July 30. 2009 18:04

Sounds great. I'd love to stay relevant.

By the way-- where are the outcome based studies that say Web 2.0 is an effective medium for delivering learning content? I assume we're not just jumping on the bandwagon here and that we KNOW that using Web 2.0 is effective. Of course, we're not shortchanging learners just to feel relevant by trumpeting the latest web phenomena as a learning tool.

Right? Hello? Echooooo! <<Crickets>>

Mark Lassoff

July 30. 2009 19:01

At ASTD Techknowledge, a large majority defines blended learning as elearning and classroom based training blended together. Why? Because most of the exhibitors/presenters are elearning companies. The bias of the profit center. On the other hand, blended learning can include a huge number of high and low tech methods of training delivery in addition to e-learning. (Remember flash cards?)

Now we hear the same about Web 2.0. We must "embrace it to be relevant." I thought a training professional, by definition, was someone who began with real performance gaps and looked to find performance interventions that were most cost effective and efficient. What could be more relevant than that! When the best (ie cost effective and efficient) intervention is collaboration via social media, cool! When it is a well-tuned lecture and practice activity, cool! When it is a simple label on a machine, cool! When media selection is at the front of the performance intervention decision-making process we are not being professional. We are not even being relevant. We are being blinded by a misunderstanding of the center of our profession: performance-improvement. For me, relevance starts with ADDIE, 6 Boxes, or any of a dozen similar models of our profession.

I am reminded of a presentation at ISPI maybe 15 years ago on the pros and cons of the Level 1 Evaluation. The presenter from HP described how questions on the "smiley sheet" that asked questions about what the learners "liked" (without any other evaluation balance) led to the destruction of the training. Why? Apparently management insisted that the attendees MUST enjoy it. Indeed, management got its wish. And the desired performance change was not attained.

Yep, I want to be relevant - by embracing good judgement.

Richard Goutal

July 30. 2009 19:25

First, glad to see that ASTD heard the silent screams from many of the ICE participants and is standing up to make such a statement. Too many people, it seems, are so wrapped up trying to label these technologies as a fad, that they miss real opportunities to actually use them to help people within their own organizations.

Now, I’m not claiming that Web 2.0 is going to save the world. But we don’t seem to be doing so well with our more traditional approaches either - as an example, at the 2008 ATD ICE learning leaders, when asked, indicated that less than 20% of learners in existing programs actually improved performance. Is that the best we can do?

On their own, most technologies will simply improve efficiency - allowing you to get messages out to more people, do it more quickly, and/or do it less expensively. In order to improve learning effectiveness with a technology we must start thinking differently about its use and design solutions to leverage the strength each technology brings.

Social learning isn’t a fad; in fact, I believe that we’ve always known that learning is a social process. Tools are the fad. Who knows how long Twitter or Facebook will exist? But what will remain, and will continue to grow, is the learner’s need and ability to network, collaborate, share stories, and quickly find help to solve issues they don‘t fully understand yet (all that messy informal stuff that happens).

And, unless I missed something, in the early days there weren’t a lot of research studies that proved eLearning was any more or less effective than Instructor-led courses; that webinars were more or less effective than a classroom; or for that matter that any new technology was more or less effective than what came before it. For research to be effective there has to be something to study - something to compare and contrast. So instead of just criticizing social media as fad, how about we all test it - think about what it is and do something with it. But don’t just sit on your results, share it. Let others learn from it. And let them challenge your design decisions. (Sounds scary, doesn't it?)

If we (as a profession) don’t quickly understand what these particular technologies bring to the table, and figure out a way to use them effectively, some other part of our organization will. When that happens, don’t be surprised when all you are left with is your classroom, and the very small percentage of learning it represents within your organization.

John Schulz

November 2. 2009 05:43

The term training refers to the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and competencies as a result of the teaching of vocational or practical skills and knowledge that relate to specific useful competencies. It forms the core of apprenticeships and provides the backbone of content at institutes of technology (also known as technical colleges or polytechnics). In addition to the basic training required for a trade, occupation or profession, observers of the labor-market[who?] recognize today[update] the need to continue training beyond initial qualifications: to maintain, upgrade and update skills throughout working life. People within many professions and occupations may refer to this sort of training as professional development.

Amsterdam Jobs

November 20. 2009 23:10

I always wanted to write in my site something like that but I guess you'r faster

cash loan