World Cafe on Informal Learning

Inspired by Harold Jarche's unworkshop on informal learning, on September 26, as part of Learn @ Work week, I hosted a world cafe on Informal Learning for the Ottawa Chapter of the Canadian Society for Training and Development. The event was attended by 17 amazing people who work within the training industry in the Ottawa area. At the event, three questions were posed:

• What is informal learning?
• What would make you and your organization more receptive to informal learning?
• How do you measure informal learning?

Here are the notes that were taken at each of the tables during the conversations:
During the debriefing the following themes were discovered:

• Informal learning's value is not always measurable in the same ways as formal learning
• Informal learning can be connected to formal learning events
• Informal learning is adaptable and flexible
• A formal definition of informal learning is unnecessary
• Informal learning represents a shift from "how I got it" to "having it"
• "how I got it" represents degrees / certifications
• "having it" represents demonstrated competencies
  
• Informal learning is life as usual
• No define, no design, no delivery, no assess
• 80% of the budget goes to formal learning, which provides 20% of the actual learning
• Formalization kills informal learning
• Informal needs to stay informal
• Informal learning is about the process
• Employee engagement could be used as a means of measuring informal learning

One of the greatest things about the World Cafe format is the opportunity for people to meet, make connections, and have meaningful conversation. I'd like to invite anyone who attended to share their reflections of the event and possibly insights they have realized since the event, as comments to this blog.

Cheers,
Rebecca

An ah-ha moment -- Learning Theories

I'm taking an introduction to sociology class at the moment, and in yesterday's class I had one of those ah-ha moments. Back when I was studying learning theories (as part of the Master of Arts in Distributed Learning program) I had a hard time grasping the relationship between the different theories. I was trying to analyze learning theories as a "natural scientist" rather than a "social scientist". With a background in computer science and physics, I suppose that isn't too surprising ... however, a paradigms shift was definitely necessary for me to grasp learning theories.

In sociology class we are exploring the different ways in which socialists attempt to describe culture (specifically western culture). Each of the sociologists do their analysis using a different theoretical framework. It is within the confines of their frameworks that they are able to describe how people interact with the society. Reasons for a given behavior can be describe in many different ways, based upon the framework used for the description.

This concept also applies to learning theories. For example, behaviorist learning theory is not an attempt to describe absolutely how everyone learns: rather, it is an attempt to describe how learning occurs within the constraints of the framework. In the case of behaviorist learning theory, the constraint is the stimulus-response framework. The cognitive learning theories use the framework of the brain as an empty vessel, and learning is the process of filling the vessel. The constructivist learning theories use the framework of building learning through social interactions.

Each learning theory is an attempt to describe how learning occurs given the specific framework. Learning theories are not absolutes. As an educator, my job is to alter the frameworks as necessary to ensure that learning occurs.

Will rapid e-learning tools go the way of PowerPoint?

When the magic rapid e-learning tool comes out, will it suffer the same negative fate at PowerPoint? That is, will the tools be misused to create bad e-learning? Of course! It will just like PowerPoint, a tool that is often mis-used and abused. Making e-learning easy makes it so that anybody can create e-learning. It doesn't mean that anybody SHOULD make e-learning.

How do we get people and the various industries to understand that good e-learning is not as simple as the tools used to create it. When the cost of production goes down, more of the money should be transfered to effective design.

My view of the future is a lot more bad e-learning. I hate bad e-learning, it gives all e-learning a bad reputation. It is just like PowerPoint. Too many people create too much bad PowerPoint, such that the tool gets a bad rep. My prediction: E-learning made easy will make for more bad e-learning! How do we change the priority from rapid development, to well designed development?

How do we change the world such that people and organizations learn to appreciate the skill involved in designing good e-learning? Or will the speed always trump quality? When creating e-learning, we should be asking ourselves, "for this presentation, what's more important time-to-market or learning experience?".

Good and bad reasons for product training

Throughout my years as an instructional designer developing product training for software companies, I have seen both good and bad reasons for product training. It is often the case that the need for training is not clearly understood, but the desire to have something developed is. Here are my thoughts as to when you should and shouldn't develop product training.

Bad reason number 1: Inadequate product documentation
When the product documentation is not adequate, often there is a higher demand from customers for product training. Customers need to be trained on how to use the product because the documentation does not tell them what they need to know when they need to know it. Creating an excellent training program will not solve your customer's problems. A good training program will cause the lack of quality documentation to be emphasized, and will create less satisfied customers. The better solution to your program is to create better documentation. That is, documentation that meets customer requirements. Good documentation tells the customer more than how to do something, it tells the customer when and why to do it as well.

Bad reason number 2: The product is too complicated
If customers need training in order to understand how to use the product, you need to ask yourself if the product is too complicated. That is, is the interface not intuitive and user friendly? Again, developing training for a product that has a poor user interface is a bad investment. Your customers will be much happier if you spent the time and money on improving the interface design rather than creating fancy training packages to compensate for poor design.

Good reason number 1: Training is money
If your product is has an excellent user interface and good documentation, but your customer still want training (typically, they want to be shown concrete examples on to use the product and they want opportunities to play with the features in a safe environment), and they are willing to pay for the training, then this is an excellent opportunity to make some money. Profit is an excellent reason for developing product training!

Good reason number 2: To increase sales
Sometimes, increasing the product knowledge within your customer base increases the speed in which your product gets deployed into the field. When increased deployments equals increased sales, then providing training is a great pro-active way to speed up the process.

Really good reason number 3: A product marketing tool
One of the best reasons to develop a good product training program is that training is a product marketing tool. Training can help you gain product advocates at the working levels within your customer's organization. When the workers feel they can't do there jobs without your product, that translates into sales. So, a good training program is a good grass-roots marketing tool. That being said, a poor training program is NOT a marketing tool at all. So, you need to invest in the design and development of a good program when you are using training as a marketing tool.