Written by: Lynne I was thinking about social media the other day and how sites like Facebook and Twitter give people the opportunity to share every detail of their lives with friends and family. Sometimes these details might be quite significant such as photographs of a recent trip, wedding, graduation, or family reunion. Sometimes people share less significant details such as what they are doing, what they are wearing, what they are thinking, and what they are eating! We can choose to respond to these details or ignore them. What does this have to do with training? Let me tell you! Unlike Facebook where we can decide whether the content is worth our consideration, as trainers we need to pay attention to every small detail that may be going on in our classrooms. We need to notice both the verbal and the non-verbal cues our learners may be giving us so we can act appropriately. Everything we notice, and subsequently act on, must facilitate the learning process. Here are three examples of learner cues that need our attention. If people in your class are nodding off or shifting in their seats, it’s time for a break. A break allows our learners the physical and mental time to rest, and the opportunity to re-focus so they can continue to learn. If your learners are looking perplexed and asking many questions, you are probably confusing them with what or how you are teaching. If this happens, draw pictures, explain points in different ways, or use analogies or examples to clarify your content. If a couple of learners are having sidebar conversations in the back of the room, check in with them. At the next available break ask them how things are going. Gently remind them that their talking may be disrupting the learning process for others around them. When you are a new instructor it is normal to miss these details. Once you become more comfortable teaching, you will develop the ability to notice even the smallest details. You will be more in tune with your learners and will do the right thing to facilitate and prevent disruption of the learning process. What additional cues do you think we should pay attention to in class?

Written by: Paul A classroom instructor is constantly aware of the group dynamics of his or her participants. This allows on-the-fly adjustments to keep the atmosphere conducive to learning. However, sometimes things occur in the classroom that throws an instructor off their game. But maybe these things don’t mean anything at all. Here are six behaviors that may really be the "small stuff," and some instructional techniques to handle them: Negative body language. Crossed arms, lack of eye contact, head shaking, frowning. All these are taken as signals that our message is being rejected. But, what does body language mean? Actually, very little if it is from just one person. Read the group, not an individual. Sometimes crossed arms may simply mean the person is cold. Don’t be put off by negative body language, unless it is being displayed by many. Contentious questions. Sometimes a question is posed that can be perceived as challenging. "How could that ever work?" "Would anyone actually do that?" In a social environment, I would certainly find such these questions challenging. But, for a trainer, the goal is different. Our self-esteem is not the goal. Rather, the improved performance of the participants back in the workplace is important. Look for something factual in the question and answer the question patiently and respectfully. Unrelated questions. Questions are sometimes asked that have little bearing on the content being discussed. Left unchecked, these will take you fully beyond your time line. A respectful response such as, "Interesting, but maybe outside the scope of this session? Could we discuss it during the break?" or "Could we put that on the parking lot to discuss when we have time?" may encourage other, content-related, questions. "Stumper" questions. Sometimes, questions like, "What happens when you select the third option under the tools-options menu?" leave you without a clue. Instead of, "I have no idea," try, "Interesting. Does anyone know the answer?" At a minimum, this gives you some processing time, but someone else in the room may actually have an answer. Additionally, if you do have to confess that you don’t know, at least you have established no one else does either. Don’t let it throw you off. You really aren’t expected to know everything. Sidebar conversations. You may have participants who are having a little conversation when coming back from break or chuckling over something they find funny. It’s easy for an instructor to find this distracting. However, you’ve got enough on your hands getting the content across clearly. There are low-level intervention techniques you can use (e.g. just stop talking for a moment) to dampen the behavior and end the conversation. Again, your personal goal is meaningful learning. As long that is happening, you’ve got little to worry about. Smartphones/emails. We live in the age of technology. Many of us aren’t in a position to prohibit the use of technology in the classroom and these behaviours can be viewed as disrespectful or distracting. Why should they? It’s just a signal that we’ve got to do something else to make our training more engaging for our target audience. Altering your game plan to address the small stuff may be creating more work than you need. Make your classroom life easier. Incorporate a variety of instructional techniques and, remember, don’t sweat the small stuff!

Written by: Marsha Learning how to drive all over again with the help of Langevin’s How Adults Learn workshop… Well, here’s a funny story. I recently relocated to Atlanta, Georgia. No, not because I want to be a Southern belle, but because I married an American, living in Georgia. The things we do for love, but that’s for another time. So here I am, a permanent resident of the United States and I realize I don’t have a Georgia Driver’s License. Well, that’s easy to change, I thought. So, I went to the Georgia Department of Driver Services, with my Canadian License in hand, thinking it would be simple to re-issue a new license. I’d probably just have to complete some forms, pay an admin fee and be on my way. That was not to be the case. I learned that drivers from other countries must pass Georgia’s written, road, and vision tests to be issued a Georgia driver’s license. Really? I know I’m from another country, but it’s just Canada. Aren’t we the same in so many ways? So, I picked up the driver’s manual to learn more about the testing involved. The Knowledge Exam (as it’s called) is broken down into two sections. In section one, there are 20 multiple choice questions on the meaning of standard highway signs, signals, and markers. To pass, 15 out of the 20 questions must be answered correctly. Section two has 20 multiple choice questions on driver responsibility, laws, and safe driving practices. Again, 15 out of the 20 questions must be answered correctly to pass. They even had a sample test on their website so I’m thinking this will be a cinch, until I see the questions: Here’s one: The maximum speed limit on a rural Interstate Highway is: 60 miles per hour 70 miles per hour 55 miles per hour Would you know the answer? I guessed 60 miles per hour but the answer was 70 miles per hour. Uh oh, now I’m getting nervous. I’m preparing for a test, more than 30 years after taking the initial one. And even though I’m in a classroom, training others, I can’t remember the last time I studied for a test that required a passing grade. What if I didn’t pass? Oh, the shame and embarrassment! Luckily, I remembered that I had some resources to help. I pulled out my How Adults Learn workshop manual, and on page 55 I found the following ten tips for studying: Block out distractions and focus your attention. Use a highlighter to emphasize important points. Read difficult concepts aloud. Draw diagrams or flowcharts to link concepts. Write or type out notes containing key points. Use key words to trigger your memory. Develop analogies to explain concepts. Prepare flash cards. Organize the data into chunks of seven items or less. Make up acronyms to remember key points. So, that’s exactly what I did. For a solid day, I focused, highlighted, made notes, and really prepped. I decided to take the test the next day. I went back to the Department of Driver Services, got my number and waited to be called. After paying the $10.00 fee, taking a vision test, and getting my photo taken, I was told to go to Computer 1 for the test. No pens, pencils, paper, cell phones, or other wireless devices were permitted in the testing area. I sat down, got comfortable and started the test. After each response, I was prompted to verify that it was the response I selected. I was also told, after each response, if it was correct or incorrect. Talk about immediate feedback! Now for the good news! I scored 100% on the Road Signs and 95% (one mistake) on the Road Rules. All those studying tips from our How Adults Learn workshop really paid off! Now I have to practice my parallel parking, quick stop, backing up, and three-point turn. Stay tuned for those results!

Written by: Alan In training, most courses end with a slide titled, "Summary," and a few bullet points. The instructor talks about what’s on the screen (yet again) and considers the course done. Not a very powerful ending to something that was intended to improve employee job performance. Here are four instructional techniques (each in the form of a summary or review) that can make a bigger impact and increase the chances that people actually use the skills they learned. Action Plan Debrief After each lesson in the course, ask the learners to record their favorite ideas in an action plan. This is a great way to promote training transfer. For the summary, they can read through their ideas and highlight the top three. Afterwards, they each share their top three action plan items with the whole group. Hat Trick On separate sheets of paper, write down each of the different job tasks/topics the training covered. Fold up the sheets and put them in a hat or a cardboard box. Learners pick from the hat and take a few minutes to determine the three key points they got from the task or topic listed on their sheet of paper. They then take turns sharing their job tasks and key points. Review Ball Ask learners to stand in a circle. Pass a ball to one of them, asking that person to share a key idea learned during the session. That learner then throws the ball to another random person in the circle, who shares a key idea. They continue in this way until everyone has shared. Poster Review Ask learners to work in teams and create a poster advertising the course for the next group of attendees. Ideally they would use flipcharts or whiteboards, but plain old lined paper works in a pinch. Tell them to include the outcomes and benefits they found most valuable. Afterwards, each group presents and explains their poster to the other groups. A summary can accomplish many things - highlight key points, reinforce valuable elements in the course, or even persuade learners to adopt more of the course content as a result of hearing each other’s conclusions. Using the instructional techniques outlined above, the learners are actually involved in the review and get to end the course doing something more enjoyable than just sitting and listening. For additional review techniques, check out our 25 Creative Ways to Add Excitement to your Training workshop! Happy summarizing!

Written by: Steve Instructors are often required to deliver a whole lot of content in a very short period of time. It doesn’t take much to get off track or to spend more time on a topic than is allotted in the lesson plan. A quick glance at your watch and you are way behind time. Here are five instructional techniques for managing time in the classroom: Always start on time and ask your learners to be on time as well. This might seem obvious, however, many instructors have difficulty with this. If we don’t begin on time we are playing "catch up" right from the start and it becomes difficult to make up time. Spend the most amount of time on content that is essential and most difficult to learn. Devote less time to content that is less important, less difficult, and could be handled well with job aids. Let learners know what will be covered and what will not be covered to minimize digressions. This will prevent learners from asking questions about content that will not be covered. Give clear directions for exercises. This will minimize wasted time in repeating instructions and learners debating what to do. Reduce your own talking time as much as possible. Guide the learners through the presentation of content to the hands-on application as efficiently and effectively as possible. Managing instructional time well is a key skill for a classroom instructor. Delivering lectures, leading discussions, administering application exercises, and debriefing activities all within the allotted time indicated in the lesson plan can be a tall order. A skilled instructor can also make time adjustments on the fly by speeding up, or slowing down the pace, based on the needs of the learners. By applying these five instructional techniques you are less likely to run into time issues in the classroom. What techniques do you use to manage time in the classroom?

Written by: Melissa I recently gave my business card to someone who questioned my title. She knew I was in the training industry, but didn’t know the details of my job. I realized she wasn’t questioning my abilities, as much as what the title meant. The title I’m referring to is, "Performance Consultant." What ensued was a quick, down-and-dirty, five-minute explanation of the performance consultant role, and how it’s both different and similar to a traditional training role. They both begin with a job performance need, usually in the form of a request for training. Something’s wrong, and someone’s got to fix it. Performance consultants use a systematic approach to evaluate employee job performance, and then recommend the appropriate solution. Since the title, Performance Consultant, seems to be a buzzword in our industry right now, I thought it might be fun to share my "take" on training versus performance consulting (PC), and why a PC approach can make you a valuable asset to your company. A traditional training approach: Has a (mostly) reactive response to a performance issue, and almost always involves training as the answer. Can be viewed as a cost center. In contrast, the performance consulting approach: Has a proactive response to a performance discrepancy. Identifies undesired performance and its root cause and then partners with management to resolve the discrepancy in a manner that best supports the organization’s business objectives. Provides both training and non-training solutions. Is seen as a strategic business partner. If your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail! If performance consulting is something you’d like to investigate further, attend Langevin’s Consulting Skills for Trainers workshop - coming soon to a city near you!

Written by: Jeff When I order a pizza, the word "plain" is not in my vocabulary. I want the works! Give me extra sauce, extra cheese, and every topping imaginable. However, when writing training-related documents such as job aids, manuals, or multimedia slides, I try my best to keep things plain and simple. As a matter of fact, writing experts suggest when writing for learning and development, a "Plain Language" approach should be followed whenever possible. Documents that incorporate simple language are easier to read and comprehend. Training materials that are easy to understand may result in higher rates of performance improvement. There are many best practices for writing from a plain language perspective. I’ll list a few techniques that I typically incorporate in an effort to make my writing user-friendly for any training audience. Write For Your Target Audience Long before you actually write any content, I highly recommend that you conduct an audience analysis. This will allow you to target the content specifically to your readers. Try to determine basic factors about your audience’s demographics such as, gender, age, race, culture, and socio-economic status. Understanding your audience may help you write more relevant and relatable documentation. When researching your audience, you should also try to determine their knowledge level. Consider factors such as your audience’s subject-matter expertise and existing experience, as well as their educational and reading levels. Don’t assume when they read your documentation and materials they understand the content as well as you. Incorporate the K.I.S.S. Theory K.I.S.S. is my favorite acronym which means "Keep It Short and Simple." Consider writing your document using short paragraphs that are comprised of short sentences. The use of lengthy text can result in your readers losing focus, thus resulting in misunderstanding. Using short paragraphs and sentences, or even bulleted items, will help you maximize the use of the limited space of training materials. Use Simple, Familiar Words When writing instructional or other training-related materials our main goal should be to communicate information to our readers. This type of documentation should not be used to impress our audiences by using large or complex words unnecessarily. Using words plucked straight from a dictionary or thesaurus does not make the writer appear more intelligent. As a matter of fact, a recent Princeton University study indicates that using unnecessary, complex words makes the author appear phony and even less intelligent. If you must use large or intricate words because they are industry-specific or there are no alternative words, by all means, use them. However, don’t use complex words in an attempt to take your documentation to a higher intellectual level. You could very well run the risk of confusing some of your reading audience. Give Direct Instructions Unlike writing academic material (e.g. term papers and essays) or literary materials (e.g. poetry and prose), the tone for training materials should be instructional. As learners read your written documentation, it should sound like direct instructions or commands, similar to the example below. Recommended Example: Engage the emergency brake when parking a company vehicle on a hill. Not Recommended: It can be dangerous to park a company vehicle on a hill without first engaging the emergency brake, so this practice is highly discouraged. By using simple language, your training materials will be more relevant, easy-to-follow, and instructional. Langevin’s Writing Skills for Trainers workshop focuses on this exact topic—using a clear, concise writing style—check it out! Feel free to comment by sharing your best practices for writing from a plain language perspective. I’d love to hear from you!

Written by: Linda I was recently at the gym and overheard some complaints about one of the fitness instructors who is perceived as knowledgeable but cold. I felt the same way about her until I got to know her a little better. I discovered she is passionate about her job and sincerely cares about her clients. What she lacks is a smile. When she does smile she radiates warmth and kindness. As trainers, we must begin our courses with impact. We do not have the luxury of waiting to connect with our learners. The best way to begin is with a warm, welcoming SMILE. Sincerity - People can usually spot a phony, so make sure your smile is sincere. Magic - A smile promotes a positive climate during training and can put participants at ease. It can also magically diffuse potential conflicts from escalating. Inspiration - A smile can inspire and stimulate learner motivation and participation. Levity - We often take ourselves too seriously, particularly if the subject matter is dry. Using humor creates an atmosphere of fun which can make a long day move quickly. Energy - We are responsible for the energy we bring into the room. Attending a training program can be intimidating for some learners, which makes it essential for us to create a climate of safety and comfort the moment they walk in the door. My fitness instructor is probably not aware of how she is perceived and how it might be impacting her business. On the flipside there is another instructor who is known for her winning smile and her classes are always packed. A smile is much more inviting than a poker face frown. Perception is powerful. So let’s express sincerity, create magic, inspire our learners, add levity, and fill the environment with positive energy. Doing this will allow us to win our learners with a SMILE!

Written by: Lynne Social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram enable us to share every small detail about our lives with our friends and family. This might be fun in our personal lives but sharing too much in the classroom might pose a problem. Once we establish a rapport with our learners, we want to maintain a positive, comfortable learning environment. If we share certain things with our classes we might inadvertently create a negative learning environment. Creating a positive learning environment is one of many adult learning principles we teach in our workshop, How Adults Learn. What does a positive learning environment really mean? It means making people feel confident and positive about learning new things. Remember the last time you were a beginner at anything? What did it feel like? Some of the adjectives I would use are: nerve-racking, overwhelming, scary, intimidating, and stressful. In addition to starting our courses with brainteasers, icebreakers, introductions, and snacks to make people feel comfortable, we want to instruct our learners in a manner that is respectful and fun. To create a sense of community among our groups we encourage our learners to share their ideas, feelings, examples, and mistakes with one another. Everyone feels like they are in "the same boat," and people relax and learn from one another. Unlike Facebook and Twitter where we share everything, there are three things instructors should rarely, or never, share with their students. While there are a few exceptions to this, never let people know you’ve made a mistake. They can see and/or hear it so you don’t need to bring extra attention to yourself. This is especially magnified in the virtual classroom. Just move right along and the class will quickly forget about your mistake. Never complain about the design of the course you are teaching or say, "Well, I did not design this course." If you say this in front of your class you are hurting your credibility and professionalism as an instructor. Never promise you will end class early. If, for some reason you cannot end the class early, you may again lose credibility with your students. Given the agenda, you might suspect the class will end early, just don’t communicate it unless it really happens. If we avoid these kinds of mistakes, we can continue to maintain a positive learning environment. Over the years, what have you learned to avoid sharing with your learners?

This post was originally published on the Educational Technology and Change (ETC) Journal on 3rd June, 2009.Some things are obvious about blogging, some are not. Anyone familiar with blogs knows that it’s a way to publish content online. I used to think that the journal aspect was also a given. That is until I facilitated on a Web 2.0 distance learning module recently and found that many of the blogs the students created consisted of descriptions and links without much personal thoughts and opinion. This was surprising because I assumed that giving your perspective made a blog a blog. I should mention that many of them had a job which required them to share Web 2.0 resources with colleagues. But you can do this and still give your perspective, for example, Jane’s Pick of the Day. A blog that presents information with little or no opinion is fine if that’s what you want to do. My point to the students was that if you just blog information then you might as well have a website instead where you can organise things better. This is especially pertinent as we were studying a course where the nature of blogging is the subject matter.When I look at the use of blogging in courses, I often see that instructors don’t fully appreciate the social networking aspect of blogs. They are attracted by the reflective nature of blogs and ask students to record their learning at regular intervals. But the instructors treat the blogs as a private space between them and their students and often use blogs that are built into VLEs (virtual learning environments). I find this a great shame. Why? Well, the social nature and openness of blogs (and anything Web 2.0) is very important. It’s the essence, the lifeblood of what makes blogging so successful. It’s a shame to cut this off.I don’t mind so much if the educators made an informed choice on this issue, but often it’s a natural instinct to keep thing private. "Of course, no one else will see it," they say to the students. As if public exposure would be abhorrent to them. Why? What are they afraid of? This is partly a reflection of the insular, controlling nature of education and partly a reflection of their experiences and expectations of learning. Even if a student doesn’t want to blog public facing, it’s worth building in because creating and publishing online in a Web 2.0 setting is an important skill in the 21st Century. I don’t have a ready made study to prove this, but I’m going to say it anyway. At the least, instructors ought to create links between the student blogs to give them a ready made support network.It may well be the case that blogging has diminished and will diminish due to social networks (at least for the teenagers), but blogging is still a valid and vibrant tool in the adult world. It’s not important for people to learn about blogging for blogging’s sake, but it’s important they learn about the ethos and the spirit of blogging, which is the essence of Web 2.0. It’s important they learn about collaboration, self-direction, independent learning, and networking. The new CLEX (Committee of Inquiry into the Changing Learner Experience) document Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World characterises these as "soft skills" which are desirable in the new job market.When it comes to using blogs for your own learning as part of your CPD (computer professional development), the plea I would make is don’t do it in isolation. Instead, immerse yourself in the blogosphere. In my context, this is true because reading others’ blogs is a really good way to keep up in my area of interest, learning technology. But this is true for any subject. Maybe not to the same extent, but it’s still true. It’s quick and easy and, most importantly for me, bitesize. With bitesize, I can knit things together much easier (tagging is very important here). The concepts can stick to my brain much easier, and I can make links better. I also approach it with less dread than I would an academic paper or book although my motivation might be different to yours. You can do all this without having your own blog, but this is where the knitting occurs. Well, some of it anyway. Also, one of the things that drew me to blogging was it’s conversational nature although this might be more my style than a rule.To feel part of the blogosphere or a network of bloggers may be difficult if you don’t know anyone directly who blogs on your subject and if no one visits your blog. Just because you publish a blog doesn’t mean anyone is going to read it. You need to be okay with this, otherwise you’ll get disappointed very quickly.My motivation for blogging is to capture my learning for myself. By making it public facing, I’m forced to be coherent, and it’s in that process where the learning happens. Quite often I end up in different places than I expected. So for me, if no one reads it, the blog is still valuable since it serves my purpose.I’ve used Blogger for mine with the presentation Learning from Blogging: Creating Your Own and Learning from Others, by Tracy Hamilton, as the starting point. WordPress is the other main player but there are many more. The best way to start is to spend an hour browsing the blogosphere (not my favourite term) on Technorati or Icerocket. However, if you are reading this, you probably know all that.

It's been a while as I've been on holiday. Back now.This doesn't refer to that Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World document which I banged on about last month. Instead, I been "motivated" to post by reading Tony Bates Expectations and goals for e-learning post on his blog. Very useful as it outlines common expectations and goals. They are:1. To increase access to learning opportunities/increase flexibility for students2. To enhance the general quality of teaching/learning.3. To develop the skills and competencies needed in the 21st century, and in particular to ensure that learners have the digital literacy skills required in their discipline, profession or career - or, put simply, to get work in the future4. to meet the learning styles/needs of millenial students5. to improve the cost-effectiveness of the post-secondary education system6. to stay at the leading edge of educational technology developments/to digitalise all learning - or put another way, to respond to the technological imperative7. to de-institutionalise learning/to enable self-managed learning.8. to embark on a journey of mystery to see where it will take me.I commented on his blog and I want to record this comment here for reference. I wrote: I have a role as a Learning Technologist at the Institute of Education, London so I spend a lot of time trying to convince Higher Education academics about the virtues of all things e-learning. Your list of goals is very useful.I have used many of these at various times but the one I use a lot is where I present something as another tool to choose from in their toolkit when they design their course. I guess this is (2) more than anything else, but I don’t talk about improving quality because of the connotation that the quality isn’t good at the moment. It’s worth saying, however, that I think the social, informal learning offered by Web 2.0 can and should improve the learning for everyone. This is my main motivation for what I do.Where it is clear, I will talk about cost-effectiveness (5) and flexibility and access (1) as these will always go down well. Tangible benefits like this where are indisputable are the hooks to get people open to your ideas.3 and 6 are interesting. (6) never goes down well with sceptical academics and shouldn’t really be used. (3) I definitely agree with and one that I should use more often. It’s also increasingly hard to argue against. What I need is some more facts to back this up or at least some supplementary statements on this (I look forward to your further posts).(4) - yes, but I think of it as - "let’s do what they are doing because they are doing it." This sounds a bit silly but it’s valid. Another way of thinking about it is going into their world and speaking in a language that they understand (the web 2.0 world). I’m not in favour of using facebook or myspace but a comparable social networking facility - we don’t want to invade their private space. I’m not a fan of getting into learning styles because of the annoying "e-learning isn’t my learning style" mantra I often hear. This statement is so wrong on so many levels!Self-managed or personal learning (7) is a phrase that is creeping into higher education but it’s often offered within a tightly controlled space which kind of misses the point (I agree with Jay about e-portfolios). I don’t find myself using this much unless it’s clearly what they want to hear. 8 is silly.

Just read an interesting article on the Auricle by Derek Morrison about the number of users generating content on twitter and wikipedia. It's a small number. On wikipedia, 1/10 of 1% account for half of the content and for twitter 10% do 90% of the tweets. So why so few? My gut reaction is that the opportunities for user generated content are so new that people are still getting used to the idea. Consuming content is what we've been doing all our lives so to switch to a more participatory approach is alien and will take some getting used to. Also, for most of us, our experience of the web are purely as a consumer. Our use fo Web 2.0 will follow this path and it will take time to grasp the difference. Besides, you can 'participate' in and benefit from Web 2.0 just by consuming. Apart from this blog, my use of Web 2.0 is as a consumer. And it's quite to go from consuming to producing - it took me ages to start this space up.There are always going to be a minority who dominate proceedings just look at any classroom. But the fact that you can now participate, and so easily, makes a huge difference. You are going to get many, many more voices. Voices that you didn't hear before, voices with nowhere to go before, voices that didn't really think they had it in them to speak up. The voices will grow once people get used to the idea.However, let's be clear. There has already been an explosion with benefits for everyone to see.

A massive new JISC document - The Edgeless University has just come out. It looked important enough for me to read. I'm about half way through and, so far, I've not learnt as much as with Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World. However, I've not got to the recommendations yet.What's useful is that it focuses on the challenges facing Higher Education in the new Web 2.0 world. The basic idea is simply - Universities must become edgeless - blurring their boundaries. I'll comment on this in later posts.Much of the focus so far is on OER. It takes the stance that with the wealth of OER available universities are still important because people "look to their expertise and their recognition to validate learning." Yes, this is true but will this perception always exist? It is true that universities contains the greatest concentration of expertise but with Web 2.0 others are springing up all the time. If everyone realised what is out there, people's perception of where they can legitimately learn will change. At the moment, employers are after same validity that the report say learners are. This could change if people realise that a university qualification isn't the only way that someone can gain expertise in a subject. I want this to happen but I'm not sure it will.Deep down, the main resistence to OER and Web 2.0 in general from higher education is that fact that it's free. How can they survive if we give everything away for free. For me, this is about the democratisation of learning, of knowledge. Why not give everyone the chance to learn. The current system was set up by the elite for the elite. It's natural that university will defend what they have got and I can't see anything changing any time soon. But Web 2.0 challenges this notion. The report will no doubt give some interesting ideas for how universities can change whilst remaining financially viable. But the message is clear, if you ignore the new world, you will become irrevelant anyway.This post is more of a stream consciousness that normal. I hope it makes sense to any reader and myself when I read this back later.

Originally published on the Educational Technology and Change JournalWeb 2.0 and didactic teaching may not seem directly related, but Web 2.0 challenges the way we teach across the board, and the impact will be felt as much in higher education as anywhere else. In general terms, in England, didactic delivery of lectures is prevalent. I’m happy to be challenged on this, but that is my experience. Whatever my motivation for starting this job (as a learning technologist), my motivation for continuing is very much to do with trying to change this status quo. There are others, but this is dominant.Why? This is difficult to get to the heart of. But it might have something to do with my experiences of education. What worked best for me. What was negative for me. It might have something to do with the fact that where I perceive bad teaching, it usually involves didactic, transmissive models. Didactic teaching is also the setup that requires the least planning, sometimes no more than deciding on the content. In some ways, it’s lazy teaching. People who don’t want to think about how they teach, will be didactic.Coincidentally, these people will also not want to hear about learning technology. I never saw myself as championing particular pedagogies, but the various collaborative models lend themselves to everything that is positive about Web 2.0 and, therefore, my way of thinking. I have used the phrase "Web 2.0″ rather than "learning technologies" because some learning technologies are concerned with presenting content (albeit in a flexible way) rather than offering different ways of delivering and learning. Web 2.0 gives us the right social, collaborative, creative idea.So how does Web 2.0 or any learning technology challenge didactic teaching? The simple answer is that when you show educators any learning technology, they are forced to think about how they teach. For higher education in England, the didactic, transmissive model is prevalent so this is being challenged. So, by making people think about how they teach, you are breaking down the status quo as I called it earlier. It’s worth noting that I’m not convinced our educators think about how they teach enough. My role is not ostensibly about challenging teaching methods; it’s about learning technology. But the didactic approach is often the issue underlying resistance to change.This is where the obvious impact of Web 2.0 on all of our lives is important. The more the impact, the harder it is to ignore. The more obvious the benefit, the harder it is to ridicule. Just look at Twitter and the Iran elections.

The first thing to say about the Edgeless University JISC document is there were quite a few new sites highlighted I hadn't seen before. All are now added to my delicious bookmarks (username - tpreskett if you want to look). The best is probably Teacher Training Videos containing loads of bitesize videos on lots of Web 2.0 tools. I will try look at and use some of these. I will also aim to start creating some of these. They use Camtasia, so we'll how easy it is.The main messages seem to be:Universities need to offer OER. Some already do it but most don't. It's a question of not wanting to give things away for free. This is the biggest barrier.Universities need to be flexible in how they offer their courses. Tapping into the 'informal' learning seen on such sites as School of Everything. Shorter courses spring to mind. The paper suggested links between established 'informal' learning sites and higher education institutions. That's good news for the established sites. How would this work in practice? Maybe it's just a case of paying for validation once you've done the learning.The importance of universities will be maintained with the validity that they give to any learning. It's a shame that we have to rely on stamps of approval. It's right that employers still need these stamps, they need the evidence. Hopefully, the 'informal' learning offering out there now and Web 2.0 in general will chip away at these perceptions.An important point is that the normal university experience is still valued and popular. But there is a market for a more flexible approach. They evidenced the Open University of Catalonia which is entirely online. Most of their students worked as well as studied so, for them, the flexible approach was ideal.I pretty agree with all of this. What's interesting is the focus on OER. This is the area that people in education can get their head around. Conceptually it fits in with current models of education and it's easy to see how it works. The only questions with it are where and to what extent. Questions that this paper answers. When it comes to new ways of teaching and learning offered by Web 2.0, the evidence and focus was of outside initiatives. Making links, not changing fundamentally what they themselves are doing. I think this misses the point. Higher education needs to change itself, educate itself on what this paper characterises as 'informal learning'. This way universities can change what they themselves are doing not just tap into what happening elsewhere.

I'm in danger of repeating ideas from previous posts but the Edgeless University does talk about the what I feel is the key issue facing Higher Education with regard to learning technologies. In fact, it expresses it very well. This the issue of staff skills or lack of it."Many academics find it hard to envisage the possibilities that technology affords, not least because often they lack the basic skills to use the new tools."So why don't many or most academics gain these basic skills. We can break this down into time and motivation. Re. time - they don't have enough of it! I hear that a lot and there is no easy answer to this. All I can do is try and tailor what I offer to being somehow time-saving. Anyway, the report states:"The answer is not to barrage teachers with imperatives to change how they behave, but to help them find space and the capacity to develop new ways of working for themselves. This needs more resources, incentives and support."So, as always, successful use of Learning Technology can only occur it the wider strategic plan allows it to. Giving staff time and space to reflect on their teaching and learn new skills is something that is way off - certainly in my organisation.On motivation, this is to do with the status of teaching against the status of research. Research is king! This is true of peer status and respect, true of caree profression, true thanks to the Research Assessment Exercise (which I need to know more about). I think in my organisation research is certainly the focus and is what drives and motivation staff more. However, time (or lack of it) also comes up when you talk to academics. It's no suprise that the use of learning technologies is at a more advanced stage in schools than in higher education. There isn't this duel role in school. There, teachers just teach! That's not to say that school teaching is easier as a result.

A common occurrence in the Learning Technology world is the random nature a tool is selected for use. Mostly when a Learning Technology tool or environment is taken up in education there is no precedent. So what do we do? Well, it's worth noting that in the days before Web 2.0, it was difficult to really explore a tool. You had to rely on the product marketing which is always glossy and misleading. So back in those days, we would go with what we've heard others are using. This is fine but often what others are using is the first thing they have come across or read about or heard was being used elsewhere. This can be to do with not really knowing what a particular tool is really all about. Also, people can get blinded by one iteration of a tool and think that this is the only look and feel that is valid. Mostly, it's to do with not really knowing what you want. Not really knowing what you want can be applied wholesale to Learning Technologies in education.I've been involved recently in converting a face-to-face module to e-learning. One of the activities I had to convert involved small groups drawing their thoughts on a subject. When I asked around, it becomes clear that what people were recommending in the diagramming/whiteboarding area was the one tool they had experience of or had heard of. I then followed the logical path of looking at as many tools as I could and choosing the best tool that fitted my criteria. Rather than spend hours googling, I used Web 2.0 in Education and Best Online Collaboration Tools 2009 - the latter turning out to be the most useful. The beauty of Web 2.0 is that you can try the tools out yourself assesses ease of use as you go. For this activity, I was keen to find a tool that didn't require creating an account (why-oh-why-oh-why do they always do this). The winner WAS ShowDocument - it's sharing method is quick and easy, it's collaboration options are intuitive, and the tools are easy to use. But they have changed their setup to require a login if you want a session to last more than 10 minutes! I'm now favouring Imagination Cubed which is really nice tool. The only issue is that the collaborative element isn't working at the moment. The below image shows the interface and some of my doodling.

I've revisited my PLE document and updated some areas. It was useful to reflect on how my working practices have changed. Not just from April to now, but also from a year ago to now. The way I learn has been invigorated by my engagement with Web 2.0. Instead of reading academic journal and JISC documents intermittently, I now engage almost daily with the the latest Learning Technology news and opinion. I won't spell out for you which is better.Overall, my core tools are Igoogle, googlereader, bloglines, delicious and blogger.

I have learnt a lot from reading Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On by O'reilly and Battelle. It may be business orientated but it's given me insight into the future and a different perspective on the essence of Web 2.0. However, when I went back over it and thought about some of the main points with education in mind, I didn't get a great deal of insight. But one point is worth exploring:Web 2.0 is all about harnessing collective intelligenceYes, indeed. Web Squared talks about how applications get better the more they are used. The tools learn and use the user contributions. The key phrase here is harnessing collective intelligence. For me, this reinforces my belief in the collaborative/constructivist pedagogies. You could say that Web 2.0 is a collaborative/constructivist approach to the internet. An approach that people have voted for en masse. Similarly, you could liken Web 1.0 (if that's a phrase) to didactic teaching. No input from the user into the static html.So what for education? Well, the above is my biggest learning point. But conceptually educators need to get used to the idea of constant improvements and updates and actively engaging in this process themselves. Putting up with a static VLE for years and years isn't what we want to be doing in 2009.Some interesting stuff on how the Web learns from bodies of data. This is useful to know and you can see how the semantic Web will take shape from this. However, there is nothing profound here for education that springs to mind except how exciting some of the tools look. Definitely some educational potential here. If only everyone had an iphone!

I went to an interesting seminar yesterday run by Punya Mishra where I learnt about TPACK - Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. The A is present to make a better sounding word. Basically, it's what educators need to know in order for effective integration of technologies into their teaching. "Effective technology integration for pedagogy around specific subject matter requires developing sensitivity to the dynamic, transactional relationship between all three components. A teacher capable of negotiating these relationships represents a form of expertise different from, and greater than, the knowledge of a disciplinary expert (say a mathematician or a historian), a technology expert (a computer scientist) and a pedagogical expert (an experienced educator)." Punya MIshra’s websiteAs with any model or theory that rings true with me, this is not really telling me anything new. But it articulates one of the fundamental issues facing education. And articulates it very well. How do we address this? Well, firstly I guess people in position like me need to help educators use learning technologies appropriately by not just showing them how to use the tools, but also learning about and helping them integrate it into their course. It’s a two-way process that requires the educator to involve the Learning Technologist in the learning design helping him/her understand the learning process with the LT helping the educator understand the essence of a particular tool. Interestingly, Punya didn’t advocate a presentation of the TPACK model to teachers. It’s useful for us to understand the process we are trying to get the educators to go through. But it’s not necessary to draw the circles. I’m not sure you should hide things but he’s right that if you talk too much theory most people switch off. One other good learning point centres around repurposing. We repurpose any technology for our own ends. This is true and obviously so but I really like its simplicity. Presenting things simply is very, very important and a skill that I constantly strive for.

I've been way behind on my blog reading but have been learning loads converting a face-to-face course into an online one. My key learning point from the last couple of week is not to underestimate the time and effort it takes to do this. Overall, it's very rewarding. This is especially true as the lecturer I am working with is receptive to the process and happy to learn about everything that's an offer. I thought I'd record here the process we have gone through so far:- I learn about the course- I demonstrate the organisation VLE we are supposed to be using- We decide where to house the course - The VLE with Web 2.0 linked in where necessary- We talk through the activities used on each face-to-face day. Each activity is unpicked and I suggest and demonstrate the options available online- I set up the course online- Timings are set and activities are editedActually, we haven't finished and the last 3 points are currently being worked up through several iterations. Much of the time is taken with distilling the activity to what's most important and addressing that above everything else. Another big issues is ensuring making it right timing-wise. At the heart of this issue is transferring the synchronous to asynchronous. It sounds straightforward to try and replicate any face-to-face discussion online in a forum of some sort. You could do the odd one synchronously but largely this will need to be asynchronous and with any asynchronous discussion you need to give it time to develop. I favour two weeks for any subject but one week often has to do. So, if you have 4 discussions during 1 face-to-face day and you want to keep all of these online, you will need 4 weeks at least. Hopefully, timeframes are not as pressing as time spent - which needs to be comparable with face-to-face. All this needs to be carefully thought through.One of the other main things I am trying to do is mix things up and use a wide a range of Web 2.0 tools as possible. You shouldn't really do things for the sake of it so I'm trying to ensure suitability and appropriateness. However, there is an evangelical element to it. I want people to experience a new learning tool to show how good it is! Show how easy it is! It makes it harder to be tied to a less than impressive VLE but they are getting better as they cobble together some Web 2.0-like tools to keep up with the real world and I can link to outside tools easily.

I've been reading through a behemoth of a discussion on the Ning network - Innovate-Ideagora called Addressing the problem of faculty resistance to using IT tools in active learning instructional strategies. There is so much of interest that I had to read it all. I wanted to record my main learning points here because I am positive there are many. The problem is that, as with any discussion, the discourse jumps around a lot and it's difficult to absorb properly as you move through the debate. However, I'm going to try and record the main issues here. When reading debates of this kindsd common issues crop up:Challenging the notion of the "lecture"Didactic vs collaborative pedagogies (in this discussion active learning is the key phrase)Higher education research prioritiesAssessment - and it's driving force dictating the teachingProcess learning now becoming more important than fact-based learningInteresting side issues here including the nature of blended learning and issues of cheating which was linked to the nature of assessment. Below are some additional thoughts.A lot of the debate pitted the lecture against active learning strategies exemplified in the TEAL initiutive from the physics dept. of MIT. So the heart of the issue is the realisation that the most important thing we are doing is promote active learning through learning technologies - not just learning technologies. It's important that we understand that.The discussion explored how a lot of learning technology use involved augmenting the lecture experience, reinforcing it in a way that didn't promote active learning - a reinforcement that added to the cost of the learning experience. Steve Eskow was prominent in challenging the notion of the lecture as all powerful and advocating alternatives to the face-to-face. I happen to agree with this. For most (nearly all) the traditional didactic lecture is so much the right way to educate that it isn't even worth debating. Currently, learning technologies have to fit in around these face-to-face events which are a pegs to hand our education onto. It's a fit that can work but often doesn't. However, this approach makes things more difficult than they need to be. Of course, face-to-face has value. But start off thinking of all your tools on an equal footing not with one on a higher plane.The discussion described the performance involved in giving a lecture. I have a hunch that this is an important element for many educators. Why be receptive to different teaching methods if we like you already do? Put bluntly, some like the sound of their own voice too much. There, I said it. But how can you challenge that? Not easily for sure.I've said in previous posts how important it is to educate the educators in learning technologies. One good idea from this discussion is to give them a reason to use it in their real lives, e.g. an aggregator for their news, and they will naturally start thinking about their teaching once this is embedded.

I recently discovered the EdTechRoundUp podcast. I'm trying to make a conscious effort to introduce podcasts of this kind into my learning. I'm often too tired to read when commuting and listening to a podcast while resting my eyes could work well - now that I have my iphone (hooray).I've only listened to one and it was good quality. The only issue I have when I listen to a discussion like this is that it can be frustrated when the point you would make doesn't get made. Anyway, here is my learning."Teachers think VLEs are clunky" was centrepoint of a fairly long discussion. I think the clunkiness perception comes from the glimpses your average educator has had of social software where drag and drop is common and intuitive is the norm. Broadly, I agree that the perception is there and also that this perception is correct. In 2009, they do feel clunky. But what does this really mean? The dictionary definition is: clumsy or awkward not stylish or attractiveIt's difficult to know much of the clumsiness when compared to Web 2.0 tools or whether they are intrinsically clumsy or awkward. What is definitely true is that with a social networking site, like facebook or ning, there is less to learn and the usability is better. When it comes to attractiveness, I think a certain amount of this comes from social software looking more up to date. There is a fashion factor just as clothes go in and out of fashion. Overall, web 2.0 is all about the user getting involves easily. The usability has to be good for any tool to be viable. Just thinking about what it takes to upload and publish a file on moodle and I can think at least two points where it should be made easier.But surely the answer is to make them less clunky! Well this is easier said than done as the clunkiness seems intrinsic to how they are built. There are two reasons for this:Any tool (like a moodle quiz or a blackboard blog) has to have the same look and feel as the rest of the system. So whereas independent Web 2.0 survey or blog tool can concentrate on making it the best in terms of usability and attractiveness. Within a VLE, you are limited to the template of the bigger picture. A bigger picture which is much more difficult to change and is much slower to change. This is why a blackboard blog looks archaic compared to blogger. Any online tool in education has the question of security to consider. Security protecting the children from the outside world; security protecting the outside world from the children; security protecting the privacy of the class; security protecting the intellectual property rights of the educator; data protection! This security add layers of clunkiness that other websites don't have to the same extent. This is one of the tensions education has with web 2.0. At its heart, web 2.0 is about openness. VLEs first and foremost are designed to protect (almost obsessively). This is why where VLEs have adopted a web 2.0 tool into its system it often doesn't feel quite right. So whatever tool we use, clunkiness is unavoidable to a certain extent as securities are put in place. Maybe we should try and bring this spirit of openness more into education! That's another can of worms.The discussion went down the line of using other tools instead, e.g. facebook. Well yes, as long as we understand that usability is just one of the reasons for this. Overall, it should be done in the knowledge and understanding of what social networking has to offer over and above your average VLE. By the way, I would favour Ning over facebook as facebook for learning can bring up tricky issues. Something they discuss on this podcast and it's worth a listen.I have slight concerns about using a social networking site as the house within which what currently happens on a VLE occurs. This is because, for most, the VLE is a file repository and an assignment dropbox. However, I would favour the shift because the social aspect of a Ning, for example, are so intuitive and attractive that it would encourage educators to explore their use in a more recpetive frame of mind.

Just read an interesting blog post Kicking Powerpoint to the Curb. In it, there is this statement:"Strangely enough, the people who are most resistant to this model are the students…Students have been socialized to view the educational process as essentially passive."There is a tension here between what we perceive your average young person is used to and motivated to use, i.e. Web 2.0/social media and this statement. Passive learning is how things are done in the didactic world and it's actually less effort day-to-day for the students to experience this. For me, this is the main problem with lecture and didactic teaching. You can get away with not listening and therefore not learning. This is easy path and many look for it. With Web 2.0, it's the ethos that I am attracted to more than anything else - the collaboration and active participation in the process. Forcing someone to do this forces them to pay attention. So, although your average students is used to using Web 2.0/social media they are not accustomed to the active learning that it's use in education would entail. This isn't an argument for not pursuing this route. On the contrary, forcing them to active learn is a vital step forward for education. Higher education actually has a tougher job because it probably isn't the case at the moment that your average student is so clued up on Web 2.0 as the younger generation. This is particular true in my case where the demographic is often a higher age group.