Tony Karrer and Harold Jarche have been participating in a cross blog dialog on informal learning. Of course, I was fascinated immediately by Harold’s points relating to Human Performance Technology (HPT) and it’s foundation on training needs analysis. He – far more eloquently than I could ever dream of doing – summed up the basis of my mini-rant yesterday regarding the desperate need to ensure that training is the right fit for the issue to be resolved.

In HPT, one of the main areas of focus is the analysis; to determine what the performance gaps are. I was told by an experienced practitioner in the field that only 15% of organisational performance problems can be addressed by training. This is based on about 50 years of research and on the premise that Instruction & Training can only address a lack of skills or knowledge.

With my heart a-flutter I read on, only to see the following:

Of particular interest to me is Item 7, because the Internet has changed the balance of power and control in many organisations. With the Internet, and now with cheap and easy ways to connect people (Web 2.0), we have more possibilities for non-instructional performance interventions. Each of these addresses a different performance need, so there is no single methodology for informal learning.

I’m sold, hook line and sinker. Except…

Aside from Job Aids and Knowledge Management systems – which could be argued is just another form of Just-in-time (JIT) learning – I haven’t really seen a lot of the other items on the list work in a corporate environment. Perhaps it’s my naivete when it comes to training, or my lack of experience in multiple corporations, but I rarely see a lot of the other items on the non-instructional performance interventions list functioning as “designed” in the real world. By designed, of course I don’t mean that someone planned them out. After all if complete analysis and planning were involved, wouldn’t that make the intervention formal on some level? There would have had to have been a problem (or at least an anticipated one), analysis to determine the best options for solutions, plans for interventions and eventually the roll out of the intervention.

Harold’s end comments also struck me as being possibly as naive as I am. With the ways that companies are locking down Internet access and using programs such as Surfcontrol to ensure that access to many of the communities Harold describes (Wiki’s, blogs, etc.) are denied to their employees, I don’t think that informal learning is at the stage where we can assume the option is available and pursued by all learners. That’s not to mention the digital divide that exists in many homes and communities on a Global scale. Sure, the information may be out there, but if learners can’t access it, it’s not going to be an effective block on which to build any foundation for performance improvement and learning.

Many of Harold’s strategies for informal learning seem to me to be simply elements of self-directed learning. So, is informal learning just the new buzz word for describing what was once known as self-directed learning? I, struck by whatever reason suits my fancy – overabundance of curiosity, desperate need to know, project due tomorrow, found a new buzz word I’m not familiar with, etc. – crawl through the Internet searching websites, papers, blogs and wiki’s in order to learn as much as I can about a topic in order to help me develop a new vision, connect new material to old and form new pathways of understanding. I’m controlling my own learning and it’s driven by my own motivations. The classic definition of self-directed learning as I undestand the term. While I can hardly argue that it’s informal, to date these experiences have never been fostered by my employer.

If informal learning is just self-directed learning dressed up in a new costume then how do things such as Job Aids, which have always been firmly on the side of ISD in my opinion, fit into this category?

Oh my, I think I’m more confused now than I was when I started considering this topic.

h/t to Stephen’s Web for featuring Tony’s response in his OL Daily newsletter and starting the cogs spinning in my little brain.

Technorati Tags: informal learning, self-directed learning

I read a lot of blogs, papers, and participate in a lot of on-line groups that focus on Instructional Design, Training, and eLearning. A while back, someone posted a question that has rolled around in every training and education professional’s head at one point or another.

Management Concern: “What if we train them and they leave?”

ID Question: “What if we don’t and they stay?”

It’s a question that needs to be addressed at every level. There appears to be a wealth of research to back up the connection between happy and productive employees and high levels of training within an oganization. Sandra Yates and Snowden McFall both highlight the importance of well planned training for employees while the Leadership Advantage site refers to a 1999 Gallup poll which stresses that investment in training can be a useful tool in retaining talented employees.

Opposite side of the coin
I have found that in a corporate environment, the concept of training is frequently thrown out as the “be all and end all” to solve any production or performance issues. Quite often, the problem to be solved has never really been analized and no one has stood back to ask what they believe training will resolve. It’s been my experience of late that so many people aren’t taking the necessary time to investigate why the issue (whatever it is) is occuring in the first place. Sure, in a perfect world (or even an academic environment), everyone is completing a basic training needs analysis before starting down that road…but many of us who work in a corporate training environment have realized that those making the decision to employ training as the “answer” are from departments outside of training and often hold the purse strings.

If you do a google search for the phrase “what if we train them and they leave” you’ll find a wealth of articles containing this phrase. The other thing you’ll notice is that many of these articles center on ways to get better bang for your buck when it comes to training. Suggestions include eLearning, mentoring, on-the-job (OJT) training, just-in-time (JIT) training, on-line knowledgebases, and apprenticeships. Not that I’m saying that there’s anything wrong with any of these suggestions, but in many of the articles, there’s an underlying assumption that someone somewhere has thoroughly reviewed the performance data, current situation, and determined that training is the only solution that fits.

I’m finding more and more in the projects I’m asked to work on that this just isn’t the case. Training isn’t a magic wand that can resolve all performance issues. For example, training won’t improve performance of your employees if you have a high attrition rate due to a tyranical supervisor. It won’t change production numbers if the equipment is antiquated, continually broken, or the timelines assigned to a task are significantly underestimated. Spending money on training front line employees to resolve either of the above two issues could result in a complete waste of time, money and resources. When the problem continues, as often occurs in these situations, it can directly affect the perception and reputation of the members of the training department in a negative fashion.

Despite this many managers are eager to jump into the training cycle without spending anytime in preliminary analysis. While business are often dynamic and the pace of change is ever increasing, sometimes it’s necessary to take a step back and let those whose skills lie in training analysis, such as your trust Instructional Designer or Performance Consultant, have the time to dig to the root of the issue and make a determination whether or not training is really necessary.

Let’s not get me started on the issue of sacrificing good design for quick turn around and dollars saved. Badly designed training is equally responsible for decreasing the reputation of training professionals and not producing advertised results! That’s a rant for a completely different day…

Technorati Tags: training, needs analysis, instructional design, ROI

If there’s one thing that I’ve learned studying adult and continuing education theory, it’s that adults really hate being patronized and don’t have any tolerance for those presenting themselves as ‘experts’ who aren’t walking the talk.

My most recent class is designing manuals has been a huge challenge for me. Putting aside the fact that I’m an instructional designer who probably didn’t have the best motives when I registered for the class – I was hoping it would be a bird course, easily fill one of my electives, and be a quick and easy way to increase my GPA – I did expect to learn some new tips and tricks in the class. However, I’ve been sadly disappointed. The course pack presented (and designed *shudder*) by the Facilitator was a mess. Typos, formatting issues, referencing issues (90% of items that should have been referenced weren’t), layout, and inaccurate content top the top of the list of items wrong with it. Personally, I would have been mortified to consider a document in this state a first draft.

I think I could have managed to survive my disappointment if I hadn’t had to pass in a final project that included the design and development of a short 1-2 hour training program. I just can’t imagine how anyone who considers her materials to be acceptable could possibly be qualified to evaluate and judge anything I do. While my package may not be perfect, it’s certainly miles ahead of anything presented by the Facilitator of that class. I was so peeved at the concept of being assigned a grade by someone I’d lost any possible professional respect for that I just couldn’t motivate myself to work on my assignment for the first week. I did manage to get my butt in gear (my GPA can’t afford an incomplete in any class), but now that the deadline has arrived and I’ve submitted the project, I still can’t get over my sense of irritation at the situation.

Don’t get me wrong, the course wasn’t a total waste of time and money. It did re-infoce a key point for me. Sometimes all you have is your credibillity. Doing a half-assed job or presenting yourself as an expert but not passing a “baloney test” is a quick way to destroy your credibility and lose the respect of your peers.

Technorati Tags: education, instructional design, baloney detection, ethics

I’m almost finished the certificate program in Adult and Continuing Ed that I’ve been working on at the University of Alberta for the past 18 months. The last class is finished in December and commencement is in Spring of 2006. After this, I’m planning on moving on to the next degree.. Of late, I’ve begun to suffer from “self-directed learning-itis”. I know Knowles believed that most adult learners had a desire for a high degree of self-direction in their learning, but I’m not sure if I’m on the self-directed path due to this, or if it’s just that I can’t find a course that interests me or that I can afford to take.

I suspect it’s all due to a shortness of attention spans. As I’m moving through courses, I’m being briefly exposed to a term or concept that interests me more than the actual topic of the class. Ergo, I’m jumping into the internet, online journals, libraries, and breaking the bank purchasing books from Chapters and Amazon to explore these areas.

The downside of this is that I’m less interested in completing the work for my assigned classes than I am in exploring the work of others in the topics that have grabbed my attention. Since I’m almost finished the program, this isn’t such a big deal at the moment. I am worried that this may carry over to my next jaunt into the classroom – it’s a 3 year (3 semesters a year) program and I can’t afford to continue in this manner and expect to make the Dean’s list.

*ARGH* There’s just not enough time (and $$ for tuition) to do everything I want to do. Can someone spare a winning lottery ticket and rescue me from this horror?

Technorati Tags: continuing education, self directed learning