Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
The New Face of Learning? (full version)
The New Face of Learning? (full version)
The New Face of Learning? (full version)
The New Face of Learning? (full version)
The New Face of Learning? (full version)
The New Face of Learning? (full version)
The New Face of Learning? (full version)
The New Face of Learning? (full version)
The New Face of Learning? (full version)
The New Face of Learning? (full version)
The New Face of Learning? (full version)
The New Face of Learning? (full version)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

The New Face of Learning? (full version)

349

Published on

The full version of a presentation which I made to a BILD meeting, November 2008.

The full version of a presentation which I made to a BILD meeting, November 2008.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
349
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Caveats:
  I
am
not
a
luddite.
  I’ve
worked
with
and
in
L&D
technology
since
the
mid
1980s.
  What
I
am
is
someone
who
puts
educaCon,
training
and
development
first
and
 technology
second.
  I
always
quesCon
and
analyse
any
new
L&D
development
before
I
get
excited
about
 it!
 1

  • 2. ExplanaCon
of
the
‘menu’:
  How
these
terms
are
being
used.
  What
is
going
on
out
there.
  Who
are
the
end
users
–
how
much
do
we
really
know
about
them.
  The
impact
Web
2.0
apps
can
have
on
organisaCons.
  How
much
will
instrucConal
designers
need
to
change
‐
should
they
start
looking
 for
another
job.
  To
what
extent
should
the
use
of
Web
2.0
apps
be
formalised.
 2

  • 3.  Many
definiCons
of
Web
2.0
–
this
is
a
fairly
common
one.
  Importance
of
the
words
‘create’
and
‘share’.
  Web
2.0
mantra
–
rip,
mix
and
feed:

you
take
content
from
wherever,
mix
it
up
as
 you
see
fit,
and
then
feed
it
to
all
those
who
might
find
it
useful.
  Learners,
who
are
creaCng
and
sharing
podcasts,
blogs
and
wikis,
and
using
social
 networks,
have
all

been
tagged
as
undertaking
e‐Learning
2.0
or
Learning
2.0
 acCviCes.
  Web
2.0
and
its
associated
tools
are
just
technologies
–
the
human
element
is
 needed
to
make
them
useful
–
just
because
they
are
there
doesn’t
mean
that
people
 have
to
use
them.

But
they
are
being
used,
mainly
to
support
informal
learning.
 3

  • 4.  I’m
doing
it
right
now!
  The
extent
to
which
it’s
happening
–
difficult
to
tell
for
3
reasons:
i)
when
used
for
 informal
learning,
ii)
trend
only
research,
and
iii)
far
too
many
spurious
claims
and
 considerable
hype.
  But
Web
2.0
technologies
are
being
used
as
educaConal
and
L&
D
tools
because
 they
are
available
and
accessible
to
a
large
number
of
computer
users.
  Some
organisaCons,
in
parCcular
educaConal
insCtuCons,
have
started
to
formalise
 their
students’
use
of
Web
2.0
technologies
by:

a)
endorsing
their
use,

b)
allowing
 people
to
publish
their
own
content,
and
c)
providing
Enterprise
Systems
to
handle
 content
in
an
extremely
sophisCcated
manner.
 4

  • 5.  Know
thy
target
audience
–
mantra
of
all
good
instrucConal
designers.
  But
please,
either
take
with
a
massive
sprinkling
of
salt
or,
preferably,
just
ignore
 the
stereotypical
rubbish
which
is
currently
being
spouted
by
some
of
those
who
are
 hyping
Web
2.0,
etc.
to
the
heavens.


  According
to
these
people
there
are
4
groups
(there
always
are,
aren't
there?):
 Veterans
(b
1925‐1945),
Baby
Boomers
(b
1946‐1964),
GeneraCon
X
(b
1965‐1979
–
I
 don’t
know
why
they
are
called
that
–
perhaps
to
compare
them
with
the
last
group,
 GeneraCon
Y
(apparently
because
they
are
forever
asking
why!)
(b
1980‐1995).
  Each
group
is
said
to
have
a
different
profile
but
the
greatest
difference
is
 GeneraCon
Y’s
profile
when
compared
to
the
other
3.
  OK
some
of
the
very
generalised
stuff
may
be
fairly
accurate
in
describing
some
of
 the
common
traits
of
people
in
each
of
the
groups.

However,
extrapolaCng
these
 common
traits
to
the
ways
in
which
these
people
learn
is
just
downright
dangerous.

 Theories
and
models
of
Learning
Styles
are
bad
enough
but
to
have
this
load
of
 unproven
twaddle
thrown
into
the
mix
is
enough
to
make
this
Baby
Boomer
move
 pronto
into
the
Veterans
class!
  ....
and
then,
of
course,
there
is
always
the
Silver
Surfers
(they
don’t
even
get
a
 menCon
–
why
not?)
 5

  • 6.  If
you
want
to
know
if
it’s
happening
in
your
organisaCon

‐
and
why
wouldn’t
you?
 –
then
these
4
areas
might
help
you
to
focus
your
research:
  Covert
–
overt
dimension
(says
a
lot
about
the
organisaCon’s
culture)
  Who
is
driving
it
–
the
learners
themselves,
the
managers,
IT(!!!)
–
if
you’ve
got
a
 situaCon
where
learners
are
driving
it
and
managers
are
encouraging
it
then
raise
a
 flag!
  Where
are
the
tools
–
how
sophisCcated
is
the
system
in
which
they
are
accessible?
  Likely
to
be
used
informally
but
you
never
know
–
if
so
then
how
are
they
being
used
 and
with
what
effect.
  Remember,
if
you
do
wish
to
formalise
the
use
of
some
or
all
of
these
tools,
they
 vary
in
the
extent
to
which
they
can
be
branded
for
your
organisaCon
–
would
this
 majer?
  Don’t
assume
–
ask
your
employees
(a
representaCve
sample
please)
what
it
is
they
 want
now
and
what
they
might
want
in
the
short‐term.
 6

  • 7.  Panic
–
help
–
do
I
need
to
be
able
to
control
it?

As
an
instrucConal
designer
I’m
 used
to
being
in
control
and
‘conducCng
the
orchestra’.
  I
need
to
know
what
this
is
all
about
and
to
get
a
really
good
feel
for
what’s
going
 on
out
there.

I
need
to
work
out
why,
when
and
how
I
might
need
to
incorporate
the
 use
of
these
tools
in
to
my
learning
design.
  EducaConal
programmes
–
exisCng
instrucConal
design
strategies
and
methods
 (seminars,
tutorials,
broad
objecCves,
group
work,
individual
research
....)
should
 easily
accommodate
the
overt
and
‘formalised’
use
of
Web
2.0
tools
and
apps.
  Training
programmes
–
if
applied
in
an
overt
manner,
then
a
whole
new
ball
game
 for
ID.

However,
formalised
rules
for
which
may
never
be
wrijen
because
they
will
 never
be
needed.
  Development
programmes
–
may
be
formally
incorporated
in
some
areas/aspects,
 e.g.
acCon
learning
sets,
but
more
likely
to
remain
covert
but
organisaCon‐backed
 acCviCes.
  This
will
depend
on
the
nature
of
the
‘learning’
programme,
the
type
of
 organisaCon
and
its
culture,
and
the
needs
of
learners.
 7

  • 8. Several
ways
and
levels:
  First
degree/aspect
of
formalisaCon
is
for
the
organisaCon
to
endorse
the
use
of
 Web
2.0
tools
and
apps
be
this
in
a
covert
or
overt
manner.
  By
providing
suitable
Enterprise
systems,
this
makes
the
use
of
such
tools
and
apps
 more
formalised.

Are
there
sCll
organisaCons
out
there
who
block
Internet
sites
and
 issue
PCs
with
unusable
CD
drives?
  Now
this
is
really
‘pushing
the
envelope’
–
no
problem
whatsoever
in
educaConal
 insCtuCons
but
could
another
majer
altogether
in
both
public
and
private
 organisaCons.
  The
ulCmate
level
–
real
power
to
the
people
but
probably
one
where
there
are
far
 too
many
constraints
and
vested
interests
in
ever
leong
this
happen
–
but
there
 again
I
said
the
same
about
Rapid
e‐Learning
tools
several
years
ago!
 8

  • 9.  Horses
for
courses
(programmes)
  The
‘toys’
are
there,
so
why
not
endorse
their
use
at
the
very
minimum?
  Web
2.0
tools
and
apps
for
me
are
learner
support
tools
and
these,
in
my
book,
 should
never
be
made
compulsory
for
everyone
–
it
depends
on
what
individuals
 require,
when
they
require
them,
and
if
they
find
them
helpful.
  A
point
which
is
so
open
forgojen
in
the
excitement
and
rush
to
be
‘with
it
with
 technology’
–
dogs
and
tails
spring
to
mind
as
the
technology
tail
wags
the
learner’s
 dog!
 9

  • 10. To
summarise:
  There
are
two
main
drivers
for
the
use
of
Web
2.0
tools
and
apps
–
learners
and
 people
like
us.
  In
the
context
of
social
learning
then
their
use
is
appropriate.
  Possibly,
but
it
will
take
a
lot
of
hard
evidence
to
convince
me,
by
which
Cme
we
 will
probably
be
wondering
what
all
the
fuss
was
about
(c/f
e‐Learning
a
few
years
 ago).
  Only
Cme
will
reduce
or
remove
the
hype
and
be
replaced
by
substance,
or,
we
will
 look
back
and
say
“oh
yes,
I
remember
the
Web
2.0
period
–
what
ever
happened
to
 it?”.
  The
tools
and
apps
are
relaCvely
new
as
is
their
use
(although
people
have
been
 using
their
iPods
to
rip,
mix
and
burn
since
2001
–
Apple’s
first
use
of
the
concept).

 The
process
is
not
that
new,
just
easier
to
do.
 10

  • 11. Web
3.0
=
the
third
generaCon
of
Internet‐based
services
that
collecCvely
comprise
 what
might
be
called
'the
intelligent
Web'—such
as
those
using
semanCc
web,
 microformats,
natural
language
search,
data‐mining,
machine
learning,
 recommendaCon
agents,
and
arCficial
intelligence
technologies—which
emphasize
 machine‐facilitated
understanding
of
informaCon
in
order
to
provide
a
more
 producCve
and
intuiCve
user
experience.
 11

  • 12. 12


×