, and then I was good to go, and I found my way to the station nearest the Kremlin, on my map.  My adventures weren’t over, however. From there, I surfaced, and looked for which direction to head. It was totally overcast, so there were no shadows to tell direction.  And I couldn’t see any of the landmark structures from where I’d emerged.  I had no idea where to go!  Was I going to have to abandon my quest and quit? Again, I got systematic: I decided to walk in each direction as far as I could and still know where the station was. It was the second path that let me finally see a landmark (St. Basil’s? I no longer remember) and I found my way.   I saw the museum and met my colleagues for a safe journey back to the hotel. This remains the most overt conscious problem-solving I ever recall (followed by the time I locked myself in a building right before the grad school entrance exam, and had just a short period of time to escape without setting off the fire alarms).  It took effortful thinking, systematicity, and persistence. It’s not often these situations occur, but it’s illuminating to explore the requirements, and think about the thinking skills required.  These are perhaps the most valuable investment an organization can make, getting concrete about learning and problem-s0lving, instead of expecting them.  Given the way our school curriculum has been structured, they’re not likely to come from formal education.  So think about how folks will have to increasingly face more complicated situations, and the skills they might require.  Are you and your people ready?

Brent Schlenker recently resurfaced after disappearing into a corporate learning job.  One of his reflections is that there existing ‘people unwilling to learn’.  Jane Hart picked up on his post, and in her reply teased apart two separate things: Whether learners were willing to learn, and whether they were capable of learning. I was inspired to think about addressing those two dimensions. To me, the ability to be a self-directed learning is a skill issue.  They myth of digital natives cloaks the reality that digital skills differ by individual, not age. Similarly, other critical thinking skills, and learning-to-learn or meta-learning skills may or may not exist in any particular individual. These are aspects we can, and should, be explicit about and develop. The issue of being willing to learn is a separate issue.  Here, it’s whether learners are willing to take responsibility. This is more about attitude change.  Which is hard, but doable. It comes from valuing learning and expecting it, then looking to see if it’s manifesting. One of the things that’s probably important is coupling a learning environment with an empowering culture.  Learning has to be explicit, safe, valued, modeled, and expected.  Learners need to be empowered with tools, coached, and formatively evaluated.  The environment has to depend on trust on both parts that the motives are good. Glad to see Brent back in the fray, always a pleasure to see Jane’s thoughtful comments, and welcome  your thoughts.

Just looked at my commitments for the eLearning Guild’s always fun DevLearn conference, and I’m quite booked, all with fun and interesting stuff: My mobile design workshop kicks off: how do you take advantage of these devices? I’m doing two stages: a panel on the future on the mobile stage, talking ‘smart content’ on the emerging tech stage I’m doing a session on L&D myths with Chad Udell I’m part of a panel on the future of elearning and I’m doing two Morning Buzz sessions: one on content models & architectures, and one on elearning strategy It’s going to be busy and fun.  In between I will attend sessions, walk the expo, attend the DemoFest, do #lrnchat, and talk to folks. I hope one of the folks I talk to is you! If you’re there, say hello.  If not, stay tuned to the backchannel, it’s a great conference (I’ll try to post mind maps of the keynotes as usual).

Ok, that’s an alarmist title, because it’s only a few teachers, but these are some of the ones teaching my kids, and it’s mind-numbing.  These are either things I heard myself at Back to School Night, or through my kids.  And they’re just crazy! So, what am I talking about?  Let me elaborate: So, one says that the way to learn science is to learn the formulas.  Um, no.  If you learn the formulas doesn’t mean you actually can solve problems. You need to solve problems with them!  And, frankly, I don’t care if you memorize the formulas, if you look it up it’s just fine. But this is leading to a focus on rote memorization, not meaningful learning. The same teacher also says that learning is individual, that students shouldn’t spend their time copying off the one person who does the work.  What a horrible belief in kids!  Yes, they might do it, but there are plenty of ways to structure the process so that learners have to contribute. And there are substantial cognitive benefits from learners working together. This teacher did tout the success of her students on tests.   Standard, abstract, rote problems unlike kids will actually face. Yes, the system is currently structured to reward that outcome, but it’s not what I want, nor what we should value.  The fact that she believes standard test results means much of anything isn’t really helpful. A second teacher seems to believe examples aren’t useful.  This teacher is presenting the concepts in class, and then assign practice at home. What’s missing are meaningful examples of applying the concepts to problems. Um, examples help.  The kids aren’t seeing the concepts mapped to concepts, nor the underlying thinking that makes examples useful!  And can we say ‘flipped classroom’? To compound the problem, the kids are supposed to have access to the corrected assignments, but the answers are being posted after 9PM at nite or later, when there’s a quiz the next day!  This isn’t sufficient feedback to support comprehension and performance!  Apparently this teacher isn’t convinced of the value of timely feedback. Finally, I found out one of my kids was working this weekend on a coloring project.  The teacher apparently is laboring under a delusion that in coloring in some diagram or map, the learner will internalize the spatial relationships and map those to the underlying conceptual relationships.  But it’s a pretty low chance, and we have far better exercises to achieve that goal.  My suspicion, of course, is that this is to have pretty room when parents visit, but if so, I think the teacher bloody well ought to buy decorations, and not keep my child from enjoying the weekend to make the teacher’s room pretty. I really wish teachers had to read, understand, and apply cognitive apprenticeship. It, to me, is essentially the best model for guiding teaching.  What I’m seeing is violating all sorts of basic learning principles. Ok, let’s be fair, this is 3 out of 10 or so teachers, but they’re my kids, and it’s too many for any other kids, too.  And I did contact the principal via email with all but the last, and he was kind enough to call me, but the end result is that nothing is going to change because there’s nothing really that can be done.  There are teachers who care, and some who are doing great jobs, it’s just that for such a critical job of preparing the future, we really should be doing better. So, am I overreacting?

The last time I had a beard was right before college graduation. I was off in the wilderness, and when I came back my razor was busted.  So, I grew a beard that was largely red, and in terms of being well behaved, well, it made Gabby Hayes look well-groomed. So I’ve been clean shaven since (see to the right). Well, that’s changed. To make a long story short, I had an extended period of time away from family and razor, and grew it out.  When I came back, the reviews went from mixed to positive, not a negative word. Now, of course, you seldom hear from those who don’t like a look (wonder how many people do not like Quinnovation as a company name), but the important people (my immediate family) either initially or grew to prefer the new look.  (Maybe the more of my face I cover, the better ;) Well, this creates a conundrum, because I’ve plenty of promo photos out there for various speaking engagements that now are no longer appropriate.  It was time for a new official photo (it was anyways, this is close to a decade old, and I do not want to be the guy who’s photo is decades out of date). The official way to do this is to hire someone, but I perused the local options, and either they were sidelining portraits on top of weddings, babies, etc, or they used stock backgrounds.  The pre-beard shot above was taken by my friend and colleague Jay Cross, chose it out of several candidates, and liked the more natural setting. So I got my wife to take a bunch of shots, and we (with my daughter’s help) went through them. They were all flawed for various reasons (some problems she saw and I didn’t, and there begins the tale; it was a collaborative project and decision).  We tried again, and finally found two we liked. How to decide? So I went out to a small group of colleagues who I could trust would give me straight feedback, and they reliably preferred one. This was a relief.  However, there was a problem: my face was kind of dark against the background.  And, lo, one of them stepped up and offered to work on the photo. She kindly took the shadow off my face, and did another lightening up the whole picture. The former was better, but I was concerned that there wasn’t sufficient contrast, so she also created one that had the background muted.  Her contribution was so valuable.  Now I had two more to choose from: the more natural one or the one with the muted background.  How to answer this? So I went out to four of the groups I have or was going to talk for, and asked them which they would prefer for their brochures or websites. Of the 3 that responded, they all preferred the natural background (my preference).  I’d converged on a new headshot. More importantly, I had avoided my usual blind decisions, and got contributions all along the way that made the outcome better.  Throwing out ego and being willing to ask for help isn’t my natural approach, as I hate to impose, but I know I don’t mind helping colleagues and friends, so I stepped out of my comfort zone and I’m so grateful they stepped up. The take-home lesson for me is the power of communication and collaboration: crowd sourcing works.  You may not like the new look, but it’s where I’m at, and it’s a lot better picture than I’d had if I tried to do it alone.

In an post this past spring, I opined that we do have to change.  One obvious related question is what that change would look like.  What would an effective L&D unit be doing, and what would the employee/manager/exec experience be?  This is a longer topic, but here’re some initial thoughts that I really would welcome your thoughts on. I see employees experiencing less ‘training’.  As I’ve said, effective training is expensive when done properly, and should be used only when significant skill shifts are needed.  It should only be for proprietary approaches, otherwise you should use others’ materials.  And it only is for upskilling new employees (and only when needed), or when a significant change is happening. I’d expect to see more performance support, easily accessible via user-centric portals and search and delivered when and where needed.  Similarly social would play a much more central role, arguably our first recourse.  Employees would be tightly coupled to their work teams, and more loosely coupled to their communities of practice.  Teams would be diverse and flexible, and group work would be the norm. Resources would be sometimes created, sometimes crowd-sourced within (or without) the organization, and sometimes curated.  Much curation would happen by individual in communities monitoring the larger network, individuals in teams bringing in relevant elements from their communities, and sharing back reflections and outcomes that inform the community while communities would share back to the larger network.  This is the vision of the Coherent Organization. Managers would be playing a leadership and mentoring & coaching role rather than a directive role. They’d be looking to share the vision of goals and rationale, and then supporting performance aligned towards this goal. Executives would be aligning manager visions with organizational goals, monitoring performance, and facilitating infrastructure to support effective communication and cooperation, and well as establishing and maintaining a learning organization culture. The L&D unit would need to be monitoring the effectiveness of communication and collaboration, management, and leadership, as well as experimenting with new tools to support the work.  The L&D unit becomes responsible for the learning to learn skills, the learning and performance tools, and the corporate culture. If organizations are to successfully couple optimal execution with continual innovation, particularly in times of increasing change and decreasing resources, the mechanisms for success transcend training.  Providing support when needed, and leveraging the power of people will be key.  Does this make sense?  Next step: how do you get there? #itashare

Last week, I talked about what L&D could (and should) look like.  In thinking about how to move folks forwards, I’m working on looking at various ways to characterize the different elements, and what various levels of profession should be.  One of my first stabs is trying to get at the necessary core principles, and the associated approach to be taken.  Here’s the thinking: We start with the culture of the organization.  What the culture should be doing is empowering individuals, providing them with  support for learning. And that is not to provide all the answers, but to support people discovering the answer.  The goal is to not only address optimal execution, but increasingly to address continual innovation, which comes from cooperation and collaboration.  The goal is to augment their existing capabilities with appropriate skills and tools to focus on accomplishing the work to hand.  And not reintroducing things that already exist or can be found elsewhere. That means that formal learning really should be focused on proprietary activities. Don’t design training on commercial tools, that exists. Save the effort to do a real course for those things that are fixed for long enough and specific to your organization.  And make it meaningful: contexts that the user gets, skills that the user recognizes are needed, and that will make a real impact on the business.  Done properly, with sufficient practice, it will take time and money: formal learning should be expensive, so use those precious resources where and when it really should be applied. Performance support is more likely to add value in the moment, helping augment our limited memory and working memory capacity. When people need to be focused on the task, designing or curating resources to be used in the moment is a more cost-effective option, though again to be used appropriately.  If things are changing too fast, or the situation’s unique, there are better options.  And when you are developing or sourcing support, realize that less is more.  Look to be minimalist, and your performers (and the bottom line) will thank you. If things are changing too fast, or the situation’s  new and unique (which will be happening more often), the network is likely to be your best resource and likely should be your first.  The role here is to make sure that the network is available and vibrant. Facilitation of dialog, and skills, will make this solution the most powerful one in a company that intends to thrive. The infrastructure, beyond the usual integration of tools, needs to take another level down, and start treating content as an asset that drives outcomes.  The steps that matter are to get detailed about the content structures, the model, underneath, and the associated governance. At the end, it requires a focus on semantics, what labels we have and how we define and describe content to move forward into personalization and contextualization. Finally, we need to measure what we’re doing, and we have to stop doing it on efficiencies. How much it costs us per seat hour doesn’t matter if that time in the seat isn’t achieving anything. We need to be measuring real business effects: are we increasing sales, decreasing costs or errors, solving problems faster, decreasing time to market, increasing customer satisfaction, the list goes on.  Then, and only then, should we be worrying about efficiencies. Yes, we should be smart about our investments, but all the efficiency in the world about doing something inane is just kind of silly. So, does this make sense?  Any tuning or clarification needed? Feedback welcome.  

Jeremy Gutsche opened DevLearn with a very animated presentation about how to unlock innovation and communicate killer messages. Entertaining and informative, he made a specific point to link his messages to eLearning. A nice start to the conference.

Eli Pariser gave a very thoughtful and thought-provoking talk about the ‘below the surface’ action of filters on the Internet. He made very astute points about the potential dangers of this, and opportunities to remedy these ills. Very worthwhile!

Jason and Joe led a lively session inspiring us to innovate through small hacks. Their very pragmatic process is approachable and practical. A great closing to DevLearn.

Richard Clark presented the research on media and learning, highlighting the 30 years of debate. He started talking about the importance of evidence, and summarized a variety of points of view and research, with a focus on John Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory and Dick Mayer’s multimedia work. He finished with a potshot at constructivism.

Yesterday (as I post this), the legendary Tom Reeves capped a great session at #AECT (Association for Educational Communications and Technology).  The session started with a passionate rationale by Dr. Ali Carr-Chellman about why we should worry about boys and school.  Frankly, we’re not connecting school to their lives!  She was followed by Dr. David Wiley, who explained how his passion for Open Educational Resources wasn’t just ethical, but practical.  Dr. Tom Reeves presented a story which serendipitously integrated the two previous sessions into a coherent whole. Tom was presenting the case for educational design research (aka design-based research).  By analogy to Atul Gawande’s work, and an example about the rapid uptake of anesthesia and slow uptake of antiseptics, Tom made the case how adoptions of innovations depend on factors of relevance to audiences, ease of use by practitioners, and time-frames of results. His point was that doing some educational research is doable, fruitful, but has little impact. His desire, instead, was to have impact and do the hard yards to achieve it.  Design research works by focusing on meaningful outcomes, going deep to figure it out, and reflecting on theory as an outcome. This is in opposition to research on small points that can easily be conducted, generates significant results, but doesn’t get applied. I have to say that I’ve been a fan of this approach since reading about it (and have been practicing it even before it had a label), but it’s nice to have this respected figure across decades of research help point the way.  We can, and should, be following his example. If we’re not shooting to have an impact, what are we doing?  It’s not the easy path, but it’s the right one.  If you really care, you should be going this way. If you don’t, why are you here?

Howard Rheingold gave a fast-paced and inspiring talk on social network skills. With great examples and deep insight, he brought home powerful lessons on the power of people. His takeaways provided valuable lessons for individuals, schools, organizations, and society.

David Merrill talked about his first principles of instruction, leading the way through the development of his thinking. I admit that his steps from strategy to problem-solving were a little elusive, but I was pleased to see that he has come around to problem-centered learning, and design by prototyping and refinement. His take home in the Q&A was to have more examples and put problems first. Always a pleasure to hear him.

I have only recently upgraded to a phone with any meaningful voice capabilities, an iPhone with Siri in my particular case.  And I really hadn’t put it to the test, but that changed this past weekend. I had a long solo drive home and time to think. When I headed out, I had some logistical details, so I asked Siri to call home.  This I’d done before.  Then, finding out m’lady was out and about, I decided to see if I could text by voice as well (which my brother assures me is how he always does it on his Android device).  Sure enough, I could send text messages. I’d deliberately set my mind around focusing on my current project and taking some ideas further.  And, indeed, I had a revelation.  What could I do?  Could I take a note?  Why, yes, I can.  However, Siri stopped too early, so I tried speaking quicker.  Which has it’s own problems, but I achieved a useful reminder. Then I thought of a further text message. Remembering the last message, I spoke quickly, and this time Siri  munged two words together.  ("Call when free" became "Call Winfrey", and I didn’t think Oprah would take my call).  This time I had to try again, and pause more between my words. At least it didn’t end too quickly.  (Wish she’d ask me, if I cancel, whether I want to try again.) And, then I decided I’d write a blog post about my thoughts, and I wanted a reminder (there’ve been times in the past when I had a good topic, but by the time I got back I couldn’t remember what it was). By experimentation, I found that I could indeed also make a Reminder (aka ‘ToDo’).  So I made one for that post (coming soon), and one to write this (see, it works!).  I only wish Siri could diagram for me too, or at least drive so I can do the diagramming ;). Two take home lessons: For one, experiment!  One of the ways I got on top of mobile was by trying everything I could to see how I could use mobile to make me more effective. As the lotteries would have it, you have to be in it to win it. (Social media is where I usually make this statement.) For another, taking time for reflection is powerful, particularly if you seed yourself a goal.  I turned off the radio to make sure I wasn’t distracted, and the miles flew by while I worked on my topic. Coming in my next post, my revelation.

In thinking about how L&D needs to shift to accommodate this new day and age, I started thinking from the perspective of why the term Learning & Development (let alone Training & Development) bothered me, and it’s because I believe we need to shift from thinking about learning to think about performance.  My first take was that training and development wasn’t enough.  Even learning & development isn’t enough; we need to focus on developing individual and team skills and contributions, but where does performance support fit? As another way to think about it, I started with the combination of Optimal Execution and Continual Innovation, and worked backwards.  I was trying to find the elements that contribute to each.  What are the components we can use technology to improve individual and group contribution to optimal execution? What can we do to similarly improve continual innovation? For execution, we have training, performance support, performance coaching, assistance from others by cooperating, and self-designed or acquired support as part of personal knowledge management (PKM).  For innovation, we want self-development by personal knowledge management, collaboration amongst individual, mentoring to develop individuals and ideas, and education to introduce new skills ideas.  Elements of those components fall variously under formal, performance focus, or eCommunity. Underpinning this is a culture where cooperation and collaboration can flourish.  Note that there are opportunities for support of those component skills, like developing coaching and mentoring skills, that cut across the areas, but this seemed to be a manageable way to look at it. Going further, when I look at what contributes to execution, it ends up being about performance. When the focus is supporting innovation, we can call it development.   What we can, and should, be focusing on is both supporting performance in the moment and developing individual and team capability over time.  The skills are performance consulting, and facilitation of development and innovation.  Thus, the field, to me, is really about performance and development. This is a first cut, and I’m willing to consider improvements. There are layers below this that are being glossed over to focus on the top level, but I really do think that we need a broader focus, and this seems to capture the way my thinking is going. So, what am I missing?  

I was talking to the ADL Mobile folks about mobile design processes, and as usual I was going on about how mobile is not the sweet spot for courses (augmenting yes, full delivery no).  When tablets are acting more like a laptop, sure, but otherwise.  I had suggested that the real mobile opportunities are using sensors to do contextual things, and and I also opined that we really don’t have an instructional design model that adequately addresses taking context into account.  I started riffing on what that might involve, and then continued it on a recent trip to speak in Minneapolis. Naturally, I started diagramming. I am thinking specifically of augmenting formal learning here, not performance support.  In this diagram, when it’s not a course you head off to consider contextual performance support, if indeed the context of performance is away from a computer. When, however, it is a course, and you start embedding the key decisions into a setting, the first thing you might want to do is use their existing context (or contexts, it occurs to me now).  Then we can wrap learning around where (or when) they are, turning that life event into a learning experience.  Assuming, of course, we can detect and deliver things based upon context, but that’s increasingly doable. Now if you can’t use their context, because it’s arguably not something that is located in their existing lives, we want to create a context (this is, really, the essence of serious game design). It might be fantastic (some conspiracy theory, say) or very real (e.g. the Red 7 sales demo, warning: large PDF), but it’s a setting in which the decisions are meaningfully embedded (that is, real application of the model and of interest to the learner).  It might be desktop but if possible, could we distribute the experience into the learners’ world, e.g. transmedia?  Here we’re beginning to talk Alternate Reality Game.  (And we use exaggeration to ramp up the motivation.) As an aside, I wondered when/how collaboration would fit in here, and I don’t yet have an answer: before setting, after, or in parallel?  Regardless, that’s definitely another consideration, which may be driven by a variety of factors such as whether there are benefits to role-play or collaboration in this particular instance. This is still very preliminary (thinking and learning out loud), but it has some initial resonance to me.  For you too, or where am I going off track?

During my presentation in Minneapolis on future-looking applications of technology to learning, the usual and completely understandable question came up about how to change an organization to buy-in to this new way of acting in the world: to start focusing on performance outcomes and not courses.  I’m sensitive, because I have claimed that the change is needed.   So I riffed off a couple of answers that I’ll offer for discussion: For one, the question was how to start. I suggested making small changes in what was being done now: push back a bit on the immediate request for a course, and start really diving into the real performance problem. Then, of course, designing a solution for the real problem. I also suggested starting to chunk content into finer granularity, and  focusing on the ‘least‘ that can be done.   I didn’t add, but should’ve, that bootstrapping some community would be good, and I’d also suggest that you have to be ‘in it to win it’ (as the lottery would have it). You have to keep experimenting yourself. I added that you should simultaneously start some strategic planning.  That is, be looking at the larger picture of what can be done and where an organization should be, and then figure out what steps to take towards that in what order.  When I run my elearning strategy workshops or for clients, some folks might need to start working on performance support, others might best benefit from initial efforts in social, and some might better start on improving learning design.  And that’s all good, it’s what is right for them and where they’re at.  But you won’t get there if you don’t start planning. One of the attendees started asking further, and was already doing some prototyping, which triggered another response from me.  Start prototyping different approaches. Web (including mobile web) is a really good way to follow on from choosing the early adopter to work with, finding an area where a small intervention can have a big impact, and get some initial measurable improvements to leverage.  Iterate quickly. As a final suggestion, I added that there likely is a need to ‘manage up’, that is educate your bosses and up about the need for the change.   It’s really Org Change 101: you need to create a vision, get buy-in, spread the message (the benefits of change, as as Peter de Jager suggests, make it a choice), support and reward the change, get some early success, and leverage that going forward. This seems like some sensible top-level approaches, but I welcome additions, revisions, improvements.

Rob Hubbard organized a suite of us to write chapters for a use-focused guide to elearning. And, now it’s out and available!  Here’s the official blurb: Technology has revolutionised every aspect of our lives and how we learn is no exception. The trouble is; the range of elearning technologies and the options available can seem bewildering. Even those who are highly experienced in one aspect of elearning will lack knowledge in some other areas. Wouldn’t it be great if you could access the hard-won knowledge, practical guidance and helpful tips of world-leading experts in these fields? Edited by Rob Hubbard and featuring chapters written by global elearning experts: Clive Shepherd, Laura Overton, Jane Bozarth, Lars Hyland, Rob Hubbard, Julie Wedgwood, Jane Hart, Colin Steed, Clark Quinn, Ben Betts and Charles Jennings - this book is a practical guide to all the key topics in elearning, including: getting the business on board, building it yourself, learning management, blended, social, informal, mobile and game-based learning, facilitating online learning, making the most of memory and more. And here’s the Table of Contents, so you can see who wrote what: So What is eLearning? - Clive Shepherd Getting the Business on Board - Laura Overton Build In-House, Buy Off -the-Shelf or Outsource? - Jane Bozarth Production Processes - Making it Happen! - Lars Hyland Making the Most of Memory - Rob Hubbard Blended Learning - Julie Wedgwood Informal and Social Learning - Jane Hart Facilitating Live Online Learning - Colin Steed Mobile Learning - Clark Quinn Game-Based Learning - Ben Betts Learning Management - Charles Jennings If you’d like to purchase the book, VBF11 is the promotion code to get 15% discount when you buy the book at www.wiley.com, or you can get it through Amazon as a book or on Kindle.  I look forward to getting my copy in the mail!