Knowledge + Learning = Performance

Within the technology category of the blog (note the categories on the right-hand side), I’ll be featuring the underlying technologies that can help facilitate knowledge, learning, and performance for individuals and organizations. Some of the technologies that I’ll be posting on include:
- Elearning (from rapid development to dynamic custom courses)
- Web conferencing
- Portals and portlets
- Wikis for content gathering
- Instant messaging

Some considerations and examples for how to effectively use technology will include:
- Online collaboration using web conferencing
- Impact of MBTI preferences on how to design online learning
- How to bridge the gap between system developers and users
- Cascading multiple choice for interactive elearning

Watch this category for information on these topics and more!

- Robin

Copyright Robin Donnan 2007. All Rights Reserved.
Performance Associates, Inc.

In working with clients on numerous workplace learning and performance improvement projects over the years, I’ve carefully tracked work hours and made observations about the relative work effort involved with the different training delivery methods most often utilized. This has helped in being able to answer that most common of client questions, “Well, how much will it be or how long will it take if we use approach X versus Y?”

What I’ve developed to help answer this question is two-fold: a comparison of the pros and cons of the most common delivery methods and then a diagram that places those options on a continuum from least effort/least cost to most effort/most cost.

First, to look at the pros and cons of the different delivery options:

1. Classroom
Pros:
- Can be changed “on the fly” (i.e., the facilitator can improvise and make adjustments immediately before or even during the session in order to customize the training to meet the audience’s needs)
- Materials are easily updated
- Excellent for practicing “soft skills” such as listening, interviewing, etc. where non-verbal skills also need to be practiced and evaluated; this is also desirable when role plays or other one-on-one activities with other students and/or coaching from the facilitator is needed
Cons:
- Requires coordination and payment for instructors and space
- May require travel for facilitators and/or participants
- Does not address recurring training needs for new hires, refresher, etc.

2. Synchronous web conference
Pros:
- Easy to build and deliver (especially if content expert will also be facilitating the sessions)
- Updates can be made prior to session
- No travel required
- Some interactivity can be added
Cons:
- Requires instructors skilled in facilitating web conference sessions
- Requires coordination of instructors and session times
- Requires web conferencing capabilities
- While an option, recording a live synchronous web conference typically is not an ideal way to handle recurring training needs

3. Asynchronous / recorded session
Pros:
- Very quick to develop
- Can be completed on-demand
Cons:
- Passive learner experience (participants are merely watching and listening)

4. Interactive text and graphics elearning (from moderate to robust)
Pros:
- Can be completed on-demand
- Active learner experience through use of multiple choice, drag and drop, text entry
- Excellent for ensuring cognitive understanding of concepts and theories
Cons:
- Updates typically require some programming skill or an XML editor

5. Interactive multimedia programs
Pros:
- Can be completed on-demand
- Very active
- Able to participate in realistic job simulations / games
- Very sophisticated level of graphics and use of multimedia
Cons:
- Much more expensive and time consuming to develop

Now, when we place these main delivery options on a relative continuum from easiest to hardest we get something that looks like this:

In looking at this continuum, it’s important to remember that we’re looking at typical effort and cost per hour of training developed. For example, a 1 hour robust interactive text and graphics elearning program could require as much effort and budget as a 4 hour series of asynchronous recorded sessions. While what I’ve presented here is not meant as a hard and fast rule, this does provide an excellent way to frame conversations around delivery options and their required effort and costs so as to help clients make informed decisions for their workplace learning and performance improvement solutions.

- Robin

Copyright Robin Donnan 2007. All Rights Reserved.
Performance Associates, Inc.

With so many web conferencing options available, it can be hard to know which one is the best. To try to answer this question for ourselves, my company recently completed an analysis of the current web conferencing software packages available including comparing them based on functionality and relative cost.

For the last year, we have been using a pay-for-use service with Microsoft LiveMeeting. Given our ongoing reliance on web conferencing for real-time collaboration with our typically geographically-dispersed client and project teams, having cost effective web conference software is mandatory. Unfortunately, our current LiveMeeting service does not include phone conferencing and the cost of 35¢ per minute per user has raised concerns as to the long-term cost effectiveness of this option for our web conferencing needs.

To get started, research using the Elearning Guild’s interactive research reports on satisfaction with different tools and products (2007) recommended the following four web conference vendors for companies similar to Performance Associates: Microsoft LiveMeeting, WebEx, Citrix GoToWebinar, and Adobe Acrobat Connect. In an attempt to compare apples to apples, the following matrices compare these products side-by-side.

Implementation Considerations:

Industry Recommendations:

Functionality:

Based on the above comparison and considering Performance Associates’ primary needs and usage of different web conferencing features, we are currently using the free 30-day trial period offered by Citrix Online’s GoToWebinar to test their service. If for some reason the trial period reveals that GoToWebinar does not provide the functionality and/or quality desired, then we will consider moving to Adobe’s Acrobat Connect Professional.

Preliminary testing has already revealed Citrix’s GoToWebinar to be an excellent product, especially considering the relatively low monthly cost of $99. Meeting administration functions are simple and provide the ability to easily schedule sessions, send emails to participants (including an Outlook file to add the session to the participant’s calendar), and send reminder and/or follow-up emails. One administrative function I was particularly impressed with was the ability to view real-time reports on who has registered for the conference. Additional functionality that has tested positively includes a conference bridge (where each caller pays for their own telephone charges), and so far it appears that the quality of the images during web conferencing is very high—there is none of the image degradation we’d been experiencing with Microsoft’s LiveMeeting service. The facilitator interface was also very easy to learn and use, and provided additional functionality such as more robust chat and question controls.

The only downside that we’ve identified so far is that there is a limit to the number of polls you can do during and after a session (only 8). Since some of our web conferences require more polls, what we are considering is purchasing the monthly program with Citrix’s GoToWebinar and then using Adobe’s Acrobat Connect Professional pay-per-use for any conferences requiring this additional polling functionality.

All in all, there are many web conferencing options available and there are pros and cons to each one. While this assessment shows how these services compared for my company, your company and needs may be different. However my hope is that, by sharing our assessment of these services, I have provided you with an educated first step if you are also looking to select a web conference provider.

References:

Adobe Acrobat Connect Professional. (n.d.) Retrieved July 11, 2007 from http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobatconnectpro/

Elearning Guild Interactive Research (members only). (2007) Retrieved July 11, 2007 from http://www.elearningguild.com/360_reports/

GoToWebinar Features. (n.d.) Retrieved July 9, 2007 from https://www.gotowebinar.com/webinar/pre/features.tmpl

Microsoft Office Live Meeting feature comparison. (n.d.) Retrieved July 11, 2007 from http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/livemeeting/HA102019871033.aspx

WebEx Meeting Center. (n.d.) Retrieved July 11, 2007 from http://www.webex.com/smb/web-meeting-center.html

- Robin

Copyright Robin Donnan 2007. All Rights Reserved.
Performance Associates, Inc.

A knowledge management technology that my company has been investigating recently for our clients is portals and portlets. To understand this concept, portals provide a web delivery framework while portlets are pluggable components that are managed and displayed in the web portal. (Thus, think of portals as the framework and the portlets being the “bits” that reside inside of that framework.) Used together, portals and portlets can provide rich access to both Learning Management System (LMS) and Content Management System (CMS) functionality. For example, they can provide companies with the ability for customer and user registration management, strong data storage capabilities, scalability, use of open source standards based technologies (style sheets, Java, SQL), customer and user level customization, servelet style connectivity with customer-software data and functionality, integration of external web services and RSS feeds, ability to easily communicate to customers via the Portal site(s), and the ease of Portal wide content management.

For a portal product, Liferay is a leading open source portal platform and is based on robust and proven technologies. Key features include:
- Runs on all major application server, database, and operating systems, rendering over 700 deployment combinations
- JSR-168 compliant
- Out-of-the-box usability
- Over 60 portlets pre-bundled
- Over 20 community-contributed themes available
- Only portal available today that can run in either application server or servlet container
- Benchmarked as among the most secure portal platforms using LogicLibrary's Logiscan suite

For a portlet product, Xerceo, Inc. provides full LMS and/or CMS functionality in a portal environment. The combination of these technologies results in very powerful, leading edge, low cost, customer/user level customizable, and scalable technologies for communicating and educating customers and employees. Key features of Xerceo portlets include:
- Robust reporting, tracking, and scheduling of any learning or knowledge event
- Full support of collaboration applications: Adobe Breeze, MS Exchange, etc.
- Hot deployable into an organization’s existing IT infrastructure
- Installed within a few minutes; fully deployed in a few days
- Highly scalable, customizable
Note: For more information on Xerceo and to hear their President and CEO Tim Seager being interviewed by Elliott Masie, navigate to http://www.masieweb.com/lms-followup/video-and-audio-archive/ceo-podcasts.html. The interview can be found near the bottom of the page.

Used together, portlets and portals can provide highly customizable access to knowledge and learning for a company’s employees and customers. Through it, a company can create multiple portal sites (for departments, teams, customers, and even individuals) from which they can access current information and training specific to what that group or individual needs. In addition, usage information can be tracked so that management can know if/who accessed the information. The true power of this technology is in its potential and ability to grow with a company, i.e., as their knowledge and learning needs and demands grow, so can the number of portals and portlets.

- Robin

Copyright Robin Donnan 2007. All Rights Reserved.
Performance Associates, Inc.

Today we’ll continue exploring the process, people, and technology considerations for implementing an expertise locator system—now with a look into the key technology considerations. In defining and selecting the technology for implementing an expertise locator system, it is important to consider the following features:

1. Select technology that is compatible with and “integrated into…legacy information systems” (Thompson, 2003, p. 14).

2. Like NASA’s Expert Seeker system, “provide a unified interface to access competencies within the organization, such as completed academic and non-academic courses, past projects and other relevant knowledge” (Becerra-Fernandez, 2001, p. 34).

3. At a minimum, select a tool that helps people locate one another’s expertise. Ideally, select a tool that can also expand to provide question and answer functionality (including archiving of those answers) to provide support for the growth of future expert communities.

4. Select a product that has a flexible and robust search engine, e.g., select one that “uses text fields to search for employees based on their fields of expertise, names, or other applicable search fields…[such as] intellectual property, skills, competencies and proficiency levels” (Becerra-Fernandez, 2001, p. 35).

5. Have a taxonomy or thesaurus developed from the beginning to help organize the areas of expertise and thus the system. In doing so, also aim to strike a “balance between a structured taxonomy of expertise areas and the anarchy of a free-form entry…[because] if there is too much structure staff feel constrained by ‘box-ticking’” (Collison, 1999, p. 12). At the same time, be careful to not let the taxonomy structure be so limited as to hurt the precision of the system and its search results (Dooley, Corman, & McPhee, 2002, p. 227).

6. Give the users the ability to “build it themselves” without having to rely on programmers or system experts (Thompson, 2003, p. 14). Consider a technology approach that utilizes personal home pages employees can easily create themselves. For example, employees could “upload photographs and resumes; choose from an evolving list of expertise categories; note their contracts and network affiliations; write as much as they need to; and link to other Web-based items of relevance – both intranet and Internet” (Collison, 1999, p. 12).

While some researchers (Maybury, D'Amore, & House, 2000, p. 13; Becerra-Fernandez, 2001, p. 35) indicate it would be preferable to select a system that has data mining and other automation features to keep the expert database current, for speed and ease of implementation it is recommended that this company start with a manually-populated system at first. To enable easier migration to a data mining approach in the future, it will be helpful to have the company’s intranet team ensure that they are gathering authorship meta-data (e.g., who developed and who else contributed) for all documents and tools posted on the intranet. Once data mining is added, it will aid in keeping the information contained in the system current (e.g., through mining for contributions to the company intranet and/or documents on shared drives).

References

Becerra-Fernandez, I. (2001). Locating expertise at NASA. Knowledge Management Review, 4(4), 34-37.

Collison, C. (1999). Connecting the new organization: How BP Amoco encourages post-merger collaboration. Knowledge Management Review, 2(1), 12-15.

Dooley, K., Corman, S., & McPhee, R. (2002). A knowledge directory for identifying experts and areas of expertise. Human Systems Management, 21(4), 217-227.

Maybury, M., D'Amore, R., & House, D. (2000). Automating the finding of experts. Research Technology Management, 43(6), 12-15.

Thompson, E. (2003). Effective knowledge management in a cost-cutting environment. Knowledge Management Review, 6(1), 12-15.

- Robin

Copyright Robin Donnan 2007. All Rights Reserved.
Performance Associates, Inc.

It’s often been said that most systems fail because system builders ignore organizational behavior problems. The issue is why does this happen and what can be done about it? Based on what I’ve observed on new system projects in organizations, my initial answer would be because it is often easier to change code than it is to change the behavior of individuals (let alone organizations). Systems are concrete and much more easily modified than the subjective and ever-changing nature of people. Systems don’t have personal agendas, nor do they resist change or take a long time to accept change; you also don’t have to gain their support or commitment. Individuals and organizations, on the other hand, require this and more.

Influencing the ultimate success or failure of a system implementation are such factors as user involvement and influence, management support, level of complexity/risk, and management of the implementation process itself—along with the design, cost, operations, and data of the system itself (Laudon & Laudon, 2006, 552). Of these four main factors, organizational behavior influences three of them. Insufficient user involvement, lack of management support, and poorly managed projects (often due to inexperience or excessive optimism) can be the organizational behaviors that most typically derail the successful implementation of a new system.

Another important element of bridging the IT-user divide is education of both parties. For example, IT needs to understand and embrace the importance of user-centered design (and not dread user input). And users need to understand that while anything is possible with technology, not everything will or should be done. Many users on system design teams seem to struggle with this concept in particular (which furthers IT's frustrations). Instead, IT can help educate users on the trade-offs and realities of system design and development, and work hard to include them in the decision making for what functionality and improvements will and won't be implemented.

And finally, some might argue that as new systems are developed there is no way to determine how the organization will react to it. To the contrary! By involving users throughout the design and development process, you can gain significant insights into how the organization will react to the new system. Involving key stakeholders and decision makers from all the targeted user groups also can help. Furthermore, selecting key members from these user groups (who are supportive of the system and its associated business process changes) to act as champions for the new system will thereby further assist with the change management and system acceptance process. Bottom line, most employees want their company to succeed. If a system can be shown to help the business, that upper management supports, it, and that the business/users were heard in the creation of that system, then the chances for organizational acceptance are much greater.

References:

Laudon, K. & Laudon, J. (2006). Management Information Systems: Managing the Digital Firm. Ninth edition. Pearson/Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.

- Robin

Copyright Robin Donnan 2007. All Rights Reserved.
Performance Associates, Inc.

We continue our journey through epistemology, now moving onto Phenomenology, Existentialism, and how a human being makes something a thing. To answer this quandary of what makes a thing’s “thingness,” we’ll apply Heidegger’s proposition that revolved around his example that a jug is a thing (and then his subsequent exploration of what comprised the jug’s jugness) and apply that to the Internet. Specifically, we’ll answer what is the Internet when described philosophically? And how does the Internet change our perception of nearness or farness?

First let’s try to answer the question of what is the Internet—from a strictly philosophical viewpoint. As explained by some doctoral student colleagues of mine, Heidegger proposed that “jugness is a combination of its substance and its usage”(Simmons et al., 2007). Thus, what makes a thing a thing is both its physical existence and its function. One might be able to say, then, that the Internet is a thing or a tool just like Heidegger’s jug, and that it can be defined both by its physical substance and its use.

So picking up on Heidegger’s concept of “being,” can we define Internet-ness by the thing itself and/or the user(s)? The use or function portion of the Internet is what we all bring to it as people; so that portion is in you, me, and everyone. It is something which many of us deal with every day. The question of what makes up the Internet’s physical existence, however, is much more complicated. There's the hardware which is located far and wide. But then, some of these physical aspects of the Internet are actually shared with other technologies such as telecommunications (i.e., phone line and cable which is used to transmit the data). With so much of that infrastructure not being unique to just the Internet, there is a challenge with whether or not the physical Internet infrastructure is indeed the substance portion of "internetness." So the challenge remains as to whether or not those parts of the physical infrastructure can be claimed as part of the "thing" that defines internetness.

But let’s move on now to the question of how does technology and the Internet change our perception of nearness or farness—perhaps in some ways similar to how does the jug change our perception of fullness or emptiness. In the opening to Heidegger’s “The Thing,” he states that “all distances in time and space are shrinking” (1971, p.165). He then goes on to explain how the prevalence of travel, radio, film, and television are furthering this shrinking. Considering the time when Heidegger wrote this piece, it is easy to reflect on even how much smaller the world has become now given the advent of the Internet and the ever-present mass media. We have access to more information now than any generation before us, yet can it be said that we are any more knowledgeable?

Then reflecting on the concepts of nearness and farness, one often hears of the globalization of society and how the world has shrunk. In fact out of curiosity, I ran a search on Amazon for the term “world has shrunk” and found over 200 book references! Indeed we can physically get from one point on the globe to another very quickly. We can also access through the Internet information from anywhere around the world, or even view other locations any time night or day. In fact, from < http://www.earthcam.com/mapsearch/> one can select any country in the world from which to locate and view available web cams.

Yet while we may have quicker physical access and greater informational access than ever before, Heidegger insightfully foretold that “the frantic abolition of all distance brings no nearness” and that “short distance is not in itself nearness, nor is great distance remoteness” (1971, p.165). If we reflect on these concepts of nearness and remoteness and try to glean their meanings, we find synonyms of isolation, seclusion, detachment, and inaccessibility. And consider these questions. While we have access, does the rest of the globe? Or are there whole sectors that are indeed isolated, secluded, detached, and inaccessible because they do not benefit from the same access to technology and the Internet that many of us do? And if whole sectors of the globe are not near to us, how can we be near to them? And even for those to whom we have the ability to be near, has this access really made us understand them better? Are we really any closer to other peoples and cultures today than we were when Heidegger wrote those words over 35 years ago?

It’s important to note that with these questions, I do not focus on just the domestic “digital divide” that one hears of in the media. Instead, I think it’s important to take a more global perspective on the question of technology and the Internet’s impact on our perception of nearness or farness. One of my concerns is that the Internet has given us a false sense of nearness, when indeed we are just as far as ever. For example, there are many challenges with technology when taken to a global scale—and these are challenges that are not always resolvable and have led to “pockets” within the overall Internet community. Besides the obvious language barriers, Laudon & Laudon report that many countries “lack the communications infrastructure for extensive Internet use, … [have] high transmission costs and lack of common technology, … [and have] low penetration of PCs and widespread illiteracy” (2006, pp. 584-585). In addition, there are different computing platforms and system standards, phone and other communication networks are not consistently reliable, and most countries outside the US have much slower data transfer speeds. When looking at the percentage of Internet users by country, Germany is the only one to come close to the US, with all other countries lagging far behind (Laudon & Laudon, 2006, p. 585). And even more disturbing is the fact that many countries monitor transmissions.

With these barriers in place, what we have on the Internet may actually be a perspective skewed toward the Western philosophies and policies of the countries that have the access. Thus the impression of it being a global Internet society may actually be false. Unfortunately, while technology and the Internet may have given us the appearance of greater accessibility and nearness around the globe, it may have actually done the opposite. On the contrary, it may have furthered the global divide between those who have (the technology) and those who don’t. And without education in how to be wise consumers of information, it may have furthered cultural misperceptions that force even greater distance between peoples and cultures.

-Robin

References:

Heidegger, M. (1971). The Thing. Public Domain, pp. 165-182. Retrieved from the Xanedu Course Pack for AMDS 8800. NAPC 2007.

Laudon, K., & Laudon, J. (2006). Management information systems: Managing the digital firm (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Simmons, T., Stevens, S., Toland, M., Ware, Y., Working, K., Young, J., & Zidonis, S. (2007). Heidegger's ontology: Phenomenology and existentialism. Unpublished manuscript. Walden University.

Copyright Robin Donnan 2007. All Rights Reserved.
Performance Associates, Inc.

For today’s post, we have a guest writer—Keith Donnan (our Technology Solutions Developer)—who just returned from the 2007 AdobeMAX show in Chicago where he was able to check out current and future solutions from Adobe. Take it away, Keith!

There was an incredible amount of software, technologies, and services to absorb. For the purposes of this update, we will focus on developments that affect e-learning, collaboration, and content delivery.

First, the message from Adobe regarding web-delivered content is:

1. Content is King—focus on content first; interaction flows from the content
2. Make the user experience personal
3. Less is (still) more—keep it simple
4. Movement has meaning; it provides orientation
5. Create an experience, not a user interface

The Adobe technologies that received the largest focus were:

• Adobe Integrated Runtime (AIR)—using existing web technologies to build a desktop application with web connectivity. Interestingly, there were over 300,000 downloads of AIR Beta on the first day it was available.

• Flash Player—supporting web video delivery better than ever. Currently 70% of video over the web is Flash video or .FLV files. A new version of Flash will be available in early 2008.

• Action Script 3.0—used in Flash and Flex (see below); a full programming language for the web. Delivers intricate yet efficient user experiences.

• Adobe Connect—Adobe’s web conference offering will shortly be completely modularized allowing the web developer to include any or all Connect components in their web applications. For example, the Adobe Connect chat window could be embedded inside an e-learning course allowing synchronous chat with other learners or experts without having to formally join a full Adobe Connect session.

• Flex 3—will be released shortly to provide an improved development environment for web applications.

Some exciting new developments to look forward to:

• Adobe has purchased Buzzword and will be offering Buzzword as an on-line (Word compatible) shared document development tool. Teams will be able to work on documents together in real time!

• Adobe is working on a document sharing service, currently called Share, for controlled sharing of documents with designated individuals. Features could include 1 gigabyte of online storage, extensive sharing controls, secure document access, and the ability to have documents expire (i.e., become unusable) after specific dates—even after a user downloads the document.

Overall, my experience at AdobeMAX 2007 was very positive and the future bodes well for how Adobe’s products will help collaboration, content delivery, and e-learning efforts. After speaking with product development people from Adobe, the impression is that Adobe has increased funding of its product development efforts and that the employees are excited about the future of the company. Adobe’s products continue to be amongst the best in the marketplace and moving to Action Script 3.0 has provided a much improved foundation for Adobe’s web technologies and tools. Looking ahead, I eagerly anticipate developing AIR-based projects, and providing the next generation of user experience with Adobe’s tools.

- Keith

Copyright Keith Donnan 2007. All Rights Reserved.
Performance Associates, Inc.

My company has used Wikis to facilitate the collaborative development of content with two of our clients, one a large Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) and the other a worldwide quick service restaurant chain (QSR).

Our first Wiki experience was to create the detailed content for the REIT’s knowledge base on tenant improvement (or how to manage the construction effort involved in customizing a tenant’s office space). For this project, we had a pre-existing team that we’d worked with before to develop their methodology/approach for how to approach tenant improvement. To capture their collective knowledge and put it on their Intranet for access by Property Managers who did not specialize in construction management, the Wiki worked very well. Using MediaWiki, we set up the structure of the Wiki to mirror the different phases of their tenant improvement process. For each phase, we added the different tasks and deliverables, entered the content that existed, and identified what content was needed. To kick off the effort, we facilitated a web conference to introduce the Wiki to the team, discuss process, and assign responsibilities. For responsibilities, those who would develop the content and those who would review were assigned to each phase of the tenant improvement process. That way, each team member did not have to develop and/or review every section, but every section was developed and/or reviewed by 6 of the 12 team members. A home page was set up on the Wiki that captured these assignments, as well as a visual depiction of each phase’s status using a red/yellow/green stop light analogy. In addition, I was responsible for monitoring the Wiki and providing process and writing assistance; the project sponsor was responsible for final review and sign-off of the content. Overall, the process worked extremely well and we were able to develop the content in just 5 weeks.

We applied a similar process to creating updated drive-thru manuals for a QSR, but did not experience as much success. It worked well in the early stages, even for those team members who were somewhat technology adverse. After the initial draft of the content was generated, however, the project began to experience difficulties. The content/procedures were not stable, and the client had unrealistic expectations of the effort required to implement late changes. In that aspect, the technology hurt us because the perception was “it’s just electronic.” Additionally, it became apparent that this organization had a deeply-ingrained preference for paper-based copies of deliverables. The plan was to use the Wiki for the first two rounds of revisions to develop the final content; then the last two versions would be paper-based and focus strictly on formatting. Unfortunately, the manuals were not “real enough” for them until we got to the paper-based versions; thus significant content changes from the client didn’t surface until we were to the 3rd version, resulting in significant time and costs overruns. This was an important example of how important culture is when implementing technology. And no matter how excited or interested a client is in using new technology, always tread cautiously and take small steps first.

References:

Wikimedia. (n.d.). Welcome to MediaWiki.org. In MediaWiki. Retrieved April 4, 2008 from http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki

- Robin

Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.perfassocinc.com

Dalkir (2005) defines metadata as “information about physical structures, data types, access methods, and actual content” (p. 169). Taylor (2003) defines metadata as “structured data which describes the characteristics of a resource. It shares many similar characteristics to the cataloguing that takes place in libraries, museums, and archives. The term "meta" derives from the Greek word denoting a nature of a higher order or more fundamental kind. A metadata record consists of a number of pre-defined elements representing specific attributes of a resource, and each element can have one or more values.” Following is an interesting link that provides additional information and examples of metadata: http://www.library.uq.edu.au/iad/ctmeta4.html

On the subject of meta-knowledge, Abrams (2000) offers some interesting insights and links meta-knowledge to tacit knowledge in his presentation on knowledge mapping. In describing the meta-knowledge of experienced workers, Abrams (2000) argues that it is the “Old-Hands’ meta-knowledge of knowledge that novices need: document, application, methodology, expert, etc.” (p. 37). This includes such things as description of the content, qualification of the author/expert, authentication, location of knowledge, intended purpose, usefulness, usability, deployment, availability, leverage, interpretation, and potential knowledge gaps (Abrams, 2000, pp. 37-39). In contrast, when describing the tacit knowledge of novices, Abrams (2000) points to the challenges they face and the “meta-knowledge [novices possess] of strengths and weakness of knowledge infrastructure [including]:
- Ways that do or don’t work to get an expert to help.
- Who to talk to find out who knows or where to find the answer.
- Who sits at the intersection of many different communities and personal networks with visibility and access
- Who has organized their metaknowledge and can transmit it without actually having to be reached “face to face” on the phone.
- The limitations of knowledge retrieval systems under urgency.
- Workarounds for knowledge retrieval system limitations.
- When and why training does or doesn’t work. (p. 41)

Some tools and organizations for knowledge mapping include:
- MindManager (http://www.mindjet.com/)
- IHMC (http://cmap.ihmc.us/)
- knetmap (http://www.knetmap.com/)

References:

Abrams, K. (2000, May). Knowledge mapping quick start. Paper presented at 2000 APQC Annual Conference. Retrieved April 15, 2008, from http://www.apqc.org/portal/apqc/ksn?paf_gear_id=contentgearhome&paf_dm=full&pageselect=detail&docid=110657

Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge management in theory and practice. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Taylor, C. (2003). An introduction to metadata. Retrieved April 15, 2008 from http://www.library.uq.edu.au/iad/ctmeta4.html

- Robin

Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.perfassocinc.com

Technology-enabled learning has become a staple in how adults partake in life-long learning. Government and military were early adopters of technology-enabled learning, particularly via simulations. Workplace eLearning programs aim to provide just-in-time access to key job-related knowledge and skills training. Academic eLearning programs provide greater accessibility to higher education for busy working adults. Against this context, what can we make of Kasworm & Londoner’s (2000) three elements they argue "influence the design and conduct of technologically-mediated learning systems for adults" (p. 234)?

1. “Who should be responsible and have authority in the design and conduct of the adult learning experience [for technology-based learning programs]?” (p. 234)

Kasworm & Londoner (2000) posit that authority for learning process and design can reside with many different parties: instructional designers, technical support groups and experts, learners, and instructors. They argue that the traditional ISD model of instructional design—when applied to technology-enabled learning—is too inflexible to “target specialized learner needs, create unique classroom dynamics, or introduce new and varied content” (p. 235). Furthermore, Kasworm & Londoner argue that technical experts run the risk of becoming too “enamored by the ‘bells and whistles’ possible in the technologically-mediated learning approach” (p. 235).

In my experience as a designer and developer of eLearning since 1990, I have personally witnessed both of these issues. I have seen instructional designers struggle to adopt their behavioral, and often sequential, mindset to the more fluid and flexible approach that is preferred when developing engaging eLearning. For example, the tendency of instructional designers new to eLearning often is to create a “page-turner” program with a certain number of content screens followed by a multiple choice question. After 10 minutes of this for the learner, this is no longer engaging nor are the multiple choice questions likely to be measuring knowledge acquisition much beyond the knowledge or comprehension level. I have also seen programmers and media developers create beautiful interactive media, but with questionable instructional benefit. For example, what is the true educational value of a simulated 3D office environment with full-motion video inserts of talking heads? Other than requiring significant bandwidth and graphics processing power, how does having this type of “edutainment” help the learner truly learn the material any better or at a higher cognitive level? In fact, I often caution clients to beware of eLearning vendors who say their programs are highly interactive when what they really are is highly entertaining and media rich; true learning comes from the learner interacting with the program based on decisions they make—it does not mean passively watching the monitor as a video or animation plays.

So who is responsible and should have authority in the design and conduct of the adult learning experience for technology-based learning programs? Simple. The learner should. It is up to the instructional designers and technology experts to come together to create programs that are engaging, educational, and provide for flexible pathing through the material, e.g., test-out options for more advanced learners and remedial review for those who need additional assistance. Therefore, the learner should be considered throughout the design and development process, and be an active member during Pilot testing by providing constructive feedback to help improve that and future programs.

2. “How can practitioners create learning processes and design for these interactions and connections [between learners, instructors, and content] to occur?” (p. 237)

In a related vein, Kasworm & Londoner (2000) caution about “the repetitive nature of technology learning modules, the lack of instructional connections to the adult learner’s background and current communities of practice, and the lack of critical engagement in the content knowledge and skills” (p. 237). One potential solution is the use of blended learning—a mix of technology with instructor-led or other high-touch (rather than high-tech) techniques. Bielawski & Metcalf (2005) expand this definition of blended learning to include “different online learning delivery methods, such as asynchronous and synchronous course delivery [that] can be used to create effective training and development solutions that reflect a sophisticated blending of new e-learning technologies and alternative approaches to instructional design” (p. xvii). In fact, some of the different eLearning categories presented by Bielawski & Metcalf (2005) include facilitated synchronous learning (i.e., live online training), facilitated asynchronous learning (e.g., online learning such as that offered by Walden University), self-paced computer- or web-based training, and collaboration tools (e.g., online chat, web conferencing, and discussion boards).

In my experience, I have used all of these instructional techniques either on their own or as part of a blended learning strategy. In selecting courses that make good candidates for delivery via strictly technology-delivered methods, I recommend selecting those courses that have (1) a large audience, (2) stable content, (3) interaction needs that translate well to the selected eLearning approach, and (4) a content area with natural “pull” (i.e., one that learners are motivated to complete). In addition, technical, procedural, and factual content are excellent candidates for eLearning delivery; “soft skills” and application can certainly be accomplished via eLearning, but preferably only if the budget allows for a more extensive development effort and if the team has access to instructional designers and technology experts experienced in building interactive simulations. Another viable option for this type of learning is to use a blended approach. For example, present the procedural/factual prerequisite knowledge via self-paced technology and then the application, analysis, and synthesis components via an instructor-facilitated method (whether face-to-face classroom or facilitated online learning). Collaboration tools (e.g., online chat, web conferencing, and discussion boards) can also be used very effectively (1) before learning to establish the learning community and ensure understanding of prerequisite knowledge; (2) after the learning event to reinforce the training and ensure transfer of the new skills and knowledge; and (3) by the team designing and developing the learning itself.

3. “What should be the place and role of evaluation and critical reflection for instructors, designers, technical support personnel, and learners?” (p. 238)

The last element Kasworm & Londoner’s to consider is evaluating learning via technology. Kasworm & Londoner (2000) lament that “traditional learning systems often use both formative and summative evaluation to improve a learning event…however, there is limited discussion of models and strategies for effective evaluation within technology-mediated instruction” (p. 238). Perhaps this was the case at the time of the writing of their article, but progress has been made to ensure evaluation is a critical component of distance learning programs. Allen (2003) recommends the use of rapid prototyping as a method for formative evaluation via successive cycles of design, creation, and evaluation (p. 137). Bielawski & Metcalf (2005) recommend establishing and tracking measurements of both business impact and training efficiency. For example, business impact metrics might include participation, progression, and satisfaction; and training efficiency metrics might include cost and time measures, level 1 evaluations, level 2 tests, and level 3 assessments (per Kirkpatrick’s model) (Bielawski & Metcalf, 2005, p. 145).

In my experience, one can design distance learning that provides the learner with multiple opportunities to evaluate their own knowledge—and to give them control over their learning experience based on the results of that evaluation. For example, pre-tests can be used to give learners the ability to opt out of particular sections/modules; these results can also help direct the learner to those sections of the course that best meet their needs. Pre-test versus post-test results also can be compared to provide quantitative evidence of increased learning resulting from completion of the learning program. Additionally, if the organization links their training to a Learning Management System, these results can be rolled up to analyze trends at a module, course, curriculum, or even particular demographic or subgroup level—all very important data and feedback points to help shape current and future programs.

And one last very important point—in evaluating eLearning programs, it is important to remember to give more credence to the feedback received from the learners—and not the sponsors/those paying for the program. I have seen too many programs fail because a key stakeholder said, “I know what the learners need and want” rather than finding out for sure from the learners themselves. Adopting the approach used by information technology professionals, the design and development of distance learning and eLearning programs should always be user-centered.

References

Allen, M. W. (2003). Michael Allen's guide to e-learning: Building interactive, fun, and effective programs for any company. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bielawski, L. & Metcalf, D. (2005). Blended elearning: Integrating knowledge, performance support, and online learning (2nd ed.). Amherst, MA: HRD Press.

Kasworm, C., & Londoner, C. A. (2000). Adult learning and technology. In A. L. Wilson & E. R. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 224-241). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

- Robin

Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.perfassocinc.com

In assessing technology’s role in distance education for adults, Gibson (2000) argues that four questions must be considered—what is being accessed, how are programs designed, who is being served, and with what results? At the time of Gibson’s article in 2000, these were valid concerns for study. After 8 years and significant advances in technology and the options available for distance learning, the question is whether these questions still valid and worthy of additional study.

Range of Programs

Gibson lists higher education, business and industry, military and government, health care, and adult and continuing education as the primary groups utilizing distance education. Within the business and industry sector, usage of technology-enabled learning continues to grow. Sugrue & Rivera (2005) reported that the percentage of learning hours provided via technology has increased from 8.8% in 2000 to a projected 32.5% in 2005 (p. 14). Similar industry reports show this trend continuing for the foreseeable future. In higher education, Allen & Seaman (2007) report that from 2002 until 2006 the percent of online enrollment versus total enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions grew from 9.7% to 19.8% (p. 5). In 2006, 3.5 million students were taking at least one online course, up from only 1.6 million in 2002 (p. 5). Another interesting statistic is:

“…whether online degrees are as good as those granted by face-to-face programs. Overall, only about one-in-five institutions disagrees with the statement that “online degrees have the same level of respect as face-to-face degrees.” About one-half are neutral, and the remaining portion (27 percent) agree with the statement.” (Allen & Seaman, 2007, p. 15)

The question of reach and usage may be interesting to study, but the acceptance and credibility factor—to this author—would seem more critical to study.

How Programs Are Designed

The design of distance education has been evolving since the early days of interactive video, then computer aided instruction, then computer based training, then web based training, and now eLearning. Many early adopters tended to focus either on flashy multimedia “edutainment” programs, or on converting PowerPoint presentations or paper-based materials to an online format. Unfortunately, edutainment-type programs were beyond the economic reach of many, and the proliferation of “page turner” eLearning programs helped coin the phrase “bLearning” (as in boring learning). The design of programs, in terms of their engagement level, instructional integrity, and transference of skills and knowledge is something very worthy of continued study. Especially with the advent of many rapid-development tools becoming available on the market, many are tempted to sacrifice instructional integrity for quick results. Quantifying the impact of programs built on solid adult learning and instructional design principles versus those built with a more limited focus (perhaps on content only) could be very beneficial justification for the field of distance education.

Who Is Served

From my experience as a developer, student, and facilitator/professor of eLearning and distance education, I can anecdotally support Gibson’s (2000) claim that the majority of online learners are women. I have also observed that in higher education in particular, there often is greater racial diversity represented as well. This is a refreshing change versus many traditional universities. However, given Gibson’s alarming words regarding the risk of being perceived as “less well educated” if one selects distance education over traditional bricks-and-mortar institutions, I think it is imperative that this be studied over time. Again, as mentioned earlier in this paper, the acceptance and credibility factor of online learning would be important to study in order to help further validate it as a viable—and in some cases perhaps even preferable—method for education.

Results

Gibson (2000) raises a number of interesting questions in regards to what results may come from greater usage of distance education, particularly from the perspective of potential social impact and change and the democratization of learning access. This is an admirable, and perhaps idealistic, goal. The question, though, is this a matter for scholarly study or perhaps more of a political or policy question? In lieu of a definitive answer, perhaps we can all take whatever steps we can within our own spheres of influence toward Gibson’s ideal that all people are “ensured quality of access to and success in lifelong learning” (p. 436).

References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning Retrieved May 15, 2008, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/online_nation.pdf

Gibson, C. C. (2000). Distance education for life long learning. In A. Wilson & E. R. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 423-437). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sugrue, B., & Rivera, R. (2005). State of the industry Retrieved May 15, 2008, from http://www.astd.org/NR/rdonlyres/563C2472-1F53-4BEE-8213-7CC19BC532C5/0/ASTD_StateoftheIndustry_2005.pdf

- Robin

Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.perfassocinc.com